Sitting of 3 February 1988

Preamble
The House met at hall-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    South Africa
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the South African ambassador; and what subjects he expects to discuss with him.
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communications he has had with the South African Government about the situation in that country.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I have no present plans for an early meeting with the South African ambassador. But we maintain regular contact with the South African authorities, both here and via Her Majesty's ambassador, on a wide range of issues.
    Miss Lestor: Will the Secretary of State accept that it is time that further representations were made about the Sharpeville Six? The court has now stated that the Sharpeville Six were convicted on the basis, not that they had any direct connection with the deceased, but that they were in the vicinity when the crime was committed. The implications of that are pretty appalling. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that it is time to ask the Prime Minister, given the special relationship that she says she has with President Botha, to make representations on the Sharpeville Six as a matter of urgency?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House will realise that there is a specific question on this topic on the Order Paper a little later. It is right that we have followed the case closely and with concern. Through the German presidency of the Community, on behalf of the 12 members, we appealed for clemency for the Sharpeville Six on humanitarian grounds on 4 December. On 18 December we gave our support to a statement issued on behalf of the United Nations Security Council urging the South African Government to commute the death sentences on the Six. Since then, we have directly reiterated our concern to the South African Government.
    Mr. Canavan: Given the appeals for clemency submitted by the United Nations Security Council and the
    958
    EEC, which have been supported by hon. Members, Church organisations and anti-apartheid groups in South Africa, will the Secretary of State please urge the Prime Minister to intervene directly with President Botha to save the lives of these six young people, who seem to have been wrongly convicted?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have seen the early-day motion relating to the subject that the hon. Gentleman raises. The representations that we have made direct to the South African Government, which the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, through the United Nations and in concert with the European Community are what we judge to be most likely to have the desired effect.
    Mr. Rhodes James: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the South African ambassador, will he remind him that his Government are committed to the independence of Namibia, and that some of us are becoming impatient and angry at their refusal to honour that commitment?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend knows, we are also committed to the independence of Namibia, by United Nations resolution 435. We consider that it is a matter that should be put in hand urgently, and we have supported the negotiations currently being undertaken by the United States on an intermediary basis to bring it about. We shall continue to press in that direction.
    Mr. Forth: Has my right hon. and learned Friend received representations from the South African Government about the so-called Birmingham Six? If he has not, does he think that we should all learn the lesson that it is high time we stayed out of each other's internal judicial affairs? If we did, the world would he a better place for it.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend must understand that there is a difference between the structure of countries such as ours, which are wholly democratic and subject to a universally available rule of law, and the position that prevails not just in South Africa but in other countries, where there is not complete democracy and a large part of a community is excluded from institutions on the ground of skin colour, which gives rise to a situation that has potentially wider implications. The two structures are in no way comparable.
    Mr. Caborn: Have there been any discussions with any other Governments, specifically the South African Government, on setting up a regional conference on security in southern Africa?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do riot recollect there being any such thing.
    Mr. Alexander: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the high commissioner, will he raise the question of the apparently slow progress towards the consolidation of Bophuthatswana? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that until further progress is made it will be difficult for other countries to recognise Bophuthatswana's independence?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Bophuthatswana's fragmentary nature is only one reason why no country thought it right to recognise its independence. That country is financially dependent on South Africa. The very existence of

    959
    Bophuthatswana is a consequence of apartheid, and I think that that is the principal reason why recognition has not been forthcoming.
    Mr. Anderson: The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and his colleagues frequently boast about our increased aid commitment to Mozambique, yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that much of the value of our investment there — especially in infrastructure projects—is destroyed by South African-backed terrorist organisations—Renamo, or MNR as it is known in Mozambique. What representations has the right hon. and learned Gentleman made to the South African ambassador here or to the South African Government about the effect on our aid efforts in Mozambique of the South African destabilisation policies? Will he give a commitment that the Government, directly or indirectly, will not meet the MNR representative, Mr. Alfonso Dhlakama, who is due to come to this country this month, having been invited by an organisation that includes many Conservative Members, and that the Government will in no way give any form of recognition to the MNR or to Savimbi's Unita?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our policy toward Unita remains unchanged. There is no question of our recognising such an organisation, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Dhlakama intends to visit Britain. On the more substantial point underlying the hon. Gentleman's question, of course we condemn cross-border violations in either direction. We have in particular urged the South Africans to exercise restraint. Time and again we have warned and urged the South Africans not to indulge in destabilising activity of the kind that concerns the hon. Gentleman.

    Gaza Strip
    Mr. Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider taking a joint diplomatic initiative with the Foreign Ministers of Egypt and Israel to try to reduce tension in Gaza; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Arab-Israel conflict and the situation in Gaza have figured prominently in our recent discussions with Egyptian and Israeli leaders. We also remain in close touch with other Governments concerned. We are ready to play a full part in efforts to reduce tension and to achieve a lasting settlement.
    Mr. Madel: As America is now preoccupied with the presidential election campaign, and as the position in Gaza should not just drift along, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Egypt and Israel should meet at the highest level to try to make the Camp David accords work in relation to Gaza and, if successful, move on to negotiations on the West Bank?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am certain that the search for progress in the peace process should not be set to one side on the ground of elections of one kind or another anywhere. We attach importance to the possibility of cooperation with the Government of Egypt. I had long talks with the President and Foreign Minister during my visit in the autumn. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State had useful discussions with the President and Foreign Minister at the end of last month. The best basis on which to carry
    960
    the peace process forward remains on the footing of two principles—the right of Israel and other states in the area to a secure existence, and the Palestinian right to self-determination. We think that the best way of carrying that forward is by means of the international conference, which is now supported by many people, including President Mubarak.
    Sir Russell Johnston: I agree with what the Secretary of State has just said about the future in general, but does he not agree that the situation in Gaza is immediate? Has he given any thought to the proposal that Gaza might in some way be administered by the United Nations in the short term? If so, has he discussed that with the Israelis or the Egyptians?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree that what has understandably intensified world concern about the Arab-Israel dispute is the position not only in Gaza but elsewhere in the occupied territories. There can be no doubt that Israel should withdraw, as part of a comprehensive peace settlement, from the territories occupied in 1967, and that, meanwhile, she should administer the occupation of those territories in compliance with international law and human rights standards.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. and learned Friend stress in any initiative the enormous damage that this is doing to the state of Israel, not least by increasing awareness in the United States of the fact that Israel is an occupying power in other people's territory? Will he seek to involve the United States in any initiative in which he is able to assist?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I very much appreciate the points made by my hon. Friend. We deplore violence from any quarter in this situation, which is so fraught with conflict. We are seriously concerned about the current unrest, which has been particularly evident in Gaza. It illustrates the dangers of leaving the conflict unresolved, the urgency of the search for a peaceful settlement—and the urgency of those objectives from Israel's point of view, too. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the longer the situation continues, and the longer one finds Israeli occupation forces failing to handle disturbances in a fashion compatible with her obligations, the sharper will be the attention that is focused on the situation. We want Israel to be established within secure boundaries as a state which is not itself threatened by violence. The people of Israel want to achieve that, too. So, in their own interests, they need to address themselves to the situation of which my hon. Friend has complained.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, in the meantime, there is a need for something to be done to ensure that Israel complies with the Geneva conventions that relate to an occupying power's role in such a situation? How did our representative vote when those resolutions came before the United Nations?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the need for effective action, so far as that is possible, in relation to non-compliance with international obligations in these territories. That is why we supported United Nations resolutions Nos. 605, 607, and 608, and the most recent one, introduced this week, by voting in support of them. Indeed, we played a prominent part in drafting this week's resolution. However, that is not all that needs to be done, but it is a

    961
    mark of international concern. It is important also to do what can be done to help conditions in the territories by aid and access for trade. We have actively supported all those things.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the conditions in the camps in Gaza are no worse than those in the camps in the Lebanon and Jordan? Does he also agree that it is high time that the Arab world, which encouraged the creation of those camps 40 years ago, used some of its oil-based wealth to solve the problem that it encouraged in the first place?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand why my hon. Friend is anxious to be sure that the other side of the matter is represented and taken into account in the House. As I said in my original answer, it is important to recognise that we should take account not only of the right of the Palestinians to self-determination but of the right of Israel to a secure existence within secure borders. It is right also to accept that there have been some improvements since Israeli administration in some areas. However, the point does not stop there. There is a stark contrast between the conditions of those who live in refugee camps and, for example, the Israeli settlers, who live in illegal occupation of the land alongside them. The presence of Israel in such territories is contrary to international law, as resolution after resolution of the United Nations has recognised. It is on that basis that I repeat the objectives that have been common ground to all searches for peace. Above all, it is in Israel's interest to hasten forward the process of looking for a peaceful settlement along those lines.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what the Prime Minister meant by her statement yesterday? She said that the Government favour
    "an international conference as a framework conference within which bilateral negotiations should take place between King Hussein of Jordan and Israel."—[Official Report, 2 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 852.]
    Although Jordan's participation is essential and indispensable, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that no conference can possibly succeed—nor will any such conference be acceptable to other parties —without the participation of Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and, above all, the Palestinians, whose plight and rights will be the central core of any such conference? Therefore, will the Foreign Secretary repudiate what the Prime Minister said? If Britain is so unclear about her policy, overcoming the obstructiveness of Mr. Shamir and of the United States Government will be impossible.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman should not draw such dramatic conclusions from the point that he has made. The United Kingdom, together with the Twelve and most of the international community, have come out firmly in favour of an international conference. We believe that that is the right framework within which negotiations can take place. The precise method of setting that scene, of course, remains for discussion, but it is quite plain that the Palestinians and several other people will have to be participants in the discussion. I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman should not conclude that that is a prescription for some narrower definition of the conference that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has vigorously and energetically supported in forum after forum around the world.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned settlements. Does he agree that the Israeli Government have plans for further settlements and that to build settlements in such densely populated areas as Gaza is a great affront to Palestinian refugees? What action will the Government take to try to prevent the creation of further settlements at present?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right. If the existing settlements are an infringement of international law, by the same token the extension of such settlements is a still further infringement. More than that, they cannot help to advance or consolidate the cause of peace. They seek to entrench the occupation of illegally occupied territory. They act as a challenge to violence in the opposite direction, which itself poses a threat to the state and people of Israel. It is because of my passionate belief in the right of Israel and its people to exist as a state within secure borders that I urge the people of Israel and their leaders to recognise the need to turn from the path of the entrenchment of illegality and to embark upon the process of negotiation that is so important.

    Hana Siniora
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government about the harassment of the Palestinian journalist Hana Siniora by the Israeli security forces; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Mellor): Mr. Siniora has not asked for our intervention, and thus we have no reason to take up his specific case, but we shall continue to follow it closely.
    Mr. Galloway: Although I am grateful for the wise and courageous stance that Her Majesty's Government are taking on the issue and for many statements on the subject that have been made today and of late, does the Minister agree that, more than anything else, the Israelis and Palestinians now need less war, war, and more jaw, jaw? Dialogue is impossible unless there is local leadership that has the confidence of the political leadership — the Palestine Liberation Organisation — and the local population, and is accceptable in the broader international community. Dialogue will be impossible if leaders are systematically harassed, arrested, sometimes tortured and, as increasingly of late, deported.
    Mr. Mellor: I was glad, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was glad, that Mr. Siniora and his colleague were able to go to the United States and talk direct to Mr. Shultz. When I was in the United States on Monday and Tuesday, I was also glad to note that the United States is re-engaged in the peace process and that further action may be anticipated from that quarter. Plainly, as the hon. Gentleman says, this is a time for serious talking to draw in the Palestinian people. Where that leaves the PLO is in the hands of the PLO members themselves. They have the opportunity to legitimate themselves if they are prepared to accept unequivocally resolutions 242 and 338 to renounce violence and accept Israel's right to exist. If they were to do that, they could be full participants in a process in future. However, I am afraid that the contrary is also the case.
    Mr. Soames: In the case of Hana Siniora and thousands of other Palestinians, what explanation can my hon. and

    963
    learned Friend offer to the House of the unspeakable inhumanities inflicted by the Israeli Government on the Palestinians? Does he agree that the Israelis, of all people, should really understand about the suffering of minorities?
    Mr. Mellor: I said my piece about conditions in the occupied territories when I was there. I believe that a reevaluation is necessary, because it was clear to me from my recent visit to the United States that the shock waves of what is happening in the occupied territories are resounding around the civilised world. Some change in tactics in the occupied territories will have to come about. The status quo in the eyes of an increasing number of sensible, mainstream people is not an option. Maintaining security in the territories at the point of a gun is not realistic and has become an increasingly inhumane process.

    South Africa
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Her Majesty's Government's policy towards ending apartheid in South Africa.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Our policies are those most likely to be effective in bringing an end to apartheid. We recognise that fundamental change is very slow, but acknowledge that it must be stimulated from within South Africa.
    Mr. Grocott: The Minister will understand that that was no answer to the question. When will she also understand that the Government's self-proclaimed policy of hoping to end apartheid in South Africa is a fraud and a sham? When will she begin to understand that since the declaration of the state of emergency 30,000 people have been detained in South Africa, that the use of torture is widespread and that children receive the most appalling treatment? Should not the Government accept that the horrors of apartheid are increasing daily and that their abject failure to oppose it brings shame to our country throughout the world?
    Mrs. Chalker: First, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. Secondly, our repeated objection to the state of detention and the way people and particularly children are treated in South Africa is in no doubt so far as the South African Government are concerned. They are in absolutely no doubt about that. As we take positive measures in southern Africa in general, at the same time we will take up all the representations that he and many other hon. Members wish us to take up. However, the point of the hon. Gentleman's question was how we can speedily bring an end to apartheid. The only way in which we can do that is to encourage dialogue within South Africa among all the groups in South Africa and by voicing our total objection to detention without trial and the other inhumane methods that the South African Government are using against their black people.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend note that many hon. Members welcome the Government's resistance to the introduction of economic sanctions against South Africa? Will she note in particular that those sanctions are unproductive? For example, Barclays
    964
    National bank did more than any other company in South Africa to bring on black management, which is the way to the future for a multiracial South Africa.
    Mrs. Chalker: I agree with my hon. Friend. The point is that, as my hon. Friend said, sanctions are beginning to deny black people in work in South Africa the opportunities that were afforded prior to disinvestment. There is growing recognition within South Africa, and within the black community there, that they are being deprived of opportunities by the detachment of some companies — and indeed, some politicians across the world—from that active and concerned interest in the future of black people in South Africa. Anything that we can do to provide positive help to the black population in South Africa should be encouraged, and I hope that it will be.
    Mr. Bernie Grant: In view of the communiqué from the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers on Southern Africa—I have a copy and I am sure that the Minister will also have a copy—will the Minister assure the House that the British Government will do nothing to sabotage the efforts of that committee?
    Mrs. Chalker: There is no way in which the British Government will attempt to undermine positive work to bring an end to apartheid. I repeat that I do not believe that a study of the impact of existing sanctions and proposals for tightening those sanctions will help one iota. The restrictive measures that we implement scrupulously are a political signal, but there is widespread recognition within the Commonwealth of the value of a positive contribution. There is growing awareness and concern at the negativism of the sanctions policy that some advocate.
    Sir Jim Spicer: In making any assessment on behalf of the Government, will my right hon. Friend make quite certain that she has private discussions with black trade union leaders in South Africa, who will tell her that they are in favour of sanctions only if their own trade unions are excluded from the effect of such sanctions?
    Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. and learned Friend and I seek to have as many discussions as we can with black South Africans, when they are here or when we meet them in other places, to bring about the dialogue that is so urgently needed. I understand exactly what my hon. Friend said, but whoever we meet we have to balance the pressures that those people may face within South Africa and ask why they make those comments. It is understandable that in calling for sanctions some people wish to be excluded. Such a policy simply would not work, any more than punitive and negative sanctions will help to bring about the end of apartheid that we seek.
    Mr. Kaufman: Why did the Government boycott the meeting in Lusaka of the Commonwealth committee on southern Africa? This is the first time that Britain has declined to participate in an important Commonwealth committee. Could they not have sent the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), so that he could have spoken out against the way in which South Africa is oppressing its black population, in the way that he spoke out in Gaza last month? Will the Government at any rate agree to participate in the intensified arms embargo decided upon in Lusaka, or does the Government's opposition to South African apartheid amount to hypocritical words rather than positive action?
    Mrs. Chalker: There is no question of a boycott of the meeting of eight Commonwealth Foreign Ministers. At the Vancouver summit the British Government agreed with the vast majority of policies. However, we did say that we saw no point in joining that particular committee, which is a further sub-group, but we shall continue to work with all Commonwealth countries in the constructive ways that we identified in Vancouver— in particular with aid to black South Africans and to the neighbouring countries. There is no precise information about what has been proposed by those eight Ministers who met in Lusaka. We shall, of course, consider carefully any ideas that are put forward. We continue to follow carefully the proceedings of the committee in Lusaka. We have enforced the arms embargo, and we shall continue rigorously to do so. As to sending my hon. and learned Friend there, it is easier for those who have to concentrate on one area of the world so to do. The hon. Gentleman need have no doubt that I shall be just as forthright and equally as tough on the South African Government as I was in December when I made quite clear to the Deputy Foreign Minister in Pretoria exactly what we thought of South African Government policies.

    Middle East
    Mr. Walters: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in view of recent events on the West Bank and in Gaza, he will indicate what steps Her Majesty's Government propose in order to speed up the middle east peace process.
    Mr. Mellor: We shall continue to work for an international conference under United Nations auspices as the framework for negotiations between the parties directly concerned.
    Mr. Walters: My right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. and learned Friend have both rightly condemned Israeli repression on the West Bank and in Gaza. They have also condemned Mr. Rabin's repellent speech advocating beatings, power and might as the guidelines of Israeli policy in the area. What next? Surely this must be the time to put greater steam behind a peace initiative and to make it clear that the Palestinians must be entitled to choose their own representatives at any talks that follow.
    Mr. Mellor: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is crucial that the concern be translated into effective action. We believe that action should proceed in two ways. First, immediate palliative action should consist, as the Secretary-General's report to the United Nations following Mr. Goulding's visit made clear, of enhancing the work of the United Nations relief organisation and continuing the pressure on the Israeli Government to mitigate the aspects of occupation that cause the gravest hardship. Those palliatives will not be enough. The second strand has to be to work for a resumption of the peace process. That should come from all who acknowledge that the status quo cannot stand. That is why I welcome very much, as my right hon. and learned Friend does, the resumption of interest in the United States in a peace process. My hon. Friend will have seen that the Assistant Secretary of State, Mr. Murphy, is to visit the region following the visit earlier of the special United States emissary to Jordan. We obviously hope that that initiative will bear fruit, because clearly the United States has the prime influence on the Israelis.
    Mr. Janner: Has the Minister seen the admission made this morning by Racal-Tacticom, and reported in the Daily Telegraph, that it has been supplying goods to the PLO? Does he agree with the Downing street statement this week that sections of the PLO have engaged in "appalling acts of terrorism"? In those circumstances, how can it be right that no licence is required, apparently, for sending to the PLO telecommunications equipment which presumably will not be used to convey affectionate greetings?
    Mr. Mellor: I cannot add to the answer that the hon. and learned Gentleman received to a similar question that he addressed to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who answered the private notice question yesterday. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows our position on the PLO. He knows that part of our call for a sensible settlement in the middle east is that the PLO should legitimate itself in the ways that I have already set out in answer to an earlier question.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Will my hon. and learned Friend and the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that if Europe does nothing, the American Administration invariably end up doing what the Israeli Government and the Zionist pressure group tell them to do? Will he therefore assure the House that the so-called peace process will not be left to the American Government, but that Europe will play its proper part to bring it about?
    Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question. Plainly there is a role for others. That role is taken seriously within Europe. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend will on Monday attend a meeting of European Foreign Ministers who will be meeting King Hussein. I dare say that European interests and the European initiative will be made clear then.
    Mr. Winnick: As one who strenuously defended the Israelis' position in 1967—I believe that I was right to do so, unlike the right hon. Member for Chesham arid Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) — I am appalled arid horrified at the response of Israeli authorities in the occupied territories, for which there can be absolutely no justification. Would it not be right for Israelis to recognise that the Palestinians also have a right to their homeland? In 40 years they have not forgotten Palestine, any more than the Jewish people, during 2,000 years of exile and persecution, forgot for one moment their historic homeland.
    Mr. Mellor: That is a very brave statement, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for it. Many of us who took one view in 1967 have perhaps come to look at matters in a slightly different light today. It is plainly dangerous that the present situation should continue. The scenes that vie see nightly on our television screens are damaging to the reputation of Israel. Whatever might be the problems of the past—there have been great faults on the Arab side in relation to sustained aggression against Israel—if the people of these territories are to have any future, and if there is to be a sustained peace in the region, it can come about only because neighbours learn to co-exist rather than rely on the point of a gun to achieve lasting security. That is why we must continue to assert that middle east peace can be based only on all states in the region agreeing that each state has a right to exist behind secure boundaries and that the Palestinians have a right to self-determination. That is the only basis on which a lasting peace will be achieved.

    Chinese Foreign Minister
    Mr. Grylls: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Chinese Foreign Minister.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I said in the House on 20 January, I look forward to welcoming Mr. Wu Xuegian on an official visit to Britain in the spring.
    Mr. Grylls: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people will warmly welcome the scholarship programme, which will bring some 2,000 Chinese students to Britain, because they will presumably play their part in the modernisation of China when they return and possibly improve contacts and ties between British business and China, which would be extremely beneficial to both countries?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend. It is encouraging that there are 2,000 Chinese students in Britain today compared with 1,600 last year. Some 800 of the 2,000 receive funding from the Government. That itself is almost a doubling of what applied last year. It will help us to sustain the growth in exports to China, which have increased from £180 million in 1983 to £536 million in 1986. It will be part of an expanding trade relationship which will be fruitful in other ways as well.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the vile trade in endangered species between China and Hong Kong? The centres in China appear to be the Dongmen market in Canton and Shenzhen, which forms a border between China and Hong Kong. The animals are used for food—they are eaten in restaurants in Hong Kong. Will the Foreign Secretary make the strongest representations to the Chinese Foreign Minister when they meet so that such trade can be stamped out once and for all?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am well aware of the hon. Member's interest in this important subject. It is a matter on which Hong Kong and China have strict laws presently in force. We have drawn to the attention of the Chinese authorities concerns such as those expressed by the hon. Gentleman. We have asked Hong Kong to review its efforts to see whether enforcement can be made more effective. It is already considering proposals to strengthen its arrangements.
    Mr. Adley: I welcome the close relationship that has been established between the two Governments and between my right hon. and learned Friend and Mr. Wu. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best interests of the people of Hong Kong are undoubtedly sustained by the closest possible relationship being maintained between the two Governments? Regarding the clamour from some quarters in Hong Kong for early direct elections, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it is his understanding of the Chinese Government's view that it makes sense to put the Basic Law in place before embarking on constitutional adventures?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reminder of the importance of good relations between the United Kingdom and China for the future of Hong Kong. That goes without saying. It is also right to acknowledge that the People's Republic of China has taken a more cautious view of the prospect of direct elections than has been taken in other places. Elections will
    968
    be part of the constitution of the special administrative region in due course. It is on that basis that the topic was discussed in the House a week or two ago. On most issues, there was a large measure of agreement on the importance of moving to direct elections. The timing of the introduction of direct elections was the topic on which opinions still seemed to be divided.
    Mr. Foulkes: When the Foreign Secretary meets his Chinese counterpart, will he raise the question of the continuation of the then existing legislative bodies in Hong Kong through the period of the handover? In particular, will he seek clarification of a statement made last week by Li Hou, the deputy director of the Hong Kong Office and secretary general of the Basic Law drafting committee, to the effect that the Chinese Government would not just be making a symbolic gesture in exercising its sovereignty after the handover? Many people in Hong Kong fear that this means that a new Legislative Council will be appointed on 1 July 1997. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this would not be in accordance with the smooth transition called for in the joint declaration? Does he intend to make a statement to the House after the publication of the White Paper on democracy in Hong Kong next week?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the last point, I must point out that the House has only recently had an opportunity to debate this subject quite fully. The White Paper will be published shortly, and we shall have to see whether there is a case for a separate statement. I would have thought that it would be more likely for the House to want to have an opportunity to study the White Paper closely first. As to the statement attributed to Mr. Li Hou, I do not think that I should be required to answer for each interpretation that the hon. Gentleman chooses to put on every observation made by Chinese spokesmen. The commitment of both states in the joint declaration is to the establishment of democratic arrangements in the terms set out. The commitment is also to the highest degree of continuity through this period of changeover in 1997. That is the centrally important feature.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity of his meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister to explore China's relations with other countries in the sensitive area around it, and in particular the question whether Chinese relations with South Korea can be put on a more positive footing, given the evidence which appears to show that North Korea has been practising institutionalised terrorism?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take the importance of the point referred to in the last part of my hon. Friend's question. We have condemned the part played by the North Korean Government in the recent destruction of a South Korean aircraft. I have no doubt that, in the course of my discussion of international relations with the Chinese Foreign Minister, relations within the peninsular of Korea will be one of the topics on which we shall touch.

    UN Under-Secretary General
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken in the United Nations to protest at the treatment of the United Nations Under-Secretary General by the Israeli Government during his visit to the occupied territories in January; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellor: None, Sir. This is a matter for the United Nations Secretary General. We called on all parties to facilitate Mr. Goulding's visit, which was mandated by United Nations Security Council resolution 605.
    Mr. Cohen: Was not the Under Secretary General of the United Nations treated very badly by the Israeli authorities during his visit to Israel, and did not the army go into the camps and disrupt them during his visit? Does the Minister agree with Mr. Goulding, who said that the Palestinians have every right to be angry about the conditions in which they are forced to live and that a political solution is needed? Will the Government work towards that solution under the auspices of the United Nations and start that by opening up a dialogue with the PLO?
    Mr. Mellor: I certainly agree with that comment of Mr. Goulding's, and I was able to tell him that personally when I saw him in New York on Friday. The key point about Mr. Goulding's visit is to try to make progress on the report that the Secretary General has issued following on it. The report makes two points clear. First, there is a need for immediate alleviation of the problems in Gaza by way of the palliative measures set out in the report — enhancing the relief organisation's work and mitigating the more oppressive aspects of the occupation. Secondly, as I have already said, there is a need to get the peace process moving again.
    Mr. Lawrence: Would it not help our credibility with Israel in these matters, and help to solve the humanitarian problems in Gaza, if the Government stopped signing annually the United Nations resolution that calls specifically upon the state of Israel not to rehouse the refugees in Gaza in decent accommodation?
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. and learned Friend, for whom I have great respect, knows that it is not as simple as that. He knows that we vote as we do because of the manner in which it is sought to enforce rehousing—an element of compulsion is involved — and because afterwards adequate dwellings that are better than other dwellings in which people who cannot afford to move out of the camps live are then bulldozed down by the occupying forces. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot help but regard the argument sometimes used by the Israeli authorities to justify their position as rather flimsy.
    Mr. Faulds: In view of the Israeli Government's arrogant disregard of international conventions and of the appalling conduct of Israeli troops, will the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest to his right hon. and learned Friend — and my right hon. and learned Friend — the Foreign Secretary, that he should raise with his EEC colleagues the need to consider the suspension, or indeed, abrogation, of EEC trade and financial agreements with Israel?
    Mr. Mellor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the issue is to be considered again by the European Foreign Ministers at their meeting with King Hussein next week and we must await the outcome of that.
    On the European Community arrangements, it is obviously desirable, so far as possible, to keep political considerations out of purely trading issues. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. and learned Friend took the lead in proposing that there should be direct access to the European Community for goods from
    970
    the occupied territories, because that is a practical way of expressing our desire to see conditions in the occupied territories improve. It wilt also be known that the Commission, while negotiating the mandate for Israeli access to the Common Market, required from the Israeli authorities some undertakings on the manner in which they would carry out those access arrangements. Therefore, although we have not gone anything like all the way with the hon. Gentleman, I hope he is satisfied that there is an element of what he asks in what we are doing.

    Japan
    Mr. Hayward: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his recent visit to Japan.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I believe that my visit helped to strengthen the increasingly active and productive relationship between Britain and Japan. Foreign Minister Uno and I discussed a wide range of international issues, many of which we shall need to tackle together. I urged him and other Japanese Ministers to reinforce their efforts to reduce Japan's surplus. I also pressed our case on outstanding bilateral issues.
    Mr. Hayward: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's comments and the speech in which he pressed the Japanese to open their country to inward investment. Can he now tell us the position on the application made by Cable and Wireless for membership of a consortium to compete with KDD?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the Cable and Wireless question, I understand that the arrangements now in prospect meet the requirements that we have been pressing with that company and on its behalf for some time. When I was in Japan I emphasised that the United Kingdom will continue to press vigorously for the redress of any grievances in trading conditions. It is right to say that the Japanese gave me much assurance of their determination to respond effectively to such representations.
    Mr. Fraser: Was the Foreign Secretary able to raise with the Japanese the wholesale killing of whales in the Antarctic in breach of international agreements? Were the assurances that they gave him any more convincing than those given about the balance of trade?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our interest in the effectiveness of the international whaling convention is a matter about which representations have been made to the Japanese Government.
    Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend will be happy to know that the Scotch Whisky Bill completed its Committee stage this morning. Can he tell the House what has happened about the GATT council's decision that Japan should have a common tariff for spirits—for both imports and local manufacture—and how that will help Scotch? Have we made any progress?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the success of the Bill to which he referred. I know of his intense interest in this subject over many years. It is right to say that I do not share his general interest in the topic to quite the same extent.
    I have been concerned about Japan in that context. Access for Scotch whisky was at the top of my agenda when I first went there as Minister for Trade and

    971
    Consumer Affairs in 1973. It has taken a long time. With the support of the European Community we had to take the matter to the GATT panel, which reported in favour of our case. In December the Japanese accepted those findings and announced that they intended to reform their liquor tax in the right direction to give effect to those findings. I impressed upon them that we expect the recommendation to be implemented in full and emphasised that we shall look carefully at the detailed proposals and at the changes that should come into effect without further delay.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the implementation of the agreement with Spain over Gibraltar.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The agreement was an important step' forward and it is now for the people of Gibraltar to decide when the agreement on Gibraltar airport can enter into force. Meanwhile, we are considering with the Spanish Government the practical implementation of the parallel arrangements at the land frontier and the Gibraltar-Algeciras ferry service.
    Mr. Stern: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the agreement represents a good deal for the people of Gibraltar, not only as a boost to their economy, but for tourism and financial services? So far as the airport is concerned, will my right hon. and learned Friend use his good offices to ensure that the people of Gibraltar see the advantage of the agreement and see it implemented as soon as possible?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the agreement. It offers the prospect of air links with the rest of Europe, the prospect of attracting more visitors and of an expansion in the tourist and financial services there, and can be a major boost to the economy. It will also bring advantages to the United Kingdom and to other European countries. I emphasise that the next steps depend on the willingness of the people of Gibraltar to make their democratic choice on the airport agreement. We have made it clear that we do not intend to impose it on them against their wishes. However, I very much hope that they will see the advantages to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
    Sir Peter Blaker: I reinforce the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). Is it not evident that it is in the interest of the development of Gibraltar's economy that the agreement, so far as it relates to the airport, should be brought into effect as soon as possible?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is absolutely clear. It is a matter on which I have no doubt that the democratic processes of Gibraltar will reflect carefully in the light of the observations made by my hon. Friends.

    Bermuda
    Mr. John M. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Bermuda.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): Her Majesty's Government exercise constitutional responsibility for the dependent territory of Bermuda, and relations between the United Kingdom and Bermuda continue to be excellent.
    Mr. Taylor: I am sure that my hon. Friend will know that Bermuda is a community with good race relations, no litter, no unemployment, no illiteracy and no income tax. Does he think that we could learn something from Bermuda?
    Mr. Eggar: I am glad that my hon. Friend enjoyed his brief visit to Bermuda so much and that he came back with such a favourable impression of that territory. Indeed, Bermuda has a lot to be proud of, but my hon. Friend will no doubt have noted, as he has told the House, that Bermuda's prosperity is not based only on its ample sunshine but on a thriving private sector and low taxation.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that Bermuda plays a major part in Caribbean regional matters — [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not in the Caribbean."] I know where Bermuda is. I have visited there, and not on a free trip.
    As Bermuda plays an important part in regional activities and has, along with many other countries, consistently expressed concern about the United States' policy in the region and towards Central America, will the Minister take this opportunity of likewise expressing his concern at the murderous policies of the Reagan Administration towards Central America and the Caribbean?
    Mr. Eggar: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's frustration at not getting in his normal propaganda on behalf of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. However, I am afraid that I cannot follow him along the lines that he has described.

    Haiti
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the current political unrest in Haiti; and what risks it poses to British citizens in that country.
    Mr. Eggar: After a prolonged period of civil unrest M. Leslie Manigat was elected President of Haiti on 17 January. The country is now calm. There is no threat at present to the United Kingdom community. We continue to keep the situation under review.
    Mr. Bowis: Although my hon. Friend may say that the country is calm, there has been something of a breakdown of law and order there. Is he aware that people in this country are extremely concerned that our citizens in Haiti should be protected, because the present circumstances in that country are not of their own making?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our overriding priority in all consular matters is that we provide an efficient service for British citizens who are in genuine distress or danger through no fault of their own. I assure my hon. Friend that we are aware of the potential risks to the some 50 British citizens in Haiti.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on a new question of parliamentary procedure.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will deal with the matter afterwards. It is not a new procedure.

Unification Church
3.30 pm
The following question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. Tom Sackville: To ask the Attorney-General what progress there has been in relation to the charity proceedings now pending in his name in connection with the Unification Church; and if he will make a statement.
The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With permission. Mr. Speaker, I will now answer question No. 89.
Proceedings were instituted in the High Court by my predecessor in December 1984 in connection with two trusts associated with the Unification Church. Those trusts were respectively known as the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity and the Sun Myung Moon Foundation. Prominent among the objects of each is the promotion of the principles and teachings of Sun Myung Moon, described as the founder and world leader of the Unification Church.
In 1984 each of those trusts was, and each still remains, entered in the statutory register of charities maintained by the Charity Commissioners. That register properly comprises only those trusts whose objects are truly and exclusively charitable in English law.
The proceedings in the High Court were brought by my predecessor in the exercise on behalf of the Crown of its function as the protector of charity. He appealed against the refusal of the Charity Commissioners to accede to his request that they remove the association and the foundation from the register of charities. His grounds for that request had been that the trusts failed in particular respects to meet the requirements of English law relating to charity.
Whatever view may he taken of its tenets, the Unification Church must, as a matter of law, be regarded as a religion. In English law there is a strong presumption that any trust for the advancement of any religion, without distinction, is charitable unless the contrary is proved by evidence admissible in court proceedings. Teachings that are in their very essence contrary to morality would be an example. It is for any challenger to bring forward such evidence: the burden is on him.
The evidence available to my predecessor in 1984 properly led him, with the advice of leading counsel, to conclude that there were sufficient prospects of an appeal succeeding. That evidence included testimony of witnesses called for the successful defendants in a libel action against Associated Newspapers Group Ltd. tried in 1981. In addition, there were statements by former members of the Unification Church that had been offered when it came generally known that charity proceedings in the High Court were under consideration.
Since the proceedings were begun, the Treasury Solicitor has gone to immense lengths in seeking out additional evidence from those who have been associated with the Unification Church. Some further potential witnesses have approached him on their own initiative. Further statements have been taken from other persons, who had been closely involved in comparatively recent activities of the Unification Church in this country, and who had wanted to assist in the challenge to charitable status of the trusts.
974
The most careful analysis has now been made of the totality of the evidence available to me, set against the legal presumption to which I have referred. Some of it, when tested in the light of all the material now available, has proved to be insufficiently reliable. The remainder, when seen in the overall context, is shown to be of insufficient weight to rebut the legal presumption. I have now been advised by leading counsel that it is most unlikely that, if the appeal proceeded to trial, I should be able to dislodge that strong legal presumption of charitable status. After the most careful consideration, I agree with that advice.
The trial is due to start on 12 April. It would last an estimated three to six months and occasion great expense. In these circumstances, I have decided to seek the court's leave to discontinue these proceedings, and the Treasury Solicitor has this morning so informed the defendants.
Mr. Sackville: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his answer will come as a grave disappointment to many people, particularly to those families who have been the victims of the so-called Moonies, Scientologists, and other cults and who have experienced the ruthless methods and unacceptable behaviour of those cults! Does he agree that his answer should highlight the fact that it is time we stopped giving charitable status to such vile organisations, and that the fact that we do is an affront to natural justice and an insult to those whose lives haze been ruined and whose families have been torn apart by them?
The Attorney-General: I am naturally aware that my answer will come as a disappointment to many people. However, I hope that I have accurately and fully set out the basis on which I have felt obliged to accept the advice that I have been given. My answer is given exclusively in the exercise on behalf of the Crown of its role as the protector of charity. It is one whose content is dictated as a matter of law. It has no bearing upon the attitude of the Government towards any cult, and the question of any reform of the law on charity is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Attorney-General agree with the views expressed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who said:
"the sinister activities of some of the groups must be exposed by every means possible and most vigorously discouraged." —[Official Report, 24 October 1984; Vol. 65, c. 708.]
Does the Attorney-General agree that it is regrettable that, nearly four years later, our charity law is wholly inadequate to deal with the Moonies? Will he now set about reforming the charity law quickly before more people are reduced to misery and destruction by the activities of the Moonies and others like them?
The Attorney-General: As I have already said, the reform of charity law is not for me but is in the first instance for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The evidence available to my predecessor in 1984 justified his decision at that time to initiate the appeal and to make the allegations that he put forward against the Unification Church. Material has come to light since 1984 as a result of the continuing inquiries of the Treasury Solicitor, the nature of which I have already described to the House. It is in the light of the totality of the evidence now available, seen against the strong legal presumption which I have mentioned, that dictates my decision.
Mr. David Wilshire: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that his statement is outrageous for large numbers of us? Will he please tell the House whether his decision owes anything to the murder in Devon in December of Sonia Martin, who was to be a key witness in the case, and to the intimidation of other people prepared to help?
The Attorney-General: I have seen no evidence that witnesses or potential witnesses have been intimidated. I am aware that a witness who had sworn an affidavit in support of my appeal, Sonia Martin, was found dead in Devon last December. I understand that the inquest into the cause of her death presently stands adjourned and will be resumed on a date to be fixed.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What was the parliamentary precedent for the Attorney-General coming to the House and answering orally a written question? If we are to have this, would it not have been better for him to turn his attention to written question 119 and to tell us whether the head of the security services, the Prime Minister, knew about what Mr. Stalker was writing and the shoot-to-kill policy?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, but there are precedents for this.
The Attorney-General: It seemed to me that it was a convenient and, I understand, a precedented means, well within the rules of order of the House, to tell the House orally and permit oral questions about a matter that could properly have been dealt with by written question.
Mr. Churchill: Although I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's decision in this matter, will the Government urgently consider amendments to charity law to ensure that such undersirable organisations as the Unification Church do not have charitable status? Is my right hon. and learned Friend further aware that, over the years, several hon. Members have been approached with offers of huge value in terms of free travel to foreign places?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Name them.
Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman says, "Name them." I was one of those invited, but I declined the invitation.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend put other hon. Members on their guard against accepting hospitality from such organisations?
The Attorney-General: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's opening remarks. I undertake to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the great and genuine concern felt about this organisation and about the reform of charity law.
As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, the House will have heard what he had to say.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does this mean that the Government have been forced to give in to the Moonies as a result of a shortage of money in the litigation fund because it has all been spent pursuing "Spycatcher"? If so, would it not be worth while for the Attorney-General to examine the huge fees demanded by lawyers, which cause the expenses of these court cases, or does he feel sufficiently objective to be able to conduct such an investigation?
The Attorney-General: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman expects an affirmative answer to the first part of his question. Anybody holding my present office has a duty to assess the likelihood of success for any proceedings in train. In the case of the "Spycatcher" litigation, the advice that I have received and accepted warrants the continuation of proceedings both here and overseas.
In the case of my predecessor's appeal against the decision of the Charity Commissioners, I have explained to the House as clearly as possible the reasons that have led leading counsel to advise me, and I accept the advice that there are not sufficient prospects of that appeal succeeding. That is why I have taken this step.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whatever the legal position—I do not challenge his interpretation—there is absolutely nothing in the activities of this obnoxious and appalling group of people that qualifies them for the title "charitable" in the accepted sense of that word?
The Attorney-General: I well understand the anxiety that is genuinely and widely felt about the Unification Church. Equally, I have to apply the law of this country in respect of charitable status. Whether that law deserves review or reform is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and not for me.
Mr. Tony Banks: Can we be assured that the Moonies have not got at the Treasury Solicitor or the Attorney-General himself, in view of this disappointing statement? Will the Attorney-General tell the House why he thought it necessary to answer in this way, by making a statement from the Dispatch Box? Could not some other device have been used?
The Attorney-General: I hoped that the wide concern expressed in this House over a number of years about the Unification Church would be its own justification for my coming to the Dispatch Box. I took the view that the matter did not merit a full-blown statement, of which many people believe there are too many. On the other hand, I felt that it was only fair to the House to give people, including the hon. Gentleman, the opportunity to ask a question about it.
As to my having been got at, I have been subjected to many more ferocious and effective assaults than anything that the Unification Church might feel disposed to launch against me. As for the Treasury Solicitor, I think that he is quite immune to any such assault.
Mr. Tim Yeo: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that our inability to proceed against the Moonies will cause widespread dismay, not least among legitimate charities, whose work is of such great benefit? Is he further aware that the circumstances that he described underline the urgent need for the review which the Home Office is carrying out following the publication last year of the Woodfield report, to include consideration of strengthening the Charity Commissioners' powers to prevent organisations whose objectives and tactics are clearly not regarded as charitable by the majority of British people from continuing to enjoy charitable status? If the law is preventing us from taking action against the Moonies, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it should be reviewed?
The Attorney-General: I understand, as I have made clear and readily repeat, that there will be much disappointment about the statement that I have made today. Equally, it will be understood that it would not be right for me to continue with proceedings that would lead to a three to six-month trial at enormous expense in the face of the strong advice that I have received from highly experienced leading counsel.
As to the reform of charity law, I understand what my hon. Friend has said. I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. John Hunt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear that the decision that he has announced should in no way be seen as providing carte blanche to the Unification Church to continue its exploitation of the young and vulnerable in this country? Will he make it quite clear that its activities are still being closely watched by many hon. Members in the House?
The Attorney-General: The action that I thought it right to take constitutes no more than the withdrawal of the appeal initiated by my predecessor against the refusal of the Charity Commissioners to remove these two trusts from the register of charities. Neither I nor anyone else can give carte blanche to any organisation. Certainly no carte blanche has been given to the Unification Church. I am certain that the remainder of my hon. Friend's question will be noted.
Mr. John Fraser: On any reasonable view, is not the announcement that the Attorney-General has had to make extraordinary, particularly as it comes at a time when the Government are campaigning for tax-free gifts to charities from people's payrolls?
Is the Attorney-General aware that many deserving causes find it difficult to get through the rather slow and cumbrous procedures of the Charity Commission. It is difficult to understand their predicament, given the Moonie immunity that has been announced.
978
Is it not the essence of the law that a religious charity should direct itself to the benefit of the public and not engage in positive harm or Right-wing political activity, which has taken in a few Conservative Members?
Given the extraordinary width of the definition of a religious charity implied in the Attorney-General's answer, will the Government announce that they will set up an immediate and urgent review charity law to put an end to the rampant abuse that has been practised by the Unification Church and the farcical nature of the decision that the Attorney-General has been forced to announce? Nothing less than an immediate review will satisfy the House.
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman says that I have been obliged or forced to make a statement. Of course I have not. I chose to do so for the reasons that I have explained. However, I well note the hon. Gentleman's concern about the principles of law that govern charitable status in this country.
The proceedings which my predecessor began made certain specific allegations against the Unification Church, which the evidence then available to him entirely justified. If those allegations could be substantiated, they would, in my view and that of my predecessor, have warranted his appeal being allowed. As I have endeavoured to explain, the totality of evidence now available to me is insufficient to enable me to substantiate any of those particular allegations to the extent needed to rebut the strong legal presumption of charitable status that English law gives to any religion.
It is not for me to express either regret or any other response. It is my duty to the House to announce the conclusion that I have felt obliged to reach. I note, as all will do, what the hon. Gentleman said at the conclusion of his question and will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Crown Suppliers
3.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of the Crown Suppliers.
The Crown Suppliers are a self-financing business within the Department of the Environment. They sell furniture, and other equipment and services to the public sector. They have operated as a Government trading fund since 1976, and under the title of the Crown Suppliers since 1984.
As direct suppliers to Government Departments, the Crown Suppliers have achieved considerable success in the design and procurement of their own-brand furniture, the procurement and supply of a wide range of equipment, and the provision of fuel and transport. I have, however, considered the role and status of the Crown Suppliers in the light of untying Departments from the compulsory use of purchasing agencies.
I have had the benefit of two recent reports by consultants and have discussed a summary of those reports with staff representatives. It is clear that the Crown Suppliers must reduce their overheads substantially to reflect new working practices and purchasing policies in Government Departments.
Many of the activities of the Crown Suppliers are, however, of a commercial nature, and there is little doubt that they could be carried out more efficiently in the private sector. The question therefore is whether the Crown Suppliers should be given full freedom to compete in both public and private sectors, which would entail transfer to the private sector.
I am convinced that privatisation provides the brightest future for the Crown Suppliers, as well as a continued source of competitive supplies for the public sector. It will also allow the Crown Suppliers to have access to a wider market. It is the Government's view that the private sector should be invited to bid for those of the Crown Suppliers' businesses which can be undertaken on a normal commercial basis. Some activities will have to remain in the public sector, for security or other reasons.
The Government intend therefore to seek further advice from a financial institution on the best method of effecting the sale of the Crown Suppliers. The businesses available for sale will include the provision of furniture, furnishings and other equipment on an untied basis for the public sector, and the transport hire business. In evaluating offers received, I shall pay particular attention to proposals for the involvement of the staff in the success of the enterprise.
I also intend to bring forward legislation to effect the transfer at an early opportunity.
Mr. Roland Boyes: The Minister's statement on the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers is scandalous. It reflects the Government's narrow political dogma at its worst. It not only is an enormous threat to the jobs of those 1,486 people employed by the Crown Suppliers but will inevitably lead to bankruptcies and redundancies in many small, specialised firms throughout the United Kingdom, many in areas of high unemployment.
Has the Minister given the trade unions any assurance that the staff will be given the choice to remain in the Civil
980
Service if they wish, even if this means a certain amount of regrading and retraining? Will the Minister confirm that in the past three years the Government have commissioned four reviews into the operation of the Crown Suppliers, at great cost to the taxpayer? Two of them — the Turton report of 1985 and the central unit of purchasing review 1986 — acknowledged that privatisation of the Crown Suppliers was feasible but would not be in the public interest. The two most recent reviews, undertaken by Coopers and Lybrand/Samuel Montagu and Dewi Jones, were not even required to consider the public interest in their brief—it is obviously no longer a consideration for the Government.
Does the Minister agree that the Crown Suppliers exist for two reasons? First, they exist to supply the Government and the public sector with the most economic furnishing, fuel and transport. All relevant Government statistical indices demonstrate that the Crown Suppliers fulfil that task to consistent standards of excellence. Secondly, they exist to increase the competitiveness and profitability of British industry. Ninety-six per cent. of their £240 million turnover comes from British firms, one third of which have 100 workers or fewer, many of them in sheltered workshops supporting an important social service.
The Crown Suppliers have pioneered numerous designs in furnishing, including flame-retardant mattresses and materials that are sold all over the world. The CBI has applauded the Crown Suppliers' priority sourcing scheme, which guarantees business and encourages investment in plant and machinery in designated development areas.
In the private sector, British Telecom, British Gas, British Rail and most recently British Aerospace all choose to use the Crown Suppliers because they judge them to offer best value in terms of cost, quality and reliability of service.
Finally, will the Minister explain precisely what parts of the Crown Suppliers he intends to privatise? Is it not ironic that, as a result of this privatisation, it is the taxpayer, whom the Government pray in aid for many of their policies, who will lose most? Clearly, the proper place for the Crown Suppliers is in the public sector.
Mr. Chope: That was a typically negative response from the Opposition. I am surprised that the Opposition do not favour the plan to extend the opportunities of the Crown Suppliers so that they can compete in a wider market. The Crown Suppliers' present share of the contract furniture and furnishings market is 8 to 9 per cent. I look forward to the time when they will be able to go out and expand their involvement in the private market.
As far as the transfer of staff is concerned, staff will be affected by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1987, and terms and conditions broadly comparable with those prevailing in their present employment will be available for them in the private sector.
It is the Government's policy to free Departments to make their own purchasing decisions using their own resources and to use public sector purchasing power in the widest interests of British industry. It is not a mandatory "Buy British Only" policy, which is illegal under the treaty of Rome and the GATT. It is right that the Crown Suppliers should use firms registered in the United Kingdom, because evaluation of competitive offers shows that to be the best value for money. The same principles

981
would apply whether the Crown Suppliers were in the public or the private sector. The same principles would also apply for the use of small firms and firms in development agencies.
No change is proposed in relation to the Government priority suppliers' purchasing arrangements. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the status quo is one on which the Crown Suppliers can rest. The more enlightened members of staff of the Crown Suppliers realise that they must change with the times.
Sir George Young: Is my hon. Friend aware that his decision will be warmly welcomed by Conservative Members and by many employees in the Crown Suppliers, who will welcome the freedom that it will give them to compete where they cannot now compete — in the private sector? Far from resulting in less employment in the Crown Suppliers or less work for the small firms that supply them, this decision could result in more employment and more work for those firms.
Mr. Chope: I appreciate my hon. Friend's typically positive response. I know that, when he had responsibility in government for the Crown Suppliers, he took a keen interest in their work, and it is a tremendous endorsement of today's announcement that my hon. Friend thinks that it is in the best interest of the Crown Suppliers.
Mr. Frank Field: When the hon. Gentleman considers the tenders for this business, will he seek an undertaking that there will be no further job losses on Merseyside?
Mr. Chope: I cannot give guarantees about job losses on Merseyside. As the hon. Gentleman may know, one of the reports that we commissioned referred to the possibility of reducing the overheads of the Crown Suppliers within the Government sector. One of the proposals put forward was that one of the two procurement offices — there are two: one in Liverpool and the other in London—should be closed. I can understand that staff in Liverpool would be extremely concerned if there were no such proposal as I have put to the House today. If either the London or the Liverpool office had to be closed, they certainly might fear that there would be job losses in Liverpool. I look forward to better employment opportunities in the Crown Suppliers, and that includes employment in Liverpool.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my hon. Friend accept that, generally, the decision must be a good step for the Government? What percentage of the Crown Suppliers' business is with overseas Governments and other Commonwealth nations, who have looked to such business because it was backed by the United Kingdom Government? Will he make it quite clear that whoever takes over the Crown Suppliers will operate with the same integrity as that which can be expected from Her Majesty's Government? Will he further confirm that opportunities will still be open on the security aspects, which the Government will contain, from which Commonwealth countries will be able to benefit if they so require?
Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend referred to overseas and Commonwealth countries. At present, the Crown Suppliers have little overseas business. I hope that they will get more overseas business as a result of privatisation.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Are there not some inconsistencies in the Government's policy?
982
On the one hand, they say that the Crown Suppliers have done a good job, that 85 per cent. of their costs are better than in any other sector, and that 60 per cent. of their work is already contracted by the private sector, but, on the other hand, they say that it should be privatised. The Treasury says that it is not in the public interest for them to be privatised, yet the Department of the Environment says that it is.
What report has the Minister received that states that the proposal will have a cost benefit for the taxpayer? Is not the reality that no report comes to that conclusion? The Minister's political view, rather than any objective criterion, is prevailing. There will not only be job losses in places such as mine in south London, but increases in other Government Departments. Is not the whole matter a triumph of dogma over logic? Should not the Minister take it away and re-examine the proposal?
Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The decision has the full support o f the Government and the enthusiastic support of the Treasury. One matter that has concerned the Treasury is the level of the Crown Suppliers' overheads. If the Crown Suppliers stay within the public sector, action will have to be taken to deal with their overheads. The alternative of opening wider outside markets is preferable.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my hon. Friend accept that his decision will be warmly welcomed, not least by the furniture industry? Having listened to the eulogy given by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), the Crown Suppliers would seem to have little going for them. They should not be afraid of private industry, and the furniture industry in particular, which will welcome the decision and the additional competition that it will provide — all to the benefit of the Government and the people.
Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: What activities will remain in the public sector?
Mr. Chope: Certainly the activities that have security implications—and there may be one or two beyond that—will remain in the public sector.
Mr. James Couchman: Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be welcomed? Has he considered the possibility of offering the Crown Suppliers on a management buy-out basis to people who have an esprit de corps, some of whom are my constituents and have written to me? Will he regard it as a forerunner of doing exactly the same to the Property Services Agency?
Mr. Chope: There has been an expression of interest by some members of the management in purchasing part of the Crown Suppliers. Their applications will certainly be considered along with the others. On the wider issue of the Property Services Agency, as my hon. Friend knows, we are moving to commercial accounts, with a view to a trading fund in the future.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Minister be more specific about what will be left in the public sector? Will he spell it out? Does he say that he will hand the Crown Suppliers to the furniture industry, with its recent health and safety record? How will the national interest be served by doing that? Will such things as

983
Ministers' cars be included? Will we see them driving Toyotas? What protection will there be for contracts, 95 per cent. of which are in this country at the moment and one third of which are placed with small firms, which the Government are supposed to uphold? Will that percentage remain in the future? Will the Minister be honest with the House and say that the matter bears the stamp of his political prejudice and hatred of the public sector, however successful it may be?
Mr. Chope: Certainly the decision bears the stamp of the Government's commitment to privatisation and to the benefits of a competitive environment. I have already answered points about effects on Government purchasing policy. There is no reason to suppose that the proportion of British goods will be reduced. Indeed, I look forward to the time when, instead of the proportion being 95 per cent., 100 per cent. of goods are British-made. I visited the "Better Made in Britain" exhibition, which was designed to try to encourage British firms to make products that are not yet available on the home market.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: As my hon. Friend knows, there is a substantial Crown Suppliers facility in my constituency. Although I accept the challenge of privatisation, I ask him to be more specific about the time scale of the sale. As he knows, for many months, staff have been extremely worried about their future. They are highly skilled men and women, who deserve more recognition than merely being told that we are calling in more consultants to advise on the time scale. My hon. Friend knows full well my concern about the way in which leaks about the decision came out of the Department over a prolonged period. Parliament should be the first to be told.
Mr. Chope: On the last point, I certainly share my hon. Friend's concern 100 per cent. I appreciate his expression of interest in the matter. In Hastings, there are about 1,200 employees of the Property Services Agency, just over 100 of whom are employed by the Crown Suppliers. The timetable will depend upon the legislative programme. As knowledge about the announcement is becoming known, certain private firms are coming forward to express an interest in purchase.
Mr. Tony Blair: Does the Minister recall the critical part that was played by the Crown Suppliers in changing the Government's mind about furniture foam and getting them to introduce tough new regulations? Is he aware that the main company behind the Government's original flawed proposals on furniture foam, Hillsdown Holdings, is likely to be one of the main bidders for the Crown Suppliers? Therefore, will he deal specifically with my question? Is one of the aspects of the Crown Suppliers that is to be left in the public sector its safety role in providing objective advice to the Government to ensure that the public interest is not sacrificed for the commercial interests of the privatised company?
Mr. Chope: The Department of Trade and Industry deals with the safety role. It seeks the views of organisations in the public and private sectors. That has happened in the case of furniture foam. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman seems to think that it would be advantageous for the Crown Suppliers to stay in the public
984
sector. If they had been in the private sector and had been consulted about their views on furniture foam, they would have been able to publicise their announcement when they made it in September last year.
Mr. Ian Gow: Although I welcome my hon. Friend's excellent, if overdue, statement, will he persevere in doing good? Will he shortly bring forward his proposals for the total privatisation of the Property Services Agency?
Mr. Chope: I heard what my hon. Friend said. As I have already said, we are moving to commercial accounts in the Property Services Agency, with a view to establishing a trading fund.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Having accepted that the Crown Suppliers are a successful public sector enterprise, why do the Government inhibit or prevent them from competing with the private sector, then use that inhibition as a justification for selling them off? Is it because the savings for taxpayers and ratepayers and the profits that are being made for the public are required to be handed over to the Tory party's friends in the private sector?
Mr. Chope: Not at all. The Government take the view that commercial enterprises are better run in the private sector. The essence of the Crown Suppliers' activities is commercial.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will my hon. Friend give a rather more convincing reply to the questions that were asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) about the Property Services Agency? Surely the logic that has quite rightly drawn him—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The statement is about the Crown Suppliers.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The logic that has drawn my hon. Friend to the right decision about the Crown Suppliers applies with equal force to the Property Services Agency. Surely there is no argument of principle or practice for retaining the PSA in the public sector.
Mr. Chope: There is a distinction between the Crown Suppliers and the Property Services Agency. The Crown Suppliers have been a trading fund for many years, but the PSA does not yet have proper commerical accounts, let alone a trading fund.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that legislation will be introduced. Will hon. Members ensure that their questions relate only to the Crown Suppliers?
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Minister recall that on 9 December he answered a question from me about the Crown Suppliers by saying that he was considering the Coopers and Lybrand and the Dewi Jones reports? Does he accept that the main part of the Dewi Jones report stated that priority should be given to the introduction of improved working practices? What are his answers to the Dewi Jones conclusions? Is it true, as we read in the press, that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is extremely sceptical about this privatisation on a falling stock market? What will happen to expert units such as those that look after Hampton Court and the Palace of Westminster? Will they be broken up and their expertise scattered?
Mr. Chope: It is not true that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was against this or had

985
reservations about it. Indeed, this matter was not his departmental responsibility. That proves that the purported leaks to the press suggesting that my right hon. Friend was against the privatisation were up the tree. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the specialist work at Hampton Court and the Palace of Westminster. We shall consider whether that work should be part of the privatisation package.
Mr. Dalyell: And what about the Dewi Jones report?
Mr. Derek Conway: Does my hon. Friend recall that, every time a Minister has come to the House to announce a privatisation measure, there have been whingeing voices, yet every time the measure has received the approval of Parliament it has been an enormous success? My hon. Friend's proposal today will be no less a success. The proposal will be welcomed not least in the less highly populated urban areas, such as Shrewsbury, where many local traders have not been able to come to terms with the preferred trading status of the organisation. Therefore, my hon. Friend's statement this afternoon will be very welcome in the more rural parts of the country.
Mr. Chope: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The recent results of the National Freight Corporation are a further reminder of the success of privatisation.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: As it has already been stated and accepted that the Crown Suppliers buy 95 per cent. British products, what guarantees will the Minister write into the legislation to ensure that that continues in future? Can he be absolutely sure that overseas predators will not take a leaf out of the book of the Kuwaiti Investment Office and seek to take full advantage of the opportunities when privatisation arises? Will he also guarantee that no Tory Member of Parliament, either in the Government or outside, will be given the opportunity to become a director of any of the privatised companies that may emerge?
Mr. Chope: It is not possible for members of the Government to hold directorships in companies. All the interest that has so far been expressed in purchasing the Crown Suppliers has come from British firms.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my hon. Friend agree that, in delivering services to the public, the Government must always have regard to the fact that they have no funds other than those provided by the taxpayer? Therefore, in their capacity as trustees of the taxpayers' money, the Government must consider how to deliver those services most cost-effectively. If those services can be delivered most cost-effectively in the private sector, it must be common sense and morally right to do that.
Mr. Chope: I agree 100 per cent. That is why the Government's policy is to allow Departments to make their own purchasing decisions using their own resources, so that they can shop around. Firms will win Government business only if they are competitive.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Minister guarantee that, if the Crown Suppliers are to be privatised, they will not follow the same path as Coventry Climax, which has suffered an 80 per cent. loss of jobs in five years? Will he guarantee that by saying that he will monitor what happens to the company after privatisation? The Department of Trade and Industry has always refused
986
to do that. Making a last attempt, will he explain precisely which elements of the Crown Suppliers are supposed to remain in public ownership for security reasons? Is he not aware which elements are to remain, or is it a secret?
Mr. Chope: It is not a secret. Those aspects of the Crown Suppliers' activities that have security implications will remain—
Mr. Nellist: What are they?
Mr. Chope: I can name one—the secure car service. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is appropriate that that should stay in the public sector. I am afraid that I cannot remember the hon. Gentleman's other questions, he asked so many.
Mr. Nellist: What about monitoring and job losses?
Mr. Chope: With regard to job losses, I should have thought that Opposition Members would look more positively at the proposal. Sussessful privatisations have often involved an expansion of the labour force. I hope that the Crown Suppliers will be equally successful.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister accept that this is unacceptable? He has come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement, but he has not answered specific questions put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) who asked him to tell us exactly what services and functions will remain with the Crown Suppliers. He should give us a list. It would appear that ministerial cars are involved. At the moment, it costs the taxpayer £2·5 million a year to provide him and his right hon. Friends with cars so that they can waltz around London and not experience the real traffic problems that the rest of us have to put up with.
Mr. Chope: I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman is saying if he is arguing for the privatisation of the ministerial car service.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend make sure that, by inadvertence, he does not achieve something different from what he wishes? Would he in any such regulations or instructions use the word "United Kingdom" rather than "British" so that he does not exclude products from Northern Ireland?
Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend has made a very telling point, and I agree with him.
Mr. Boyes: We must insist that the Minister answers the questions posed by myself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). The Minister told my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South that there are one or two bits beyond security. Will he define exactly what they are? Will he assure us that he intends to publish the Coopers and Lybrand and Dewi Jones reports?
Mr. Chope: Summaries of the Dewi Jones and Coopers and Lybrand reports have been prepared and copies have been placed in the Library. We do not propose to publish them in full because they contain commercially confidential information. Certainly some aspects of the Crown Suppliers activities will not be up for sale.
Mr. Tony Banks: What are they?
Mr. Chope: The details will become apparent after we have made progress and engaged a financial consultant to look at the matter in detail.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point, of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order in their proper place.

Anglo-Irish Relations
4.18 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 conclusions reached at the meeting between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Ministers of the Irish Government yesterday."
It is regrettable that I have to make this application as a matter of urgency and importance. The Government should have made a statement. They have been dodging it since we were promised an early statement on these matters 10 days ago by the Attorney-General.
The matter is urgent and important because this Government and the Irish Government have referred to the constraints and strains that have now been placed on Anglo-Irish relationships and the difficulties that have been raised about confidence in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The level of public confidence in the RUC is now as low as it was at the time of bloody Sunday and the hunger strikes. While it is true for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to say that he was not in office while the shoot-to-kill policy took place, he was in office when Stalker was obstructed in his inquiries into that policy.
We are entitled to have in the House the list of areas of concern and proposals for improvement that the Irish Government are said to have given to the Secretary of State for discussion by the Cabinet. We are entitled to know why the Irish Government felt it necessary to go to the Cabinet. Was it because they did not trust the Secretary of State? Was it because the Prime Minister had authorised the Attorney-General's statement a week ago last Monday? All that is happening against a background of a Greek chorus of the regular Stalker revelations that seem to contradict every item that the Attorney-General told the House about last Monday.
The replies to the Stalker revelations from the Secretary of State, the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General and the RUC have been deafening in their silence. The dogs have not been barking. They are hoping that the matter will go away. We are determined that it shall not go away. The House has a right to discuss such matters urgently in Government time, and that is what should be done.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) seeks 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 conclusions reached at the meeting between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Ministers of the Irish Government yesterday."
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said. He knows that when considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 I must have regard for the criteria laid down in the Standing Order. I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised as being appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

NHS (Industrial Action)
4.22 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: 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,
"Today's industrial action in the Health Service"
Quite candidly, there can be few applications under Standing Order No. 20 as clear-cut as this one. I have three minutes to convince you, Mr. Speaker, to make a simple decision. Which is more urgent and important—today's debate on the Licensing Bill, which will allow pubs to open for a couple of hours longer, or the reasons why tens of thousands of health workers in London, Coventry and throughout the country are on strike today?
The background to this escalating dispute is the massive £1,500 million of cumulative underfunding of the Health Service. The Chancellor would prefer that money to be used for tax cuts to the rich instead of providing guarantees of heart operations for the 100 bairns in the west midlands who are desperately waiting for them. It could be used for providing equipment that is now bought through raffles and jumble sales, or to give health workers a wage on which they can live, instead of the contemptuous 3 per cent. that the Government believe they can get away with, or to reopen wards and hospitals that have been closed by a Cabinet that has no idea about the NHS. Even the Secretary of State for Social Services went into a private hospital at £1,000 a week.
The Secretary of State this morning attended a conference in the Connaught rooms but paused for a few seconds inside the opulent entrance hall sharply to criticise the nurses in front of television cameras. However, he refused my request to meet nurses in uniform from Guy's
990
hospital who were waiting outside and say the same things to their faces that he was prepared to say about them to the media.
In contrast, Opposition Members have spent most of the past eight hours visiting hospitals and talking to health workers. It is clear that it will not be long before the anger of working people boils over. The Daily Telegraph today reveals that 79 per cent. of voters support today's strike. When asked about the Prime Minister's statement that nurses were deliberately hitting at patients, 67 per cent. of Tory voters sided with the nurses and not with the Prime Minister. Workers throughout the country know that petitions, lobbies and arguments have never impressed the Cabinet. The only answer is action. In growing numbers, they realise that it is not the responsibility of health workers to take action to defend our NHS. It is the responsibility of all workers. That is why there are increasing calls on the TUC to turn Budget day into a one-day general strike to defend the Health Service.
If the House does not debate this crucial issue but instead spends the rest of the afternoon discussing pub opening hours, Parliament will be seen to be increasingly irrelevant and the support for national industrial action will grow. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to accept this application.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Coventry, Soul h-East (Mr. Nellist) seeks 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,
"today's industrial action in the National Health service."
Again, I have listened with great care to what the hon. Member has said, but I must have regard to the criteria of the Standing Order. I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as being appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Crown Suppliers
4.26 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: 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 future of the Crown Suppliers."
My interest in this matter did not begin this afternoon; it is of long standing. On 9 December 1987, I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he had to privatise the Crown Suppliers; and if he would make a statement.
The Minister replied:
"I am considering various possibilities for the future of the Crown Suppliers, following two reports by consultants, one of which concerned the feasibility of privatisation."
It was within your hearing, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon that the Minister was asked questions upon the Coopers and Lybrand report. Those questions were not answered. He was then asked questions about the Dewi Jones report, which were not answered. I do not know whether those reports are in the Library, but I asked for all information and I received a precis saying that Dewi Jones' general conclusion was
"that parts of TCS could be privatised, but that priority should be given to the introduction of a number of improved working practices."
Parliament needs to know a great deal more about that.
The Minister's answer continued:
"I have recently received detailed and comprehensive comments from representatives of the staff of the Crown Suppliers, and I do not propose to announce a decision until these have been fully considered." —[Official Report, 9 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 176.]
992
This afternoon we heard nothing about the full consideration of the views of the staff. I understand that 1,900 jobs will disappear and that there will be a loss of expert advice; 500 new jobs may be created, but that is far from clear.
Part of the trouble is that the Crown Suppliers dared to criticise the DTI and angered the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. They have also said that small businesses may be harmed. The press reports may not be far wrong about the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. However, the Minister must explain why that privatisation is to go ahead on a falling stock market and the consequences to the taxpayer.
There are urgent questions that are local to the House about the future expertise in the House of Commons. We are all concerned about matters that affect us, but there is an even greater problem in regard to the reconstruction of furniture in Hampton Court. It is an absolute traduction of the House of Commons for the Minister to make such a statement and hope to get away with it. The sooner that we have a debate on the issue the better.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) seeks 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 future of the Crown Suppliers."
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said. I was in the Chair when the Minister made his statement. I regret that I cannot rule that this matter is appropriate to be discussed under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House. I am sure that the hon. Member will have opportunities, and certainly when the Bill is debated, to bring his points to the Floor of the House.

Points of Order
4.28 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that we are not allowed to challenge your judgment on individual matters relating to Standing Order No. 20. All hon. Members accept that. We have spent 20 minutes discussing the Moonies on a day when, for the first time in history, nurses in Britain have been driven by desperation to industrial action. It is possible, with great regret, to challenge the Speaker on a substantive motion. I say that because I am probably the only Member of the House who has moved a motion of censure on the Speaker. That was in relation to the refusal of an emergency debate that I sought to raise on the bombing of Oman about 30 years ago.
I beg you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider the criteria of urgency. When the National Health Service is so poorly funded that nurses are out on strike, it must take precedence over the Moonies and the Licensing Bill. I ask you to reconsider the criteria.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: If the points of order are concerned with the same subject, I will take them together.
Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely on a day when the two main issues are the day of action in the National Health Service and a report from the Government on the Anglo-Irish discussions, it is astonishing that the Government should use an unusual parliamentary procedure to initiate a long discussion on the Moonies and to have a half-baked statement from a half-briefed Minister on the flogging off of the Crown Suppliers. Is it not also astonishing that it was two of my hon. Friends who had to make applications under Standing Order No. 20 for debates on the National Health Service and on the Anglo-Irish talks?
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to review your decision. Surely the selection of the question to facilitate the statement on the Moonies was done only with your permission. If that was not the case, the Select Committee on Procedure should consider the matter because surely it gives enormous power to the Executive if it can choose an obscure written question on which to make a major statement on a day when applications from the Opposition show that the overriding preoccupation of hon. Members is with the day of action in the National Health Service and with the Anglo-Irish talks.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to reconsider the applications that were put to you. If it is to be relevant to the public, the House must reflect the preoccupations and concerns of the people. Today those preoccupations are not with the Moonies, and they are certainly not with the flogging off of the Crown Suppliers.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will deal with this matter straight away. When it was put to me that a written question should be answered in the House, the procedure was new to me. However, the hon. Gentleman will find that "Erskine May", on page 332, states:
"on a request by a Minister being made a question upon the paper for written answer has been answered orally at half-past three."
It is a rare occurrence, but it has happened before.
994
I have to have regard always—I said this yesterday and I do reflect every day with great care— to the criteria laid down under Standing Order No. 20: that is to say, whether to give precedence over the Orders of the Day for that day or for the succeeding day for an emergency debate. I also have to have regard to the other opportunities that exist—that is specifically laid down in the Standing Order—and not to give my reasons for so doing. It is a difficult judgment to make every day.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to investigate the circulation of the Order Paper and of Hansard? Last week, during an important Adjournment debate on the Health Service, not one Member of the Opposition was present. Therefore, their anger today must be totally synthetic.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), Mr. Speaker. An enormous number of people throughout the country are expressing reasonable and legitimate concerns about the Health Service. I think that you would be the first to wish that Parliament was able — [HON. MEMBERS: "Where were you last week?"]— to reflect their anger and that Members of Parliament were able to represent their constituents. My point of order is that this afternoon a large number of Health Service workers, mainly nurses, went to Trafalgar square from the hospitals where they had been working or picketing. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the point of order?"] It is an important matter—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should let me hear the point of order.
Mr. Corbyn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am raising an important matter. It is a question of the access of people to Parliament to lobby Members of Parliament. When the group of nurses sought to leave Trafalgar square and walk, not in procession but as normal citizens, down Whitehall to Parliament, in order to enter the building and lobby Members of Parliament, they were prevented from doing so by a cordon of police across the road. So the nurses were unable to move freely to Parliament to lobby their elected representatives. I understand that some of the nurses have now managed to reach the House and will be lobbying Members of Parliament. Presumably Conservative Members will wish to hear their points of view since they are not prepared to go to the hospitals to listen to them. [Interruption.]
Mr. Dave Nellist: The Minister has a nerve to sit there pontificating.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) must contain himself.
Mr. Corbyn: Mr. Speaker, will you—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. How can I hear what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is saying if the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, who is sitting next to him, persists in shouting into the same microphone?
Mr. Corbyn: I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that in accordance with the Sessional Orders that were passed by the House at the start of the session and of the new Parliament, the streets leading to Westminster are kept free and there is no let or hindrance to any person who

995
wishes to come to the House to lobby a Member of Parliament. It is clear that the police action was in breach of the Sessional Orders. I should be grateful if you would confirm that the Sessional Orders were approved, and communicate that fact to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police so that he can ensure that they are carried out.
Mr. Speaker: The Sessional Orders are concerned with the rights of Members of Parliament to come to this place. I will look into the matter that the hon. Member has raised. I had no notification of a lobby of the House today. I normally get such notification on the day when a lobby is taking place.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that there has been a great deal of obstruction and intimidation of hon. Members in getting to the House today to attend Parliament? Hon. Members have been obstructed by a flag-waving group of militants and Socialist Workers party supporters, with very few nurses among them, which prevented some of us from attending Question Time and part of the proceedings of the House today.
Will you please send a message to the police controlling that crowd that they should permit the access of hon. Members of Parliament to the House freely so that, having been elected, we can carry out our democratic job of trying to ensure through democratic means that the nurses and the National Health Service are properly looked after by Parliament? Does the attempt to disrupt Parliament by force not prove that the nurses are being cynically and politically exploited by the Opposition and by their supporting unions, COHSE and NUPE, and that this has nothing to do with the care of patients?
Mr. Speaker: I have already said that I will look into the question of any obstruction that has been caused, and certainly of obstruction caused to hon. Members. That would be contrary to the Sessional Order.
Mr. Wells: May I bring you the details?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, certainly.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You called my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) to order. I am not saying that you did so wrongly, but I should like to put it to you that my hon. Friend made his interjection because of the loud-mouthed comments from the hon. Lady who is supposed to be a Minister and who has consistently tried to intimidate Opposition Members and who, incidentally, is an absolute disgrace to the city of Liverpool.
Mr. Speaker: One of the problems that I face in the Chamber is that I hear what goes on through a microphone positioned above the hon. Member who is speaking, which is channelled to an amplifier in the wings of the Chair. I am afraid that I did not hear anything else.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), Mr. Speaker. You will recall that in 1976 the Labour Government announced cuts of 30 per cent. in the hospital building programme. Over five years, the pay of nurses decreased in real terms.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This seems to be an argument rather than a point of order.
Mr. Bennett: Did the right hon. Member for Chesterfield ever make an application under Standing Order No. 20 during those five years?
Mr. Speaker: I was not the Speaker at the time.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: You have quite properly said, Mr. Speaker, that you are guided by criteria that have been used by your predecessors. We did a little research a short while ago on what were Standing Order No. 9 applications — now Standing Order No. 20 applications—to see when they were granted. We found that, in the run-up to the so-called winter of discontent in 1978–79, when there was a Labour Government, many applications for debates under Standing Order No. 9 were made.
I do not know whether the criteria for accepting such debates were marginally different or whether Mr. Speaker looked at them differently, but our research in the Library shows that five applications were made by Tory Members—many of them to do with the NHS—and they were granted. I remember sitting over there, where Conservative Members now sit, watching them make their applications.
All I am asking is whether you will have a look at the criteria used then and see whether they have changed and whether the climate now is just as important, and to consider the environment outside this place as compared with our discussions about the Moonies and pub opening hours. Will you consider whether it is important to discuss what is after all, an historic event—thousands of nurses and other health workers going out on strike? Will you consider whether that meets the criteria for an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 20?
Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly look up what happened, but the criteria have not changed. I have a clear memory of what happened at that time—it was a very different situation.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. While you are looking at the criteria, will you examine the criteria by which the Opposition are able to use Supply days and the criteria by which they can put down censure motions? Is it not a fact that what we have witnessed today is the possible leadership bid of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), as all the complaints have come from Back-Bench Labour Members? None have come from the Labour Front Bench.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) has blundered onto an important aspect of the problem. Never during the time to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred, which I admit was a period of crisis, did nurses come out on strike. Nevertheless, applications under Standing Order No. 9 were granted, as were private notice questions. I respectfully submit that it is important to consider what happened during that time and to compare it with what is happening now. The situation now is much worse and ought therefore to be treated in a much more considerate manner.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us—we have two major Bills to debate. I shall consider all

997
the points tht have been put to me. I have no doubt that the House will wish to return to this matter during Social Services questions on Tuesday.
Mr. Frank Dobson: If I may by the way respond to Conservative Members who are suggesting that I have been smoked out—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This will have to be a fairly ingenious point of order.
Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You know that it is usual for the Front Benches to speak towards the end of these exchanges. We recognise the dilemmas that you face. They have been made more acute today by the gross insensitivity of the Government who have used a fairly unused and archaic method to get the Moonies on the agenda. They have also made a statement about the Crown Suppliers on a day when, indubitably, the bulk of the British people are depressed at the thought that nurses have come out on strike for the first time in the history of that profession. That being so, my right hon. and hon. Friends will remain extremely worried and look to the support of the Chair such as the then Opposition Members received in 1978–79 in circumstances which we do not believe were any more severe than those which prevail today.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can take this matter any further.
Mr. Nellist rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard the hon. Member once.
Mr. Nellist: Not on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard the hon. Member shouting across the Chamber.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time please. I shall call the three hon. Members who have been rising and then move on.
Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The protection of the reputation of the House is one of your prime duties. I cannot compare the 1970s with the late 1980s except to say that I was just as involved then in opposing cuts as I am now. There is one difference about today. For the first time in, I think, 800 years, St. Bartholomew's hospital nurses are on strike. I know that you will not explain why an application under Standing Order No. 20 was not acceptable or why a request for a statement could not be met, but I would like to back up the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), particularly as we can spend 20 minutes on a written answer about the Moonies and we can enjoy the company of the junior Minister for health who, while my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said thousands were out on strike, contradicted him, but was not prepared to get to the Dispatch Box to put those facts, as she sees them, before the House and be cross-examined on them. You, Mr. Speaker, are the only one who can judge the criteria and whether the Moonies and pub opening hours, or the hundreds of nurses outside the building and the thousands more throughout the country, count more in the public's attention.
998
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you do not make a decision today—although today is the day on which the strike is taking place—to come back tomorrow and say whether the criteria applied in the 1970s were different from those applied in the 1980s. It looks to me—
Mr. Speaker rose—
Mr. Nellist: I shall finish on this point.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not having the hon. Member pointing his finger at me.
Mr. Nellist: It looks to me as though the Government have used the Moonies and the Crown Suppliers to cover up, through you, the fact that they are not prepared to answer questions on the Health Service.
Mr. Speaker: I do not decide whether the Government use the procedure to make a statement or to answer a question at the end of Question Time. That is not a matter for me. Provided that it is in order, it is done. It is not a decision over which I have any discretion at all.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to consider the traffic implications for this building which arise from the demonstration? I have visited four hospitals in my area today. Nurses and hospital staff have had a poster made which says:
"Hoot if you support the NHS and the nurses."
Car after car hooted. I can confirm that it is only the Tory Government who do not give a hoot for the NHS.
If the nurses and lobbyists come to the House with that poster, will they be allowed to show it? As an opinion poll shows that well over 90 per cent. of the British public support the NHS and the nurses in this campaign, it will be very noisy out there. May I have your assurance that there will not be a problem and that they will be allowed to show the poster?
Mr. Speaker: As long as they do so outside the Chamber.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I will keep this short, and I think that it is a genuine point. Surely, when a request for a statement comes to your office, you have to give your permission for the statement to be made. Do you acquaint yourself with the contents of that statement and decide whether it is worthy of being made that day?
It does not seem to make much sense that we can have this peculiar statement, using an arcane device, to hear all about the Moonies and to have a statement about the Crown Suppliers that left more questions unanswered than it answered, when a genuine desire for a statement on grave disputes in the National Health Service does not find favour. So that we can assist you, will you tell us the criteria?
Mr. Speaker: I have discretion in regard to Government statements. If the Government say that they will make a statement, we have to accept that. Similarly, if a Minister wishes to answer a question at the end of questions, as happened today, that also is not a matter for my discretion.
Mr. Heffer: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman once. I said that I would hear the three other hon. Members who had been rising. We must now go on to the ballot for notices of motions.
Mr. Heffer: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman once.
Mr. Heffer: This is an entirely different point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be, but I said that I would hear the three other hon. Members who were rising. The hon. Member was not one of them. We must move on to the ballot for notices of motions.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 19 FEBRUARY
The Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Malcolm Moss

Mr. Timothy Wood

Dr. John Marek

Transplant Notification
4.52 pm
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require health authorities in England and Wales and health boards in Scotland to establish an effective system of identifying potential organ and tissue donors and for notifying the same to an approved organ and tissue procurement organisation; and for connected purposes.
By this Bill, I seek to bring to the attention of the House a most important problem of health provision in Britain today. There are vital areas where demand is greatly increasing and where at least part of that increase is due to the very success of those areas. At the outset, it is appropriate to mention my gratitude for advice and support eagerly offered for bringing forward the Bill. As with so many parts of health provision, there are many admirable contributions from the professionals and equally from those who make considerable efforts in a voluntary capacity.
Various names readily occur—the Kidney Research Unit for Wales Foundation, the Welsh Kidney Patient Association, Professor Salaman of the university of Wales college of medicine. Mr. Ross Taylor of the Royal Victoria infirmary of Newcastle upon Tyne, and their colleagues and Miss Esther Rantzen and the "That's Life" television programme. All their contributions deserve tribute.
Few if any of us would say that we are completely satisfied with all that is being done. None the less, in being positive, it behoves us to say that tremendous advances have been made in the National Health Service. Treatments are now possible that not so long ago were but a dream for the highest levels of medical science, let alone being countenanced by the layman, particularly by the patients who would benefit. Not least has this been true of transplant surgery, and even now I doubt whether these advances are yet as widely appreciated as they deserve to be. Surgeons transplant corneas, kidneys, livers, pancreases, hearts, lungs, hearts and lungs together and heart valves, besides bone and skin tissue.
Nor is the scale of the operations readily known. Last year, there were three lung transplants, 65 heart and lung transplants, 247 heart transplants, 200 liver transplants, 1,159 cornea transplants and 1,566 kidney transplants. Imagine the change effected, the new life after a heart transplant, the change in quality of life with no more dialysis after a kidney transplant and the restoration of sight after a cornea transplant. Perhaps we cannot easily imagine these transformations until we have had that experience or closely known someone who has undergone transplant surgery, but clearly it must make a glorious difference.
The possibility of these transplants and the awareness of those possibilities inevitably provoke their own demand. Who would not wish to have the improved quality of life, in any of its different forms? Before, there were no waiting lists for treatments that were not available or did not exist. The total of more than 3,000 transplants carried out last year is, I am afraid, not sufficient. That pace will be unlikely to make a progressive reduction in the waiting lists. A continuing increase will have to be expected.
Let me refer to the situation for kidney patients. As I have said, in 1987 there were 1,566 kidney transplants. There are now 3,485 more people waiting for the same

1001
treatment, and this does not include any who have not registered, for whatever reason. Additionally, it can be assumed that new patients will be diagnosed as in need of dialysis. Estimates based on a rate of 50 per million project 2,500 more requiring dialysis each year and, in turn, 2,500 more each year for kidney transplants. Therefore, a repeat of last year's transplant operations would not reduce the waiting list by that number of 1,566. Instead, the number will grow from approximately 3,500 to approximately 4,500.
The same could well be true for the other types of transplant, particularly for heart and lung transplants, where the ratio of transplants performed to the respective waiting list is greater again than the ratio for kidney patients. Understandably, there is no one simple reason frustrating greater progress but, above all, it is frustrated by the shortage in the number of organs becoming available for transplant. This was brought out in the report of the DHSS working party. That report estimated that there are 4.000 brain deaths annually — a number sufficient to match the need for kidneys, the largest requirement, if only a higher proportion of those with brain death were to become donors.
The working party brought forward its recommendations providing a voluntary code of conduct for organ transplant identification. This reaffirms the criteria for brain stem deaths, defines when organs need to be removed and expects the senior doctor involved to seek permission for removal of the organs. These recommendations make no difference, in that the most important aspect—the identification of suitable organs—remains voluntary. The results show that the voluntary approach is not adequate, and there is no encouragement to think that it will yet succeed at the levels necessary.
I feel that the time has come to acknowledge the inadequacies of the concept of voluntary approach and to move to legislation. My Bill would put into effect the aims of the voluntary arrangements by making a requirement that the necessary questions about donations are asked —the vital questions that are not now being asked often enough. It does not interfere with any doctor's clinical freedom, but I suggest that it is the only way to achieve a significant increase in organ donation, ideally to a sufficiency to match the presently rising need.
I do not pretend that these are the easiest questions to ask, however much they need asking. They come at a time
1002
of great emotion and grief. The loss of the loved one means that this can never be easy for either relative or doctor. However, that is no different from the feelings that prevail now under the voluntary arrangements. At less emotional times, almost every one of us would agree that these gifts of life represent one of the finest gestures that can be made. Extending or improving the life of another can be a great source of comfort in bereavement: the knowledge that that greatest loss can yet result in a gift of inestimable value.
What, then, is likely to be achieved? The Bill does not take an untrodden path. Essentially similar legislation is in force in the majority of states of the United States of America. Let me take the example of one state, Arizona, where the period immediately after the legislation came into force showed a threefold to fivefold increase in the number of organs identified for transplant compared with the number for the corresponding period before the legislation came into force. In the adjoining state of Nevada, there was no increase during that period. Nevada has since intoduced a transplant notification law.
A simple projection can be made to show what a threefold increase in the organs available could do for rising waiting lists. The working party report identifies that there is the potential for that increase in organ identification. The number of transplant operations needs to increase significantly. The difference that can he made to the quality of life justifies the steps that I propose. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gwilym Jones, Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Ray Whitney, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Tony Favell, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Eric Forth, Dr. Norman Godma n, Mr. Jeremy Hanley and Mr. Allan Rogers.

Transplant Notification
  TRANSPLANT NOTIFICATION
  Mr. Gwilym Jones accordingly presented a Bill to require health authorities in England and Wales and health boards in Scotland to establish an effective system of identifying potential organ and tissue donors and for notifying the same to an approved organ and tissue procurement organisation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 April and to be printed. [Bill 92].

Licensing Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
5.2 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am certainly not one to question your judgment—nor would any other hon. Member do so — but many people outside the House will wonder why amendment No. 1, which stands in my name and the names of many of my hon. Friends, was not included in Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments. It goes to the heart of the Bill on the question of permitted hours, giving the licensee scope and discretion in deciding for which 12 hours to open between the hours of 10 am and midnight. I feel that it should have been included in the selection, or that we should be told why it is not.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with the hon

Licensing Bill
  New clause 2

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR ON LICENSED PREMISES TO PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN
    1. — (1) Section 169 of the principal Act (offences on licensed premises in connection with the supply of intoxicating liquor to, or its consumption by, persons under eighteen) shall have effect with the following amendments.
    (2) In subsection (1) (which penalises the sale of intoxicating liquor by a licensee or his servant to a person known to be under eighteen), the word "knowingly", in the first place where it occurs, shall be ommitted.
    (3) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
    "(4A) Where a person is charged under subsection (1) of this section with the offence of selling intoxicating liquor to a person under eighteen and he is charged by reason of his own act, it shall be a defence for him to prove—

    (a) that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence; or

    (b) that he had no reason to suspect that the person was under eighteen.

    (4B) Where the person charged with an offence under subsection (1) of this section is the licence holder and he is charged by reason of the act or default of some other person, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence under that subsection." —
    (4) For subsections (8) and (9), there shall be substituted the following subsection—
    "(8) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 of the standard scale; and on a person's second or subsequent conviction of such an offence the court may, if the offence was committed by him as the holder of a justices' licence, order that he shall forfeit the licence."—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, to leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert—
    '(b) that he had good reason to believe that the person was over eighteen'.
    New Clause 7—Under Age Drinking—
    'In section 169 (Serving or delivering intoxicating liquor to or for consumption by persons under 18) of the principal Act—
    (1) In subsections (1), (5) and (6) the word "knowingly" shall he omitted wherever it occurs.
    Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). I had hoped that amendment No. 1 would be included. I am not questioning the judgment of the Chair, but it matters to many people in they industry what hours the work. The amendment would have provided us with the opportunity to help those who have to serve the public. I am not questioning your judgment in the slightest, but many people who work in the industry and have to open for these hours will be bitterly disappointed.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I can say to both hon. Members and to the whole House that Mr. Speaker gives very careful consideration to all factors—including the length of time for which any particular subject may have been considered in the Standing Committee —before making his selection. I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Members. They may be able to use their ingenuity to raise these points on the amendments that have been selected, although I am sure that if they do, they will be careful to remember the rules of order of the House.
    (2) After subsection (10) there shall be added the following subsection—
    "(11) In proceedings for an offence under any provision of this section it is a defence to prove that a person charged with the offence believed the person to be of or over the age mentioned in that provision and had reasonable grounds for the belief.".'.
    Government amendments Nos. 18, 19, 21 and 22.
    Mr. Hogg: One feature of our debates on Second Reading and in Committee was the concern felt in the House and elsewhere about the problem of under-age drinking. That concern was also reflected in the report of the committee, chaired by Lady Masham, which was established by the Home Office. The new clause is our

    1005
    considered response to that anxiety. It contains the proposals that we are bringing forward in the hope of resolving at least some of the difficulties.
    I think that it would help if I spoke only briefly on the new clause and tried to identify only its major elements, because I know that many hon. Members want to participate in the debate. The main change that we propose is to delete the requirement of "knowingly" from the first limb of the offence in section 169(1). The justification for making that change is that it is too difficult to prove, in the context of that offence, that the person had the required knowledge. One of two things has to be proved in the context of that offence — either express knowledge that the customer is under age or a deliberate inattention to that possibility; closure of one's eyes to a fact would probably constitute the required degree of knowledge.
    It is probably because of the difficulty of establishing the offence that the subsection has given rise to very few convictions. In 1986—the last year for which we have records — there were 165 convictions under that subsection in England and Wales. Bearing in mind that there are about 145,325 licensees, that is not very many. I recommend to the House that it delete the word "knowingly" from the first offence in subsection 1. That would transfer a burden to licensees that they did not previously carry.
    One has then to ask whether the offence should he an absolute offence or one to which there should be a defence. That matter exercised the members of the committee, some of whom took the view that it should be an absolute offence to which there should be no defence. I do not think that it would be right in principle or practice to make it an absolute offence. Therefore, we have introduced a defence, which is set out in the new clause.
    I make no apologies for the fact that the defence has been lifted — I think, without alteration — from the equivalent legislation in Scotland, the 1976 Act. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) is smiling. He is right that in this respect we have had something to learn from the Scots. I am delighted to pay tribute to the Scots. We took the defence provided in their legislation and incorporated into our own.
    In the end, one has to ask, "Have we got the balance right? Is the defence too liberal or too oppressive to licensees?" No doubt hon. Members will wish to address their attention to that question. I can give only my view, which is that we have the balance about right. It appears to have worked in Scotland, where there have been significantly more convictions, having regard to the number of licensees, than we have in this country.
    The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is looking at me with a questioning eye. Let me give him the figures. In Scotland, there were 106 convictions in 1986, against 13,900 licensed premises.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hogg: I should not have mentioned the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Anderson: If the Minister will allow me, I shall ask him a pertinent question. As there are now more liberal laws in Scotland — presumably the law in this respect was previously the same—what, if any, is the difference
    1006
    in the number of convictions before the law was liberalised and under the current position when the law is now substantially more liberal than in England and Wales?
    Mr. Hogg: If I had been the hon. Gentleman, I should have asked precisely the same question, being anxious to torment the Minister at the Dispatch Box. I must confess that I do not know the answer. I have the figures only as far back as 1979 —[Interruption.] Well, I willingly acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has a good debating point. What I do know is that, having regard to the number of licensees, more convictions have been obtained in Scotland—as a proportion of the number of licensees —than has been possible in England and Wales during comparable periods. That is basically because transfernng the burden of proof has made prosecution easier. Without apology to the House, I believe that we should make the offence easier to prove. Either we are serious in trying to tackle the problem of under-age drinking, in which case we go along the kind of route that I have outlined to the House, or we are not.
    Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is not the number of convictions, 165 out of 296 prosecutions, as high a figure as there is generally in criminal convictions where there have been pleas of not guilty? What is my hon. Friend complaining about?
    Mr. Hogg: I was pointing out to my hon. and learned Friend that there are about 145,325 licensees. Anybody who has studied the evidence, read the Masham report or even had regard to the evidence of his own eyes, knows perfectly well that a lot of under-age drinking is going on, both in public houses and through the purchase of alcohol from supermarkets. Having regard to that evidence, the fact that there were only 165 convictions in 1986 suggests, to me at least, that the offence is too difficult to prove.
    I advise my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), whose experience is as great as my own—some might say that it is greater in the context of criminal cases — that in this case the concept of "knowingly" is extraordinarily difficult to establish. I find it difficult to see how one could establish that against a licensee in a busy pub at night. Therefore, I am not in the least bit surprised to find that that aspect of the law is little enforced.
    Mr. Terry Dicks: Why is the emphasis in the proposals on punishing the licensee? Why does my hon. Friend not seek to punish the youngsters who knowingly try to mislead the licensee? Why does he not seek to punish perhaps the parents of those youngsters who go in, knowingly, to deceive a licensee? Why is my hon. Friend being so hard on the licensee in this respect?
    Mr. Hogg: I suspect that many hon. Members will say that I am not being harsh enough and that the defence is too liberal. I advise my hon. Friend that it is already an offence to sell alcohol to those who are under age. The question is whether we are serious about that offence. My hon. Friend's intervention suggests that he does not think that we should be in a position to enforce the law against a licensee. I take a different view and I think that it is a question of balance. I am commending to the House an offence that will be committed when there is an occasion to sell to an under-age person. That will be matched by a defence, which I hope has been drawn in sufficiently wide terms so as not to punish people for honest mistakes—
    Mr. Dicks rose—
    Mr. Hogg: If my hon. Friend wants me to give way again, I shall of course do so.
    Mr. Dicks: I make the point about punishment for the young person who knowingly tries to deceive the licensee and possibly some kind of punishment against that young person's parents, who should be responsible. My hon. Friend is putting the emphasis on the licensees, who have a difficult job. Why is he not taking some action against others who deliberately break the law by seeking to drink when they are under age?
    Mr. Hogg: I advise my hon. Friend that it is already an offence for an under-age person to buy a drink. That is already on the statute book. If my hon. Friend would care to refresh his memory on that point, it is in section 169(2). Is my hon. Friend really saying that in the absence of knowledge, we should prosecute the parents of a child who goes into a pub? I would not subscribe willingly to such a proposition.
    We have got the balance about right. Of course, it is a question of judgment and I am sure that I shall be told by other people that I have been too liberal to licensees. However, I present this proposal to the House on the basis that it is a balanced approach, which is likely to make the law more enforceable but in a way which is not unduly oppressive to licensees.
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Anderson: On the obligation of young people—the point raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) — the Minister will recall that the Masham committee drew attention to the problems of the police in obtaining the age of young people which might assist them in obtaining a conviction. The Masham committee made the specific recommendation that it should be an offence for a young person to refuse to disclose his age to a police officer, who reasonably suspects him of being under age, so that the law can properly be enforced. As that would usefully have buttressed the Government's proposals, why did they reject that recommendation of the Masham committee?
    Mr. Hogg: That recommendation is contained in paragraph 155 of Lady Masham's report. I came to the conclusion that it was wrong and I shall tell the hon. Member for Swansea, East why I thought that it was wrong. It is a basic principle of English law that one is not obliged to incriminate oneself. The hon. Gentleman is as well aware of that principle as I am. It is an offence for an under-age person to buy alcohol in the circumstances that we are discussing. That being so, had we acceded to Lady Masham's recommendation, we would have been putting on an under-age person an obligation, backed by criminal law, to make a statement which could itself prove that that person had committed an offence. I do not subscribe to that proposition, because it infringes all the principles about self-incrimination. That is why the Government and I declined to follow that piece of advice. The hon. Gentleman may not agree, but that is the reason.
    Mr. James Couchman: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, if it is difficult for police officers to ascertain the ages of youngsters in public houses, it is 10 times more difficult for licensees to do so?
    Mr. Hogg: Undoubtedly, it is not always easy for a licensee to do so. That is why, when we created the defence
    1008
    which features in the new clause, we created a defence of a kind which we think that a licensee will be able to establish so that he cannot be said to be either negligent or culpable in the sense that we mean it.
    We have the great advantage of the Scottish experience in this regard, as in many others. I am not aware that the licensees of Scotland are up in arms against the defence that is provided for in Scottish legislation. That is why I find incorporating the Scottish example so useful. We are building on a tried and tested precedent which I do not think has given rise to the kind of problem that my hon. Friend has outlined.
    Mr. Hoyle: As the Minister seems to have armed himself with a lot of statistics, can he tell me how many supermarkets have been prosecuted?
    Mr. Hogg: The short answer is no, Sir. However, if I can find out before the debate has concluded, and if there is a convenient peg on which to hang that piece of information, I shall provide it; otherwise, I shall try to write to the hon. Gentleman at his and my convenience. I do not know the answer to his question at the moment.
    Sir Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend is being very helpful, and it is appreciated by everyone. He has reminded the House that it is an offence for a young person who is under age to seek to buy alcohol in a public house. He gave us the figures for licensees' convictions, but has he any knowledge of the number of young people who have been convicted in recent years of having committed that offence? If he does not have those figures to hand, will it be possible for us to have them later?
    Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that my answer is exactly the same as that which I gave to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle): I do not have that particular statistic to hand, but I will try to obtain it before the end of the debate. If I fail, I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith)—and I apologise to him.
    Sir Bernard Braine: I note that my hon. Friend does not have those figures to hand, but he will know that the OPCS survey — upon which the Government sat for a year before its disclosure—gave clear figures about the harm being done to young people drinking in public houses—they were not getting their liquor from supermarkets. He must have access to those OPCS figures and therefore must know the size of the problem. Perhaps that information will assist him to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith).
    Mr. Hogg: As is so often the case, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). My right hon. Friend is right to say that there is a problem of under-age drinking, both in public houses and as a result of purchases at supermarkets. If the House is conscious of its obligations it has jolly well got to do something about that problem. The conclusion that I have drawn — I believe that it is shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point — is that section 169(1), in its present form, is defective.
    Sir Bernard Braine indicated assent.
    Mr. Hogg: I note that my right hon. Friend is nodding in agreement.

    1009
    The proposals that I have put before the House are designed to make that law more enforceable without, at the same time, being unreasonable to licensees. I commend the new clause to the House on that basis.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: We believe that it is entirely appropriate that under-age drinking should be the first subject of debate on Report, because it is an important topic. It exercised our minds a great deal in Committee and the Committee regarded it as an important priority.
    We first raised the problem on Second Reading and then followed that with several amendments in Committee. At a superficial glance it would appear that the Minister has listened to what we have said and taken on board some of our concerns about this grave problem, which is presently affecting so many young people.
    The Minister ended his speech by saying that under-age drinking is a major problem in this country. I do not intend to rehearse all the statistics that we quoted on Second Reading and in Committee, but we should be under no illusion about just how major a problem it is. I wish to emphasise the scale and nature of the problem of under-age drinking. The Minister said that we could see the evidence with our own eyes, and that is true. All the evidence, including Government-sponsored research from the Health Education Council, from Action on Alcohol Abuse and from the Masham report, mentioned by the Minister, which reported while the Committee was still sitting, indisputably proves that under-age drinking is a major problem.
    Let me remind the House of one or two important statistics so that we get this problem into perspective. A survey conducted by the Health Education Council showed that 65 per cent. of all 14 and 15-year-olds have drunk alcohol on more than one occasion. The Masham report showed that 50 per cent. of 15-year-old boys had had a drink in the previous seven days. It also showed that 61 per cent. of 17-year-old boys and 54 per cent. of 17-year-old girls had had a drink in the previous week. The majority of 16 and 17-year-olds do their drinking in public houses. That information shows that under-age drinking in public houses is a major problem and one that we are right to concentrate our attention upon.
    A further survey conducted by Exeter university showed that not only are young people drinking, but that they are also drinking far too much for their own or anyone's good. They are consuming, on average, 10 units of alcohol a week, which means that many must be consuming more. When we consider that level of consumption in comparison with the figure suggested by the Department of Health and Social Security as the average, safe intake for adults, it gives us an alarming picture of the likely future trends of alcohol problems.
    I do not believe that it is alarmist to say that today's under-age drinkers may become tomorrow's alcoholics. If we allow under-age drinking to continue at its present rate, we are storing up many future problems for those individuals and for the country.
    Alcohol abuse, especially by young people, is a major problem. We are all aware that alcohol abuse costs this country £2 billion a year. It would be interesting to consider what the Health Service could do with that money today, but perhaps we should not go down that road. It is clear that alcohol is a major problem for young people, because alcohol abuse kills or seriously injures ten
    1010
    times as many youngsters as are killed or injured by drug abuse. However, quite rightly, we spend a lot of time and money discouraging young people from taking drugs, but we do not pay the same attention to discouraging young people from drinking alcohol.
    We all enjoy alcohol from time to time, and we probably regard ourselves as social drinkers. Therefore, we often shy away from giving advice and paying attention to the problems that come with alcohol abuse. As the Minister has suggested, we should start the debate in agreement by acknowledging that there is a major alcohol problem and acknowledging its extent.
    The next stage is to decide what we should do about the problem. In Committee, I said that there were no quick answers, no simple solutions and no easy, straightforward changes to legislation that could cure the problem at a stroke, once and for all. However, I believe that we agreed in Committee—indeed, the Minister acknowledged it—that some action was needed. The Minister has said that there should be changes to section 169 of the principal Act. I accept that that is necessary.
    In Committee, I pointed out that landlords and bar staff have difficulty in recognising who is 17 and who is 18. However, the fact that it is sometimes difficult to judge a person's age exactly should not be used as an excuse to do nothing about the problem. We cannot say that, because it is difficult in some instances to tell a person's age, we should ignore the problem.
    The Minister has presented the House with the new clause and said that he believes that it will help the situation. I do not believe that it will make any significant difference and for that reason my hon. Friends and I have tabled amendment (a) to new clause 2. I would also recommend the House to consider carefully new clause 7, tabled by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). Why has the Minister apparently changed his mind since we discussed the matter in Committee? We discussed the matter as recently as 12 January, only 22 days ago, yet it seems that t he Minister has reconsidered the matter since then.
    On 12 January, when the Minister discussed this matter in Committee, he said that it was difficult to prosecute to prove the concept of "knowingly". He repeated that assertion today, and we agree with the Minister. However, in Committee, he went on to say that he favoured a
    "statutory defence along the lines of the Firearms Act 1968."
    The Minister considered that that would be the proper way forward and would be a tighter way of righting the law so that we could get the balance right between making sure that the problem was tackled and that landlords were protected in the necessary way.
    The Minister went on to say:
    "The defence would be that the person doing the supplying had a belief that the person was over age, and that he had reasonable grounds for that belief." —[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 12 January 1988; c. 337.]
    The Minister clearly said that the landlord should have reasonable grounds for the belief that the person was 18. That was his suggestion as recently as January, and that was the suggestion on which he sought consultation on 22 December in his letter to interested parties. The Minister owes it to the House to explain what has happened in the past 22 days to make him change his mind from the preferred solution, which we would have found acceptable and which he outlined in his letter and proposed on 12 January.

    1011
    5.30 pm
    All the responses that I have seen to the Minister's letter of 22 December are either in favour of his proposals or have said that the Minister is not going far enough. On 12 January, no hon. Member objected to the Minister's proposals. The Institute of Alcohol Studies suggested this proposal to the Wakeham committee. Action on Alcohol Abuse said that the proposals in the Minister's letter did not go far enough. The Justices' Clerks Society wants the sale of alcohol to under-18s to be an absolute offence—not something with which I agree — and wants to go further than the Minister's proposals. Why has the Minister backed down so completely from his assurance of 12 January?
    The Minister is simply proposing the reintroduction of "knowingly" in another way. To say, as the new clause says, that the landlord should have
    "no reason to suspect that the person was under eighteen"
    is almost meaningless, because it does not oblige the landlord to make any attempt to find out a customer's age. Landlords can make genuine mistakes, and we all recognise the difficulties. Some landlords — perhaps a minority, but still a significant number—will think that it does not matter if they serve people under the age of 18 because the law is woolly and they will get away with it time and again.
    Our amendment (a) tries to deal with that. We agree that selling to someone under 18 should not be an absolute offence. We should allow for a mistake that is genuine, but not provide a blanket dispensation for landlords to sell to people under 18 without obliging them to make checks. The Minister's statistics on convictions in Scotland prove little. We all know that convictions in England and Wales have been reduced dramatically over the past 10 years simply because the law was not operable. In England and Wales in 1985 there were 744 convictions, whereas in 1975 there were nearly 4,000. One reason for the reduction in the number of cases brought to the courts is that the law was so woolly and it was difficult for charges to be pressed.
    The Minister said that either we are serious about trying to tackle the problem of under-age drinking or we are not. We agree that there is a distinction to be drawn between those who are serious about tackling this problem and those who merely pay lip service to it. We had hoped that the Minister would take the matter seriously. Our amendment is the serious way of tackling this problem. I urge the House to support amendment (a) and new clause 7.
    Sir Bernard Braine: The House may recall that on Second Reading my main anxiety was that the Government were not prepared to tackle the problem of under-age drinking. I could not understand why the Government, introducing the first Licensing Bill for decades, appeared unwilling to tackle a problem graver than illicit drug-taking. About 1,000 young people die every year as a result of alcohol abuse. More young people die every year or have their health gravely impaired through alcohol abuse than heroin abuse. I am delighted that the Government have seen the error of their ways and are now prepared in new clause 2 to begin to move on this issue.
    I say "begin to move" because new clause 2 differs from the amendment which, in a letter of 22 December, the Home Office indicated it would recommend to the
    1012
    Wakeham committee. The amendment was to delete the word "knowingly", so making the offence absolute, but to introduce a defence for the licensee, namely:
    "The person charged to prove that he or she believed the other person to be of or above the age … and had reasonable ground for the belief."
    I am not concerned that the Government have changed the defence to "due diligence". After all, that is the wording of other sections of the Licensing Act 1964 in relation to young people, and it is a defence used in other statutes, such as the Fair Trading Act. I object to the inclusion in new clause 2 of the additional defence of the landlord,
    "(b) that he had no reason to suspect that the person was under eighteen."
    To prescribe an additional defence weakens the measure so much that we might as well have been left with the present wording of the Act, to wit "knowingly sold". The onus will still be on the prosecution to prove that the licensee "knowingly" sold to the person under age.
    It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Government have bowed to pressure from the Brewers Society and other drink industry representations on this matter. The Justices' Clerks Society, which has a special expertise in this area, is of the view that selling to youngsters under drinking age should be an absolute offence. In discussing the Home Office recommendations of 22 December and my new clause 7, the clerks said that they would go along with it because
    "it was a step in the right direction",
    but they did not believe that it was good enough. Nor do I. The Government's amendment, including the words,
    "had no reason to suspect that the person was under eighteen",
    is nowhere near good enough.
    I am dismayed, too, that, under the weight of evidence collected by Government statisticians, public concern and the wise counsels of a working party established by the Home Office, the Government are so weak-kneed that they have to bow to a vested interest. I feel so strongly about this issue that I shall press my amendment to a vote, unless my hon. Friend the Minister assures me that the second part of the new clause touching on a defence will be withdrawn.
    I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and her colleagues who served on the Committee, particularly for bringing the issue of alcohol and young people to the fore. This is a national scandal, and I am grateful to all who drew attention to the matter.
    It is said that the Government did not have an amendment ready for Committee stage where it could have been discussed and improved. I am pleased to note that some of my hon. Friends are beginning to see the necessity of Government action after the information supplied by the Opposition — alas, not by the Government. However, it was given to them.
    In that respect, I note the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) during the 10th and final sitting of the Committee:
    "I have been brooding on the issue for a while.… The more I think about this the clearer it becomes that some of the things said in earlier debates are valid … If there were alternative places for these young people to drink, to gather and to talk, I believe that many of those who now get hooked"—
    "hooked" is the right word to use—
    "into drinking alcohol would be perfectly happy not to do so."

    1013
    Youth leaders in my constituency, and no doubt in many other constituencies, have been saying for years that the problem is getting out of hand. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State paid tribute to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent, but he also paid tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), stating:
    "He will recall that we had talks about a possible way of amending the law. We discussed — the hon. Gentleman mentioned it in the Committee, as did I, in further discussion —the deletion from the offence of the word "knowingly" and the inclusion of a statutory defence along the lines of the Firearms Act 1968."
    We should note the words:
    "We felt that that might be a proper way forward."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 12 January 1988; c. 336–37.]
    I consider that it is
    Why this change of mind? Why has the Bill been worded in this way? Why move even further away from the expert opinion of the Justices' Clerks Society? Who is the Minister trying to placate? Why am I so deeply concerned? I am so concerned because I consider the facts. One out of every five 15-year-old boys drinks 25 units of alcohol per week. The safe limit for adult males is 21 units. One out of every 10 15-year-old girls drinks above the safe limit for adult women of 14 units of alcohol each week.
    By the age of 15, alcohol consumption is normal and it takes place illegally on licensed premises. Two out of five boys and one in three girls have been drunk on more than one occasion. One in five boys and one in eight girls have been unable to go to school after drinking. Where does this evidence come from? Have I plucked it out of the air? It comes from Government-sponsored research.
    Yet, in an answer on 17 November, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), said that the number of licensees found guilty of "knowingly" selling to under-I8s had gone down from 248 in 1979 to 165 in 1986. It was appalling that the Minister could not give any figures for the period to 1979. Why not? Nobody had bothered to collect them. That is why I hope hon. Members will support my new clause.
    We must monitor the effects of liquor licensing, without which we are floundering in the dark. My hon. Friend conceded that the reason why few licensees are brought to court and convicted is the difficulty of proving that they have knowingly sold to under-age drinkers, the consequent waste of police and court resources and the Government's insistence on reneging on their promise to include words such as:
    "That he had no reason to suspect that the person was under 18."
    This will render section 169 of the Licensing Act 1964
    The Government must know that public and press opinion wants tighter measures. If the House represents the nation, it should know that the national and local press have been arguing for these for months past. I have sheaves of reports from provincial newspapers, but I shall refer only to two of them. The Colchester Evening Gazette of 19 January, under a headline, "A Welcome Crackdown", stated:
    "The Government's planned blitz on under-age drinking is long overdue. The law, as it stands, does not do enough to discourage the sale of alcohol to people who are obviously too young. The well-worn argument is that it is difficult to tell a person's age accurately, and teenagers invariably look older than they really are. In that way, those who sell alcohol illegally are able to shift the blame from themselves. Some, it
    1014
    appears, take the view that it is up to the person whose age might be in doubt to produce proof that he or she is over 18. Too many blind eyes are being turned. And far too many young people are becoming dependent on alcohol from an early age.
    Teenage drinking has become a growing worry, with the problems it causes increasingly more apparent. Those problems have surfaced time and again in Colchester town centre, where gangs of youths swigging from bottles and cans have, at times, made Saturday shopping a misery. A police woman, beaten up in Colchester town centre last year, for example, blamed the easy availability of drink for many of the problems. Anything to discourage alcohol abuse among the vulnerable under 18s is to be welcomed."
    Let me quote now from the Yorkshire Evening Post of 19 January which, under a headline "Alcohol Abuse," states:
    "The Government's latest moves to combat the problem of under-age drinking are a disappointment. While the announcement of stiffer fines for publicans serving alcohol to under 18s is welcome, more could be done to tackle the problem at its roots.
    The proposed legislation seems to ignore 50 recommendations made by an independent working party on young people and alcohol headed by Baroness Masham. The proposed Government Licensing Bill does not have the teeth to bite the bullet; it avoids direct action in favour of renewed publicity and educational campaigns. Until we see the authorities armed with a positive mandate to fight this problem it will continue to plague society.
    And today's young drinkers often grow into tomorrow's social outcasts."
    The great playwright, Arthur Miller, once said that a newspaper is a mirror reflecting the views of society. I guarantee that such views have appeared in every provincial newspaper in the country over the past year, and, if hon. Members read their local newspapers, they must know the truth.
    5.45 pm
    Mr. Colvin: I must declare an interest before my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) calls me to task, as I am a licensee. The licensing trade shares the view expressed by my right hon. Friend. Surely it is not so much the licensee as the off-licensee who is at fault. There has been an increase in fines from £100 to £400, but that is nothing compared with the loss of livelihood if he is caught selling drink to under-age drinkers. Surely, therefore, we should tackle the off-licence trade.
    Sir Bernard Braine: We have been told that there are very few prosecutions. For once, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). The overwhelming majority of licensees would like to see the law strengthened. They want to keep orderly houses. In some cases, it is impossible for them to do so. It is high time that the police were given the powers to deal with some of the matters that will emerge from this debate.
    I have been to the south and the north, so I must also refer to a midland newspaper. The headline of the Wolverhampton Express and Star of 19 January stated:
    "Get tough to dry out our teeny tipplers."
    The article continued:
    "The astounding statistic that half of all 11-year-old boys and one third of 11-year-old girls drink reveals the necessity for urgency by the Government.
    Though there obviously are landlords who knowingly serve drink to people under-age, guessing people's ages is no simple matter these days. There is also the problem that"—
    Mr. Hoyle rose—
    Sir Bernard Braine: I shall give way in a moment, but, out of respect for the people of Wolverhampton, who loyally support this newspaper, I wish to finish the quotation. The article continues:
    "it is physically impossible for a landlord to know exactly who is in his pub at busy times, and it is a simple matter for an 18-year-old to buy for a minor. However, as the problem has already reached epidemic proportions, there is no alternative but to make landlords doubly aware of the onus that is on them."
    Mr. Hoyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that any landlord has served an 11-year-old child in a pub? If that is so, the landlord deserves every punishment.
    Sir Bernard Braine: I am merely reporting what the newspaper says. Before the hon. Gentleman shakes his head, let me say that newspapers reflect information collected by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, in a survey commissioned by the Government, to establish what was happening with teenagers in public houses. I am not the authority. The Government have the information. Let them provide it; let them publish it; and let us discuss it. If newspapers faithfully report what is happening, we should praise, not question or condemn, them.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is a question not of knowing the information—that is already available in numerous reports— but of enforcement and commitment? It is on those tests that the Government fail.
    Sir Bernard Braine: I fear that I must agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is the purpose of my amendment, and it will be the purpose of much of what I have to say.
    In a letter dated 10 December 1987 to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, the Institute of Alcohol Studies said:
    "A tightening of the law in this respect would show that the Government has taken the problem seriously and would be an important safeguard against any adverse effect the Bill might have on this problem ֵֵ At present the law is difficult to apply and one cannot expect police forces to try to enforce it or for magistrates courts to spend time in trying to prove that alcohol had been 'knowingly' sold ֵֵParents should accept their responsibilities but this cannot be effectively done if the law colludes with a bad situation and offers little help to conscientious parents."
    The letter goes on to hope that the Government would reply properly:
    "This would be a clear signal that the Government has a real concern about the problem and is determined to stamp it out."
    The only answer that we have received from the Government is tepid. I hope that the House will reject it and support my amendment, which goes much further in heeding those who deal with alcohol abuse — the Institute of Alcohol Studies, those who administer the law, the Justices' Clerks Society and the vast majority of magistrates, teachers and caring members of the public. They cannot understand why a problem affecting our youth—our lifeline to the future—is treated so lightly.
    Mr. Greg Knight: On reflection, does not my right hon. Friend consider that he is being a little unfair to the Government's new clause? Does he accept that there is a difference between the use of the word "knowingly" and the use of the defence mentioned in new clause 2, whereby the landlord would have to prove that
    1016
    there was no reason for him to suspect that the person was under 18? Does not new clause 2 put the landlord on guard, which is very different from the existing words in the statute?
    Sir Bernard Braine: For reasons that I shall not repeat —many hon. Members wish to speak—I made it clear that the Government have weakened their position by inserting a second defence, and I think that that is wrong.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps it would help the House if I were to explain that if new clause 2 is accepted, I am prepared to call amendment (a), in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for a division, and I shall ask her to move it formally at the appropriate time.
    With regard to new clause 7, which is being discussed with this group, the Chair will come to a decision when one has been made on new clause 2.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: I shall add such weight as I have to the Government's position on this matter.
    I support the anxiety that has been expressed about the problem of under-age drinking. It is notable that the House has accepted that absolute criminal responsibility, which is repugnant in principle and frequently inequitable in practice, is not the proper way to deal with the problem; not least because, as has been mentioned, the person who knows his or her age best is the under-age person to whom drink is supplied. Frequently, for the purposes of prosecution, the person who has committed an offence must be called as a witness to bring home a conviction against the licence holder or the person who has suppplied alcohol illegally.
    The Minister referred favourably to the Scottish position. The relevant provisions in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 are to be found in sections 68 and 71. With slight alteration, the Government propose a defence in terms such as are provided by section 71 of that Act.
    It is important to realise that that statutory provision represented a departure from the position prior to 1976, when the offence could be committed only knowingly. The Clayson committee, whose report formed a substantial basis for the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, spent much time and devoted much of its energy considering whether "knowingly" should remain. It resolved that it should not, and the defence now provided by section 71 of the 1976 Act is a consequence of its recommendations.
    It must be emphasised that previously in Scotland, and currently in England, the existence of the word "knowingly" in the definition of the offence necessarily meant and means that it is for the prosecution to prove, expressly or by implication, that the person charged committed the offence in the knowledge of what he or she was doing.
    The Government's proposals, which reflects the terms of section 71 of the 1976 Act, puts the obligation of proof fairly and squarely on the person charged. It says so in terms. If people who are charged fail to prove either that they used due diligence to prevent the occurrence of the offence or that they had no reason to suspect that the person concerned was under 18, they will fail to satisfy either of the twin arms of the defence and inevitably will be likely to be convicted.
    It is important to understand that the proposal represents a substantial change in the onus of proof with regard to knowledge or implied knowledge. Anecdotal

    1017
    evidence is notoriously unreliable in these matters. There is little doubt that, prior to 1976 in Scotland, successful attempts to bring home a conviction in relation to an offence in which the word "knowingly" appeared were extremely few and far between.
    I do not say that what is right for Scotland is necessarily always right for England and Wales, nor that what was right for Scotland in 1976 should necessarily still be right in 1988. The proper approach is to consider whether there is any evidence to suggest that in Scotland the section 71 defence gives unreasonable protection to licence holders or stands in the way of prosecution or conviction. In my judgment — I accept that it is entirely a matter of judgment — the Government have achieved a proper balance between the public interest and that of licence holders. Occasionally, in our desire to underline the problem of under-age drinking, we tend to forget that licence holders have rights.
    Although the Opposition will have a free vote, I shall be happy to support the Government's proposal in this regard if it is pressed to a Division.
    Mr. Colvin: I declare an interest as a licensee, a modest one. It may be necessary to quantify one's commercial interests in having a pub. I can only say that mine is more a local social necessity than a commercial enterprise.Without it, I do not think that the parish council or the parochial church council would have anywhere to meet. That is one reason why I am a publican. I took the pub to prevent it from being knocked down and the area developed as a housing estate.
    Having read from cover to cover the Official Report of the deliberations of Standing Committee H, I too am impressed by the time spent discussing the dangers of alcohol abuse and under-age drinking. Concern about under-age drinking is felt not only by hon. Members but by the public, publicans and the trade. That is why we welcomed the launch on 12 November 1987 of the campaign "Age Watch" to alert the public to the problem and remind staff in public houses of the penalties for selling drink to those under 18.
    6 pm
    I congratulate the Government on setting up the working party on "Young People and Alcohol" under the chairmanship of Baroness Masham. The working party's report to the ministerial group on alcohol abuse, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, led to Government new clause 2. I noted with interest the ministerial group's seven-point plan. The first proposal is:
    "To tighten the offence of selling alcohol to under-age drinkers and incease penalties for those found guilty of doing so."
    Secondly, the group calls for the
    "Creation of a new offence making it illegal for wholesalers to sell alcohol to persons under 18."
    That is very welcome. Thirdly, it proposes:
    "New regulations to require the alcoholic strength of prepackaged and dispensed drinks to be clearly shown."
    Fourthly, it calls for
    "Information aimed at particular groups such as young people."
    The fifth proposal is:
    "To request the BBC and independent broadcasting authority to review the way alcohol is presented to TV viewers."
    I think that hon. Members agree that that is important. The sixth proposal is:
    1018
    "To request the IBA and the Advertising Standards Authority … to take a fresh look at advertising codes of practice."
    The seventh proposal is:
    "Encouragement of the industry to increase promotion of low and non-alcoholic beers and wines."
    That is what the ministerial group wanted. So far, all, we have is the Government's proposal, which we are debating.
    The licensee, especially the publican—the on-licensee — is in no way interested in selling alcohol to those under 18. A conviction for doing so can result in loss of licence, livelihood and even the licensee's home. No responsible licensee would wish to take such risks when the penalties are so severe. The £100 fine—which will be increased to £400—is almost immaterial when compared with the other penalties that could befall any licensee who broke the law.
    The inclusion of the word "knowingly" in the Licensing Act 1964 has given some protection to the innocent licensee, but has still made it possible for irresponsible people to be prosecuted. Although I accept that the law regarding the sale of alcohol to young people needs tightening up, I do not believe that the removal of the word "knowingly" is the right way to do so.
    Notwithstanding the principle in British law, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State referred, of avoiding the danger of self-incrimination, I think that there could be more prosecutions under the existing law. Those under 18 can be prosecuted for purchasing and consuming alcohol on licensed premises — including registered clubs, but excluding private functions held on the premises. It would help if the consumption of .alcohol by under-18s in public places was banned.
    The debate once again raises the knotty issue of the introduction of identity cards for everyone over the age of 18. That would assist not only the publican but the police and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is also dealing with the knotty problem of firearms legislation. I welcome the crackdown on under-age drinking, but I do not believe that the Government have found the best way of doing it. I shall decide whether or not to support the Government's proposal after hearing the response by my hon. Friend the Minister. The other place must take on board what is said here and perhaps alter the Bill accordingly.
    Mr. Hoyle: I had better declare at once that one of the organisations whose view I may express is the National Association of Licensed House Managers. It is right that the association's view on such an important matter should be heard in the House, because it is a responsible body. I cannot think of anyone in the House or outside it who condones under-age drinking. It would be silly to do so. There is great concern that this is a growing disease, and I agree with every word that has been said about the consequences. It is a tragedy that so many young people find it easy to get hard liquor.
    I do not believe that deletion of the word "knowingly" will end the problem. Most licensees do not want underage drinkers on their premises. That can be a nuisance and can create a nuisance outside the premises. The licensee's difficulty is in detecting who is under age. The NALHM, as a responsible body, takes every precaution it can to avoid selling alcohol to those under age and that approach is also taken by the staff.

    1019
    It would be silly to say that that applies to every licensee. Of course it does not. There are one or two people who should be punished and convicted. However, one legal opinion says:
    "I know of no other occupation where an employee is automatically guilty of an offence as a result of lies, or deception by customers. That is the position the Licensee will be in. Further, in no other occupation is it so easy to become disqualified as a result of the dishonest activities of third parties."
    There are many consequences of conviction. It is not just the fine; it is the loss of livelihood. A licensee can lose his home as well. A heavy penalty can result from conviction so it is not in the interests of a licensee—whether a house manager or a tenant — to permit a person who is under age to drink on the premises.
    Mr. Anderson: The question is whether the lawyer who proffered the legal opinion to which my hon. Friend referred had bothered to read the Government new clause. If there had been deception on the part of the young person, that would certainly provide a defence to the licensee under the Government's proposal. Either the legal opinion has no weight or it is out of date.
    Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend knows that often it is the licensee who is in court, not the person who committed the offence of drinking under age. Often it is that young person who prosecutes the person who sold the drink.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I want to emphasise a point and reassure people working in the industry. We are not saying that everyone who serves someone under the age of 18 has committed an offence; we are saying that he has committed an offence if he did not take steps to ascertain the age of the customer. Our amendment says that if the licensee had good reason to believe that the person was over 18, that will be a defence. The reason that the young person may give may not be substantiated later, but if the licensee acted in good faith and genuinely believed the customer to be over 18, that would be a defence in court.
    Mr. Hoyle: Yes, I understand that, but good reason could be interpreted widely in that connection. That is why I prefer the word "knowingly". If the act was knowingly done, the licensee should have taken every precaution. If the change goes through, it could lead to many honest people being put in difficulty.
    It is also necessary to stop up the other loophole through which young people can easily obtain drink—I refer to supermarkets and off-licences. When I asked the Minister how many supermarkets had been prosecuted, he said that he would have to go away to get me the information. It is very easy for young people to get drink from such places. In bygone days, which Conservative Members profess to like—the Victorian and Edwardian eras—they sent the child with a jug to get the beer for the father when he came home. Now, however, a youngster can go into a supermarket and buy a can of beer, not for his parents, but for himself.
    That is the difficulty and the weakness in the present law. I am foursquare behind anyone who wants to try to prevent young people from drinking, but it seems to me that nothing is being done about this easy method by which young people can obtain liquor. We have seen it happen at football grounds near which all the pubs have
    1020
    been closed. Young people have gone on to the grounds with crates of beer and drunk them there. That beer was not obtained from public houses, but from supermarkets.
    Mr. Colvin: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the tighter the licensing hours are, the less often will people drink in pubs and the more will they drink at home? One of the results of the introduction of flexible hours in Scotland has been that more people — particularly women—have drunk in pubs. So drink has not been purchased in supermarkets and taken home, where the children can get their hands on it. It is drink in the home that is bad. The only sociable and responsible place for people to drink, therefore, is in the public house.
    Mr. Hoyle: We find ourselves today in a position that did not exist a few years ago — before the advent of supermarkets and the ease of obtaining liquor in them. I am asking that attention should be paid to that, and that the law should be tightened up. A few prosecutions would help. As has been pointed out, youngsters of both sexes become addicted to alcohol because it is so easy to go into supermarkets, see the liquor on display, fill up baskets with it and take it away. That is the problem.
    I shall listen to what the Minister says, but to believe that deleting the word "knowingly" will make a great deal of difference to under-age drinking is wishful thinking—unless we are prepared to pay some attention to the ease with which drink can be obtained outside of licensed premises, and especially in supermarkets.
    6.15 pm
    Sir Dudley Smith: I begin by declaring an interest. One of my management consultancy clients is a leading company in the drinks industry.
    My main interest in the Bill is that it does a great deal for tourism. I represent a part of the country that is foremost in the business of tourism, for which the Bill would be beneficial. If an offence is blatant, no one would condone it and it should be severely punished. But unless it is, a sense of great injustice is often felt by the licensee who has been convicted, having used his best endeavours to find out the age of the customer concerned. I welcome the realistic provisions that my hon. Friend the Minister has brought forward.
    One of the points that needs emphasising again and again—as it was by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin)—is that the drink industry has no interest in trying to sell to under-age children in public houses. I am sure that the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) would agree with that. Not only is it socially undesirable, but it means that the licensee will probably—almost certainly—lose his licence and livelihood, and the industry will be slurred by the event. So it is not trying to sell to people who are under age.
    It has often been truly said that the great difficulty is being able to define what age a person is in an on-the-spot judgment. That is particularly difficult with young women, who often look much older than they are. I agree with hon. Members who have said that there should be some imposition on the culprit. There should certainly be a greater onus on the individual to prove that he or she is over the age of 18 when he or she tries to buy liquor in a public house.
    I asked my hon. Friend the Minister whether he had the figures for the number of convictions of such people, and

    1021
    he was good enough to say that he would try to find out. I suspect that they will be minimal, and that hardly any young people up and down the country had been prosecuted for endeavouring to obtain liquor, when under age, in public houses.
    As someone in the industry pointed out to me the other day, young people are eager enough to prove that they are under age when trying to obtain concessionary rail fares, so they should be obliged to prove that they are over the age of 18 and are legitimate customers.
    The licensee is involved in this almost intractable problem in several areas. My hon. Friend has removed the word "knowingly". Obviously, when a person has committed an offence by knowingly selling to an underage person, he deserves to be and should be punished. When he has acted carelessly, that, too, is a good ground for his conviction. But when he has sold to under-age people mistakenly — provided that it was a genuine mistake—and his judgment has subsequently proved to be wrong, he should not be guilty of a criminal offence.
    I agree with the Minister that it is important to enter a defence in the clause. That is essential, and the balance is now probably about right. It is important to be rigorous. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) that there should be tough measures against people who deliberately try to encourage underage young people to drink and who supply them with drink. We should also be rigorous, because, although my right hon. Friend does not agree with them, the Bill's provisions extend the licensing hours and liberalise the public house. To balance that, there should be a much tougher attitude to those who supply drink to under-age people.
    People sometimes forget that licensees can refuse to serve anyone. It does not have to be somebody who is drunk or about whose age he has doubts. A licensee need not serve anyone. Of course, he exercises his judgment. In future, as a result of the Bill, the licensee will err more on the side of caution. That will be a good thing. It may cause a certain amount of distress. Refusal often causes offence when a customer is innocent. There is nothing worse than an over-age person being accused of being under-age by a licensee or his assistant. In such circumstances, they will suffer. By erring on the side of caution, we have got the balance right.
    Mr. Anderson: I regret that, unlike other hon. Members, I am not able to declare an interest.
    Mr. Greg Knight: What is the hon. Gentleman's religion?
    Mr. Anderson: I am a Christian.
    I sympathise with some of the points that have been made. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) made a valid point about the culpability of a young person. He will recall my intervention during the Minister's speech. The Masham committee made a specific recommendation that a young person should be legally obliged to declare his age to a police officer who reasonably requires it for the purpose of a prosecution. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Minister's response was that the imposition of such an obligation on a young person would breach a fundamental principle of our law, that of self-incrimination. One understands that
    1022
    self-incrimination is a cardinal principle of our law, but it can be breached and it has been breached if something is considered sufficiently important to do so.
    The Government's response to the Masham committee recommendation demonstrates that they have failed to show any real commitment to the enforceability of the provision. One imagines that it is extremely difficult for magistrates to know that a young person is under the age of 18. How can a police officer, the Crown prosecution service, or anyone prove that point? A young person is under no obligation to attend a court unless he is summonsed, and he is unlikely to wish to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution. One can well understand that, unless a police officer is furnished with such a legal course, the number of prosecutions will continue to be few. By failing to accept the Masham committee recommendation, the Government have undermined the possibility of enforcing the law in that respect.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) mentioned off-licences. Members of the National Union of Licensed Victuallers in my constituency, who, incidentally, do not accept the 11-to-11 fundamental change in the Bill, are concerned about the fact that the spotlight is constantly turned on the licensee rather than on supermarket owners. Therefore, it is said that the Government have chosen to deal only with that part of the matter.
    The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) will surely accept that the current law, as the Government have argued, is not enforceable. The object of the change is not to ensure the conviction of licensees but, rather, to act as a deterrent to a minority of licensees who willingly choose to serve under-age drinkers, or fear that other licensees in their area will do so and pinch trade from them, and therefore acquiesce. At the moment, it is quite clear that, because of the inability to enforce it, the current law is not a deterrent. I judge the success or otherwise of the law not by examining the number of convictions but by its impact on the incidence of under-age drinking. That is the purpose of the legislation.
    I approach the Government's amendment more in sorrow than in anger. I thought that we had reached a broad consensus in Committee. The Minister put forward his preferred solution, the Firearms Act 1968 precedent. When he examined the various options and formulae that may be applied in place of existing ones, surely his civil servants would have referred him to the Scottish precedent. It is the most obvious one to consider. He chose to reject it.
    Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: For the benefit of hon. Members who were not on the Committee, will the hon. Member share with us what the Scottish precedent is?
    Mr. Anderson: Briefly, the Scottish precedent is the amendment that the Government now propose in place of the formula that they stated to the Committee that they would prefer, which they set out for consultation in a letter dated 22 December. The Government's amendment is based wholly on the Scottish precedent.
    A series of options were before the Minister. When they liberalised the law, it was sad that the Government did not, of their own volition, immediately appear before the Committee and say, "We are altering one side of the equation. We are liberalising the law. It is a relatively

    1023
    modest increase." The Home Secretary talked about ending the "dead afternoon". In view of road traffic accidents, perhaps that was an unfortunate phrase to use.
    The Government claimed that the increase was modest, but they certainly altered one side of the equation. Our complaint throughout was that they failed to alter the other side of the equation. It follows as night follows day that, if the law is liberalised and alcohol is more freely available, it is likely to lead to greater consumption. If there is such a correlation, unless there are adequate safeguards, it will lead to the drink-related problems that we discussed in Committee.
    I am sure that the Minister, as a reasonable man, will accept that it was unfortunate that, when the Government appeared before the Committee with the proposition to liberalise the law, they failed to make any provision in respect of under-age drinking, when all the facts relating to the incidence of under-age drinking, alcoholism and alcohol-related problems generally were available to the Government. That is a sad sign of the Government's priorities in respect of alcoholism.
    The Minister will recall that the establishment of the Wakeham committee was mentioned in Committee. A cynic might say that the Wakeham committee was cosmetic — to head off criticism of the Government's lack of action on alcoholism. We asked how often the Wakeham committee had met. We were told that, since its establishment in September until that time, it had met on only one occasion. Again, that is a sign of the Government's lack of commitment. We mentioned that, in his last Budget, the Chancellor did not raise the amount of duty on alcohol in line with inflation, as one would have expected. That is likely to lead to increased consumption.
    There is an obvious, well-established correlation between the price of alcohol and its consumption. Had the Government been seriously concerned about it, they would certainly have increased relevant duties in line with inflation. We wonder whether, in his March Budget, the Chancellor will continue to allow the real price of alcohol to fall and thereby increase consumption, without introducing any of the safeguards for which we have been pressing.
    If the man from Mars were to visit this country and looked at the Government's expenditure and advertising priorities, he would imagine that the real problems facing us were drug abuse and AIDS. So far, more than £17 million has been spent in this country in an effort to stamp out the drugs menace. In 1985, 11 people died after using heroin. In all, 99 people died from the illicit use of drugs. So far, 293 people have died as a result of contracting the AIDS virus and that has triggered the Government into spending £20 million on publicity.
    We must compare those figures in 1985 with the figures for alcohol abuse. It is estimated that in 1985 between 25,000 and 40,000 people died as a result of alcohol abuse.
    6.30 pm
    Sir Bernard Braine: That is a good argument and it must be ventilated. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that currently 20 per cent. of acute beds in our hospitals are occupied by people suffering from alcohol-related disease? One cannot minimise the costs to the community and the country as a whole of alcohol when it is consumed to
    1024
    excess. That is the main reason why the Government have lost an opportunity to tighten the controls. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
    Mr. Anderson: Of course I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The figures showing the total cost to the country of alcohol abuse are readily available. However, I will not rehearse the figures because I want to make progress.
    I have already said that our approach to the Bill is to try to balance the liberalisation with certain safeguards. I have referred to the Government's manifest failure to do that and our sadness about the fact that the Government have retreated from their commitment in Committee. I therefore want to consider the current position.
    We have clear evidence of substantial flouting of the law concerning the supply of alcohol to under-aged persons. I want to take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North on this issue. I have considered the results of two surveys. The first, entitled "Adolescent Drinking", was commissioned by the DHSS from the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys. The second, entitled "Drinking among Schoolchildren", was carried out by the schools health education unit of the Health Education Authority by the university of Exeter.
    The OPCS survey discovered that 19 per cent. of 13-year-old boys, 22 per cent. of 14-year-old boys and 44 per cent. of 15-year-old boys who drink, obtained alcohol in pubs. The conclusion was that a significant minority of 13 and 14-year-old boys, a substantial minority of 15-yearold boys and the vast majority of 17-year-old boys obtain their alcohol in public houses. Although we should consider off-licences and supermarkets, the evidence commissioned by the Government suggests that, towards the upper end of the age scale, the majority of young people obtain alcohol in public houses. I could give other relevant figures to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North about that.
    Mr. Hoyle: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for those figures. My hon. Friend's conclusion is that young people go to pubs as they get older. However, they are getting alcohol at a very young age. They are not getting it from public houses; they get it from off-licences and supermarkets. Nothing is being done about that. The crux of the matter is the question where they start their drinking. Where they get the taste really matters, because the problems lead on from there. That point is not dealt with in the Bill.
    Mr. Anderson: I understand my hon. Friend's puzzlement and the anger of licensees. The Government have failed to consider that matter in the round or to consider supermarkets and off-licences. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the findings for what they are.
    The findings reveal that there is a substantial evasion of the law. They also show that there is great difficulty about enforcement of the current law, and I call in aid the Masham committee recommendations. I recommend that my colleagues read those recommendations. It is also clear that the Government introduced a proposal in Committee which covered the essential points that we were seeking to cover. The Government said that they would try to tighten the law.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has set out the nature of the undertaking made by the Minister in Committee. I concede that he provided

    1025
    himself with a small escape window by saying that he had to clear the proposal with his colleagues and that it was open to consultation. We then received a letter that was sent out for wide consultation. In his proposed amendment to section 169 of the Licensing Act 1964, the Minister proposed that there should not be an absolute obligation on the licensee, and no reasonable person would oppose that. The Minister referred to the precedent of section 24 of the Firearms Act 1968 which has been reproduced by my hon. Friends in an amendment today.
    When the Minister introduced his proposal, I am sure that he was convinced that, it was the best option available. It was the option most likely to do the job. I am also convinced that, having the advice of the civil servants and through his own substantial legal knowledge, the Minister would have surveyed all the options, including the Scottish option which the Government are now proposing. However, he has changed his position.
    I am sure that the Minister will accept that the Scottish option is a substantial dilution of the original proposal. Therefore, the question arises why, having gone so much further along the road in the light of the consensus in Committee, the Minister has now retreated. We accept that the Government amendment, as proposed, is a substantial improvement on section 169 of the Licensing Act 1964 and may provide a greater deterrent for errant landlords. However, why have the Government made the change?
    I give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. I believe that he was probably got at. Perhaps some of his elders, and those wiser than the Minister, reminded him of the Government's obligations to the brewing trade and said, "Young man, you're going too far. This is not acceptable." I pay tribute to the Minister. He was extremely courteous in Committee. He tried to be as helpful as possible and he took us into his confidence. However, we now see what by any definition is a substantial dilution of the original proposal. The House is bound to ask why that has happened.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: It might help the hon. Gentleman to know that the amendment represents my considered view. I have not been got at. I am not the kind of character at whom people get.
    Mr. Anderson: If that is the Minister's considered view, I remind him that in December he put before the Committee the earlier formula based on the Firearms Act 1968 and that also was his considered view. I was about to quote a little jingle, but it is probably not appropriate.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I shall rescue the House from my hon. Friend's jingle and ask him to reflect that the Minister gave us an indication of his preferred route. He said that his preferred amendment would be one in which the licensee had to show that he had reasonable grounds to believe that a person was over the age of 18.
    Whatever variation the Minister came up with, it should incorporate the principle in our amendment (a). The new clause does not fulfil the basic commitment that the Minister gave in Committee that defendants would have to show that they had reasonable grounds to believe that a person was 18.
    Mr. Anderson: I accept my hon. Friend's helpful point. I have conceded to the Minister that, although his proposal is an advance on the existing law, it is a
    1026
    substantial retreat from what he had originally proposed, and the reasoning that he gave in Committee for that original proposal, made when the Scottish option forumula was before him.
    I am sceptical about the Scottish experience. I have already told the Minister that the Scottish formula does not go much beyond shifting the burden of proof. Essentially, if we compare the number of convictions in Scotland with that in England and Wales, we are not comparing like with like because the law is much more liberal in Scotland. The sample was only small. I think that the Minister said that there were 160 convictions in Scotland. That small sample may have resulted from other factors, such as the enforcement policy of the police force. One cannot draw any helpful conclusion from the Minister's points about the Scottish experience.
    If we are to be true to the scale of the problem in Britain, our aim must be to find effective safeguards. As we know, substantial vested interests are involved. I would not have made the partisan point about the link between the Conservative party and the brewers that was made by right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). Far be it from me to make such points, although cynics might say that the right hon. Gentleman was being a little unfair in talking about the traditional and historic links—indeed, the financial links — between the brewing industry and the Conservative party. I would be the last person to make such allegations.
    The Government, by their new clause, have let down the Committee. They have gone back on their pledge, and the formula that they now propose should not be accepted by the House.
    Mr. Lawrence: I must first declare an interest, not only as the Member for Parliament for the brewing centre of England, Burton-on-Trent, but as the chairman of the Burton breweries charitable trust. However, I shall confine my remarks to new clauses 2 and 7.
    I agree with all hon. Members who have said that alcohol abuse and under-age drinking are serious problems that must be dealt with. I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in welcoming the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and his Committee. I hope that he comes up with a substantial contribution to the reduction of those problems.
    New clause 2 will do absolutely nothing to solve those problems. It will be an irritating waste of time and place some licensees at risk. Therefore, it is simply not worth the candle.
    The deletion of the word "knowingly" shifts the burden from the prosecution to the licensee, to displace what, but for the defence, would be an offence of strict liability. That is not the right approach to dealing with under-age drinking.
    Hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged the removal of "knowingly" and of the defences as well. I do not think that that strict liability would work either. Sometimes, there are good reasons for having strict liability offences. Those reasons are much loved by Governments, but usually they should be resisted in the interests of civil liberty because they involve the conviction of people who have behaved blamelessly, and who do not need to have their conduct changed in any way because it was wrong.

    1027
    6.45 pm
    Strict liability offences cause great distress, grievance and resentment. They certainly would cause great resentment to licensees, because the consequences of a conviction for an offence of strict liability would not only be a fine. Licensees would lose their jobs because it would be difficult for them to get a licence before the licensing justices if there had been a conviction for allowing sales of alcohol to people under the age of 18. I am pleased that the Government have not gone down that strict liability road.
    I do not accept new clause 2, or new clause 7—if my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) will allow me to dissent from his views—first, because I do not believe that it is particularly fair or practicable to make life more difficult for licensees. Our pubs are changing. They are getting more family-oriented. We have had debates in the House about how we can best reduce crime associated with alcoholism. The licensing trade—I have been lobbied by licensees but not by the Brewers Society or by the breweries—has been trying hard to make pubs more welcoming and socially amenable places. We hope that, by encouraging families to go to public houses, there will be less violence, because there is less violence in social activities that involve the whole family.
    More of such centres for decent social contact are springing up in large numbers all over the country, reviving the historic and traditional importance of the public house. Young people throughout the country, in villages, suburbs and town centres are meeting in public houses to consume soft drinks or non-alcoholic liquor. They are meeting on warm summers evenings in the new gardens in the public houses.
    In the old days, we banned children from public house premises. Now we welcome young people — not necessarily children—to the non-drinking areas of public houses. Youngsters who are coming into adulthood are welcomed into pubs, provided that they treat them as reasonable, decent places in which they should not drink. In those changed circumstances, the publican is no longer behind the bar of a small pub where he can observe everything that goes on.
    It is simply not practicable or fair to expect the new kind of publican in the new kind of pub to supervise every nook and cranny of his premises, as he could in old-fashioned small pubs. Even if he could, what would he find? How can one run a pub if one has for ever to go up to young people who look as if they are over 18 and ask for proof of their age? Some of them even have beards at the age of 18. The girls all look beautiful and mature over the age of 18. One cannot run a pub on the basis of continually going up to young people and saying, "Please show me some proof that you are over the age of 18." So my first objection is that in the new circumstances it is not practicable or fair to place such burdens upon publicans.
    Secondly, if I may say so to my normally logical hon. Friend, there seems to be little logic in deleting the word "knowingly" in regard to sales to under-18-year-olds but retaining it for allowing the consumption of alcohol on the premises or for allowing others to sell to someone under age. If there is merit in keeping "knowingly" for those offences and not requiring the burden to pass to the publican, why does the same merit not apply to this clause? What elements are different? Why draw a distinction? Why
    1028
    be illogical? The changes proposed are illogical, unfair and impracticable and will irritate licensees who will feel that they are at risk.
    More important than those reasons is the fact that the proposed change is unnecessary in practice, considering how little good it is likely to do. First, it is my view, after many years of experience in the courts, that few local magistrates who have to try licensees will convict under these proposals if they would not have convicted under the law as it stands. The difference between whether in all the circumstances the licensee was so careless as to turn a blind eye to the obvious or to refrain deliberately from making inquiries, the results of which he might not care to have —which, under our law, are sufficient to prove that the licensee knew that the sale was to a person under age—and whether he exercised due diligence is almost certainly non-existent in practice.
    The difference is too esoteric for a lay magistrate. It will make a lot of money for lawyers, which is not a cause that is normally attractive to my hon. Friends. But it will make no difference to the lay magistrates, who just ask themselves the simple question: has the licensee taken reasonable steps, or has he not? Whether he sells knowingly, or not knowingly but with no due diligence, seems unlikely, in practice, to make a ha'porth of difference. The magistrates will convict.
    Equally, if the bench thought that the licensee had put up enough notices and had sent enough staff round to ask about people's ages to discharge the proposed defence, it would have acquitted him under existing law. So what, in practice, does my hon. Friend think the proposed change will achieve?
    Secondly, it is unnecessary to introduce this change into the law because the police, if they use their powers, have a ready means of stopping a licensee from selling to youngsters who are under age. The police warn them. They say, "It has come to our attention," or "We have been drinking in this pub and we see too many youngsters being served drinks. If you do not put your house in order, we will oppose your licence at the next licensing session." That happens. That is why there are so few prosecutions. When the police warn licensees, any licensee who wants to remain in business puts his house in order. That is the best he can do. The licensee will be irritated if we try to change the law and have higher expectations of him.
    My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, knowing that I was concerned with these matters, was good enough to write to me explaining the Government's position. Among other matters, he explained that the existing law makes it difficult to bring proceedings and secure convictions. I do not know why it will be easier to bring proceedings under the proposed changes.
    My hon. Friend helpfully gave me the figures for 1986: there were 296 prosecutions and 165 convictions. I cannot think of any other branch of the criminal law where the conviction rate is so high. Generally, the acquittal rate is over 50 per cent. in all cases in magistrates courts or Crown courts where pleas of not guilty are entered. The figures given by my hon. Friend show that the conviction rate is over 50 per cent., so I do not know what he is complaining about. It seems to be as easy to get convictions under the existing law as it is in any other branch of the criminal law. So that reason which he gave in his letter scarcely seems to be justified.
    As to the position in Scotland, just because there are more prosecutions and convictions I do not know that that

    1029
    tells us much. Scotland is different. It is smaller; the system is different; and the police approach is different. We can learn lots of things from the Scots, but, because changes in the law in Scotland have achieved a marginally higher conviction rate, that does not necessarily show us that there has been a substantial reduction in alcohol abuse or under-age drinking. I am not convinced about that.
    Of course, the licensed trade knows how concerned the Government are about sales to people under 18, which was another reason given in my hon. Friend's opening. He said that the change would bring home to the licensee the importance of the matter. Licensees know already how important it is. They do not need an insignificant, irritating change in the law to bring home what is desperately important to them if they are not to lose their jobs. The trade has no wish to offend against the law. Brewers do their best to get rid of bad licensees.
    When there is no evidence of a wholesale betrayal of responsibility by licensees, and when the proposals are so illogical, unfair and unnecessary, why should we bother about changes which will only irritate a decent group in society who are doing a job for which we all have much regard?
    I come back to the point that I made at the beginning. The Government's proposal is an irritating waste of time. We should spend more time implementing some of the other recommendations of the Masham report. There will also be excellent recommendations which would do something about alcohol abuse and under-age drinking which I have no doubt my right hon. Friend the Lord President will produce in due course.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The biggest tragedy today is alcoholism among the young. Sadly, once they are hooked they are all too often hooked for life. Much as I dislike smoking among the young — I am always getting at my children about it — drinking is infinitely more serious. It changes the character of the person. Years ago I used to practise in the divorce court. I never had a client divorcing a partner for smoking, but I had many who did so because of drinking and the conduct that flowed from it.
    The peak age of delinquency is 15. I believe that much crime at that age is alcohol-induced. Drinking leads to football hooliganism, to school truancy and to many of the sex offences committed by the young. Mugging and many forms of crime are committed to get money to buy drink. It is vital to take every possible step to curb this scourge. Therefore, I am sorry that the Government have greatly weakened the prospect of enforcing the law on under-age drinking by the inclusion of subsection 3(b). I much prefer the new clause of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine).
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I apologise to the House and to my hon. Friend the Minister. I was giving evidence to a Select Committee from 5 o'clock until 6 o'clock, which is why I missed the earlier part of the debate.
    I think that we can easily lose focus and come to believe that drinking in pubs is conterminous with consuming alcohol. That certainly is not the case. To bring in an absolute offence which the accused person has to prove his way out of does not deal with the problem, because so much of the problem is not in public houses anyway.
    It is entirely healthy that young people should get into the habit of going to public houses before they can legally
    1030
    consume alcohol. They can get into the habit of going with their parents, drinking soft drinks and eating meals so that they come to associate going to pubs with enjoying themselves without consuming alcohol rather than, at the age of 18, suddenly being able to go to pubs and drink alcohol.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore put pressure on his friends in the brewing industry to reduce the price of non-alcoholic drinks in pubs. The mark-up rate of such drinks is a scandal, and it must be one of the reasons why so many young people drink beer. It is cheaper than Coca-Cola.
    7 pm
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I think that the public interest is served by the opposite approach. There is now at least as good a profit margin on soft drinks as on alcohol. Once upon a time it paid a licensee to push alcohol rather than soft drinks, but I understand that the profit margin on soft drinks is now such that there is no incentive to the landlord to push alcoholic drinks any more.
    We spend much time in the House concentrating on inner cities, but, in rural areas, it is in public houses that young people meet. Most days of the week, there is no other place for them to meet. In small villages, there is no youth club and there is often no public transport, so young people must meet in the pub or not meet other young people.
    I see no reason, because of the undoubted problem of under-age consumption of alcohol, to produce an injustice so that licensees, acting in good faith, can easily be penalised. It is not possible to prove a negative. The one person who knows that an offence is being committed is the person who buys the alcohol when under age. That is the person who ought to be prosecuted far more frequently and punished much more severely. That is the person who knows without any doubt that an offence is being committed.
    Young people who are just over 18 resent bitterly any implication that they are what are termed children. It is to them insulting to be asked whether they are over 18. If they are under 18 and they say that they are over 18, there is no way in which the landlord can tackle that person unless he or she knows that young person personally.
    I cannot tell what age people are. It is a problem from the age of about 15. We have to ask whether they are wearing make-up, what sort of clothes they are wearing and, as has been suggested, whether they have a beard. There is a problem unless, as some licensees recommend, we have indentity cards, but that is not a course of action that I recommend.
    My hon. Friend the Minister and the police should concentrate far more on the person who undeniably and knowingly commits an offence and, by so doing, is not just putting the licensee's livelihood at risk, but putting the roof over his head at risk. The pub is his home and his family's home as well in the representative case. In villages especially, it is a caricature of a pub to represent it merely as somewhere where alcohol is sold. People who know the very large number of good pubs would not so categorise it.
    In much of the area that I represent, the pub is the old persons' club, in effect. An old person will drink perhaps half a pint of beer in the whole evening and play whatever the local games are. They vary from one part of the

    1031
    country to another. They have heat and company at the expense of the licensee, who does not chase them out, because that is part of the atmosphere of the public house.
    In some of the areas that I represent, when there is a bad winter, I have known it not to be exceptional but almost to be expected that the licensee provides free meals twice a day for old people who live in their bungalows when, owing to the snow, they cannot get out and buy their normal supplies. Nobody regards that as an act of sainthood. Rather, it is regarded as just being a good neighbour and a good publican in an area of mutual support, which many of our villages are.
    Mrs. Llin Golding: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What has this to do with the point under discussion?
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the hon. Lady listens, she will learn, to her advantage. What is under discussion is whether the law should be left as it is—when an offence is committed if the licensee knowingly sells alcohol to a person who is under age, or whether the balance of proof should be altered so that the full weight of the law falls, as I believe it should, on the person who knowingly commits an offence, who is the person who buys the drink, and we do not put, the great expense of defending him or herself someone who, in the vast majority of cases, does not know and cannot know. That is the dilemma for the licensee, however conscientious and however good.
    If, out of what I can call only terror tactics, licensees are prosecuted when they have not sold drink with a guilty mind and knowingly and are ruined, the only way in which licensees will be able to protect their livelihood will be by chasing young people out into the street. That will include some who are over 18, because licensees will not be absolutely certain that they are over 18. I do not believe that we will then have a healthier society. Such people will be able to buy all the liquor they want, as they do at the moment, from off-licences, where the control is very much less. They will then drink on street corners, in cars, out in the open and in the other places which, in the real world, exist and are used.
    That is why I believe that the existing law, though not perfect, needs tightening in the direction of more prosecutions and more penalties for those who commit an offence knowingly — the purchasers — rather than tinkering, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who is a distinguished silk, advised the House, for purely cosmetic purposes in such a manner that innocent licensees will inevitably be caught out by a few rogues.
    Mr. Couchman: As ever, I shall declare my interest, which is as a multiple licensee operating a small company which has the tenancies of five public houses in London. I do that because I speak with some knowledge and experience of enforcing the present law.
    I welcome the recommendations of the committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. I believe that all responsible licensees will welcome those recommendations. Licensees generally do not want under-age drinkers in their pubs. They are, frankly, a pain in the backside. They threaten the livelihood and the licence of the licensee, and the roof over his head. Enforcing the law with under-age drinkers is
    1032
    difficult, as many hon. Members have already said. Underage drinkers, and those just turned 18, become aggressive and noisy and they upset older and more mature customers. No one honestly likes the young trade.
    So far, no one has mentioned the fact that 14-year-olds may already enter public houses, although not to drink. However, because of the difficulty in preventing those over 14 from drinking once they enter public houses, or from being bought drinks by other people — acknowledging that to be an offence—many publicans decide that it is better to enforce a no-under-18s rule and, even now, a nounder-21s rule in many public houses in London.
    I spent four years running a large discotheque public house. Three nights a week, I used to stand at the door and try to determine who was and who was not over 18, because we had a no-under-18s rule. If, in particular, the young girls seek to deceive, with make-up and dress, they will succeed many times. We asked for birth certificates. They produced those of their older sisters.
    We have talked about identity cards. I share the apprehensions of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about identity cards, but the only sure and certain way of being able to enforce the law would be to issue photo-identity cards, of the type that we, as Members of the House, carry, and ones that carry a date of birth.
    Like many other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), I believe that the chief source of supply of drink to those under 18, and particularly those substantially under 18, is the off-licence trade. Those outlets are much less well controlled. There is no outlet in this country that is as heavily constrained and controlled as the public house.
    On a number of occasions I have listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) speak on the subject of under-age drinking, and I know that he has particular feelings about the matter. However, what changes at 18? One day, one is a day off 18 and is not allowed to drink in a public house, and the next day one is 18 and suddenly becomes able to do so. I am enthusiastic about the possibility of youngsters being introduced to drink in a slow and controlled manner, perhaps by their parents, so that when they do become 18, they drink in a public house in a more mature way.
    A happy experiment is the recent opening in Brixham in Devon of a pub called the Minnows Arms, which is open to serve strictly non-alcoholic beers, wines and cocktails to children between the ages of 11 and 16. Adults will be banned from the pub, which will serve from 6.30 pm to 9 pm. That is a sensible experiment, which tries to introduce young people to the environment of the public house without the dangers of under-age drinking. There are many sides to the argument.
    I am apprehensive, as I am sure many of my fellow licensees are, about the new clause, because it shifts the balance, as my hon. Friend the Minister admitted, from a person being innocent until proven guilty to that person being guilty until proved innocent, and that is contrary to natural justice. It is a fearsome weapon in the hands of anti-drink policemen who have the responsibility of enforcing the licensing laws in their area. There are more of those than the public perceives.
    I hope that my hon. Friend will think again about introducing the clause. If he will not do so, I should prefer the House to accept the Government new clause, rather than the new clause of my right hon. Friend the Member

    1033
    for Castle Point or amendment (a). I hope that, even at this late stage, my hon. Friend the Minister will say that the Government will think again about whether they have the balance right.
    7.15 pm
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) emphasises that this has been a vigorous debate. Two competing points of view have been presented. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said that we have not done anything, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham said that we have placed a fearsome weapon in the hands of the police. My view is that we have followed a careful road down the middle and have got it about right.
    We want to be clear that we are talking about a major change in the law. If the new clause is accepted, the prosecution will no longer have to prove the element of knowing, there being prima facie evidence of an offence at the moment of the sale to the under-age person. At that moment, it will be open to the prosecution to commence proceedings. That is a dramatic change and I point out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point that it is an important step in the direction to which he is pointing.
    The question then is whether it should be an absolute offence in the true sense—that is, one to which there should be no defence — or whether there should be a defence. The common view in the Chamber has been that there should be a defence. Therefore, the essential dispute is about the nature of the defence. I willingly acknowledge and concede that in Committee I pointed to the firearms model on a number of occasions as one that struck me as attractive in the context of what we are doing. However, what I have brought to the House is something different. Therefore, it is fair to ask, "Why is there a difference?" The answer is that I changed my mind, and I shall explain why.
    In the case of the sale of a firearm, the position is different in two major respects. First, the sale of the firearm is perhaps a more serious and grave act than the sale of a drink. That is a qualitative judgment, but it is mine. Secondly, the sale of a firearm is a more leisurely transaction than is the sale of a drink at a bar counter. When one is selling a firearm, one can make the kind of inquiry which it is not reasonable to require of licensees at a bar. Therefore, there is a difference.
    If one uses the same language in the context of a drink offence as is used in the context of a firearms offence, one may find the courts applying precisely the same tests and asking licensees to adopt the same standards. I have been persuaded that that would be wrong. It is not a question of being got at. It is a question of being persuaded, and this is the view that I offer to the House.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I see other possibilities than the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968. However, in Committee the Minister did not commit himself to that procedure. He was careful to say that he believed that there should be a defence whereby the seller of the drink had to prove that he had reasonable grounds for the belief that the person was over the age of 18. Will the Minister comment on our amendment, because that allows for a defence? It allows for the defence that the licensee had good reason to believe that the person was over 18. Would that not satisfy the criterion that the Minister was trying to find in Committee?
    Mr. Hogg: That is a perfectly logical and sensible position for the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to adopt. It is a question of balance. The hon. Lady is, in effect — although not quite — describing the firearms defence. For the reasons that I have outlined, I think that the firearms defence imposes too high a standard on licensees. I accept that it is a matter of judgment. I am not suggesting that the hon. Lady's position is illogical, untenable or unsustainable, but I think that it places too heavy a burden on licensees.
    I am encouraged in this matter by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), because, as the House will appreciate, he has the advantage of being a Scots lawyer and has direct knowledge of the way in which the Scots have been using the legislation in Scotland. His remarks were important. He said that the legislation had resulted in more convictions but that it had not enabled landlords to get off on technicalities and that the nature of the defence had not proved obstructive in bringing prosecutions in proper cases.
    In the end, it is a matter of balance. I offer the judgment that the balance in the new clause is the correct one.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 47.

    Division No. 164]

    [7.21 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Cash, William

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Alexander, Richard

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Chapman, Sydney

    Allason, Rupert

    Chope, Christopher

    Alton, David

    Churchill, Mr

    Amess, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Conway, Derek

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Atkins, Robert

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Atkinson, David

    Cope, John

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Baldry, Tony

    Couchman, James

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Cran, James

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Beith, A. J.

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

    Bendall, Vivian

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Benyon, W.

    Devlin, Tim

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Dover, Den

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Dunn, Bob

    Maker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Dykes, Hugh

    Body, Sir Richard

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Evennett, David

    Boswell, Tim

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Bottomley, Peter

    Farr, Sir John

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Favell, Tony

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Fearn, Ronald

    Bowis, John

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Brazier, Julian

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Bright, Graham

    Forman, Nigel

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Franks, Cecil

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Freeman, Roger

    Buck, Sir Antony

    French, Douglas

    Burns, Simon

    Gale, Roger

    Butcher, John

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Butler, Chris

    Gill, Christopher

    Butterfill, John

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Carrington, Matthew

    Gorst, John

    Carttiss, Michael

    Gow, Ian

    1035

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Maples, John

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Marland, Paul

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Marlow, Tony

    Greenway, John (Rydale)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gregory, Conal

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Mellor, David

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Grylls, Michael

    Mills, Iain

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Hannam, John

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

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

    Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

    Harris, David

    Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hayes, Jerry

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hayward, Robert

    Neubert, Michael

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hill, James

    Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Page, Richard

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Paice, James

    Holt, Richard

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Howard, Michael

    Pawsey, James

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

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Price, Sir David

    Howells, Geraint

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Redwood, John

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Riddick, Graham

    Hunter, Andrew

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Irvine, Michael

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Irving, Charles

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Jack, Michael

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Janman, Timothy

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Jessel, Toby

    Rowe, Andrew

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Scott, Nicholas

    Kennedy, Charles

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Key, Robert

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Knapman, Roger

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Shersby, Michael

    Knowles, Michael

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Knox, David

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lang, Ian

    Speed, Keith

    Latham, Michael

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Squire, Robin

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Stern, Michael

    Lightbown, David

    Stevens, Lewis

    Lil ley, Peter

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Lord, Michael

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Stokes, John

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    MacGregor, John

    Summerson, Hugo

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Maclean, David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Madel, David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mans, Keith

    Thorne, Neil

    1036

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Warren, Kenneth

    Thurnham, Peter

    Wells, Bowen

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Wheeler, John

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Whitney, Ray

    Tracey, Richard

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Tredinnick, David

    Wilkinson, John

    Trippier, David

    Wilshire, David

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Viggers, Peter

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Wood, Timothy

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Woodcock, Mike

    Walden, George

    Yeo, Tim

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Wallace, James

    Waller, Gary

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Walters, Dennis

    Mr. Richard Ryder and

    Ward, John

    Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    NOES

    Anderson, Donald

    McWilliam, John

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Barron, Kevin

    Michael, Alun

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Caborn, Richard

    Morley, Elliott

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Mullin, Chris

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Murphy, Paul

    Crowther, Stan

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Cummings, J.

    Pike, Peter

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Robertson, George

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Dixon, Don

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Short, Clare

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Flynn, Paul

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Foster, Derek

    Turner, Dennis

    George, Bruce

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Wilson, Brian

    Hinchliffe, David

    Winnick, David

    Illsley, Eric

    Livingstone, Ken

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Sir Bernard Braine and

    McFall, John

    Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop.

    McNamara, Kevin

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time.
    Amendment proposed: (a), in new clause 2, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert—
    '(b) that he had good reason to believe that the person was over eighteen".—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:
    The House divided: Ayes 66, Noes 291.

    Division No. 165]

    [7.35 pm

    AYES

    Allen, Graham

    Dixon, Don

    Alton, David

    Doran, Frank

    Anderson, Donald

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Barron, Kevin

    Fearn, Ronald

    Beggs, Roy

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Beith, A. J.

    Fisher, Mark

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Flynn, Paul

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Foster, Derek

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Caborn, Richard

    George, Bruce

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hardy, Peter

    Crowther, Stan

    Haynes, Frank

    Cryer, Bob

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cummings, J.

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Illsley, Eric

    Dalyell, Tarn

    John, Brynmor

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dewar, Donald

    Livingstone, Ken

    1037

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Robertson, George

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Michael, Alun

    Short, Clare

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Skinner, Dennis

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Morley, Elliott

    Wallace, James

    Mullin, Chris

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Murphy, Paul

    Wilson, Brian

    O'Neill, Martin

    Winnick, David

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Parry, Robert

    Patchett, Terry

    Tellers for the Ayes

    Pike, Peter

    Mrs. Llin Golding and

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Mr. Dennis Turner.

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Day, Stephen

    Alexander, Richard

    Devlin, Tim

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Allason, Rupert

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Amess, David

    Dover, Den

    Arbuthnot, James

    Dunn, Bob

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Atkins, Robert

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Atkinson, David

    Evennett, David

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Baldry, Tony

    Farr, Sir John

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Favell, Tony

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bendall, Vivian

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Benyon, W.

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Forman, Nigel

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Franks, Cecil

    Boswell, Tim

    Freeman, Roger

    Bottomley, Peter

    French, Douglas

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Gale, Roger

    Bowis, John

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Gill, Christopher

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Brazier, Julian

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Bright, Graham

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Gorst, John

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Gow, Ian

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Burns, Simon

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Butcher, John

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Butler, Chris

    Greenway, John (Rydale)

    Butterfill, John

    Gregory, Conal

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Grist, Ian

    Carttiss, Michael

    Grylls, Michael

    Cash, William

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Chope, Christopher

    Hannam, John

    Churchill, Mr

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

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Harris, David

    Colvin, Michael

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Conway, Derek

    Hayes, Jerry

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hayward, Robert

    Cope, John

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Cormack, Patrick

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Couchman, James

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Cran, James

    Hill, James

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Hind, Kenneth

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

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Holt, Richard

    1038

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Howard, Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

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

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Price, Sir David

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Raffan, Keith

    Howells, Geraint

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Redwood, John

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Hunter, Andrew

    Riddick, Graham

    Irvine, Michael

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Irving, Charles

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Jack, Michael

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Janman, Timothy

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Jessel, Toby

    Rost, Peter

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Rowe, Andrew

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Ryder, Richard

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Kennedy, Charles

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Key, Robert

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Knapman, Roger

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Knowles, Michael

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Knox, David

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Shersby, Michael

    Lang, Ian

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Latham, Michael

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Speed, Keith

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Squire, Robin

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Lightbown, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Lilley, Peter

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Lord, Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Stern, Michael

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Stevens, Lewis

    MacGregor, John

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Maclean, David

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stokes, John

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Madel, David

    Summerson, Hugo

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Malins, Humfrey

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mans, Keith

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Maples, John

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Marland, Paul

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Marlow, Tony

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Thorne, Neil

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Mills, Iain

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Tracey, Richard

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Tredinnick, David

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Trippier, David

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Walden, George

    Neubert, Michael

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Waller, Gary

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Ward, John

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Page, Richard

    Watts, John

    Paice, James

    Wells, Bowen

    Parry, Robert

    Wheeler, John

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Whitney, Ray

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Pawsey, James

    Wigley, Dafydd

    1039

    Wilkinson, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Wilshire, David

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wolfson, Mark

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and

    Wood, Timothy

    Mr. Peter Lloyd.

    Woodcock, Mike

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Clause added to the Bill.

  New clause 3

    PROHIBITION OF UNSUPERVISED OFF-SALES BY PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN
    "The following clause shall be inserted after section 171 of the principal Act—
    171A.—(1) In any premises which are licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises only or any off-sales department of on-licensed premises, the holder of the licence shall not allow a person under eighteen to make any sale of such liquor unless the sale has been specifically approved by the holder of the licence or by a person of or over the age of eighteen acting on his behalf.
    (2) The reference in subsection (1) of this section to an off-sales department of on-licensed premises is a reference to any part of premises for which a justices' on-licence has been granted which is set aside for use only for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises.
    (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.". — [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following; amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in line 6, leave out from 'liquor' to end of line 9.
    Amendment (b) to the proposed new clause, in last line, leave out 'level 1' and insert 'level 3'.
    New clause 6—Under-age sales—

    '(1) In section 170(1) of the principal Act, for the words from "on a first conviction" to the end there shall be substituted the words "to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale".

    (2) The following section shall be inserted after section 171 of the principal Act—

    "171A. No person under the age of 18 employed in premises in respect of which an off licence has been granted shall be permitted to sell intoxicating liquor. The holder of the licence shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.".'.
    Mr. Hogg: New clause 3 is part of our response to the problem of under-age drinking.
    The Masham report expressed the desire that the law regarding off-licences should be changed so that persons under the age of 18 who are selling alcohol should at least be supervised when they do so. I agree with that proposition because when people under the age of 18 are selling alcohol in off-licences there is an increased danger that they will sell to under-age persons or that they may sell to somebody who is already intoxicated. The purpose of the new clause is to impose an obligation that each sale should be supervised by somebody over the age of 18.
    Sir Dudley Smith: I am not trying to catch my hon. Friend out; this is a genuine inquiry. Is it a fact that the people who assist in public houses must be over the age of 18?
    Mr. Hogg: Yes. Under-age persons may not assist in public houses.
    It has been discussed whether we should put a total prohibition on persons under the age of 18 selling alcohol in off-licences. I would not commend that to the House because I believe that that would affect the ability of such persons to obtain employment in the retail sector. I believe that that would an undesirable state of affairs.
    I commend the new clause to the House on the basis that it is the proper solution to the problem and will not have the adverse consequences to which I have just referred.
    Sir Bernard Braine: I shall be brief. The purpose of new clause 6 is to remove an absurd anomaly in the law whereby young people under 18 are allowed to sell in supermarkets and elsewhere a product which they are not legally permitted to buy. In promoting greater consistency in the law, my new clause 6 is entirely in line with what is described as being a main aim of the Bill.
    I am glad that in tabling their new clause the Government have moved from their untenable position in Committee where they refused to concede to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and her hon. Friends that allowing sales of alcohol by under-18s could even be regarded as an anomaly. If I may say so in all humility, I believe that my new clause 6 is superior to that tabled by the Government in that it has greater clarity, straightforwardness and practicality.
    The Home Office working group on young people and alcohol under the chairmanship of Baroness Masham briefly examined the issue of under-age sales, and its recommendations prompted this new clause. The Justices' Clerks Society has also expressed its dislike of the anomaly of under-age sales and wishes to see it removed. The Masham committee recognised that allowing sales of alcohol by young people under the legal age was an anomaly which might have undesirable consequences. As the committee pointed out, it may be difficult for a 16-year-old to challenge a 17-year-old who seeks to buy alcohol, and this anomaly in the law may help to undermine other legal controls on under-age drinking. I am sure that the House will recognise the truth of that, including my hon. Friends who strongly support extended drinking hours.
    One aspect of the problem not yet mentioned is that not all supermarkets have separate drinks departments but, as was observed recently by the Professional Advisory Committee on Alcohol for Scotland, some
    "display alcohol openly on shelves amongst other consumer goods, thereby placing the supervision of sales on the shoulders of the busy check-out girls",
    who may themselves be under age. The Committee continued:
    "It is anomalous that whilst it is illegal to employ anyone under the age of 18 in a public bar or licensed canteen, no such restriction is in force in the case of off-licensed premises or supermarkets. If legislation to restrict the sale of alcohol to a separate counter were included, it could also be enacted that staff on such a counter are subject to the same age restrictions as those which apply in public bars".
    That is an eminently sensible argument, but it would be equally sensible to approach the problem from the

    1041
    opposite direction by enacting new clause 6 precisely in order to give supermarkets a strong incentive to create separate drinks departments.
    The argument for my new clause is straightforward and I need not detain the House much longer. The Masham committee stated the crucial points in paragraph 147 of its report, which reads:
    "It is significant that off-licences are cited as a major source of alcohol for teenagers; and it is equally significant that some major retailers insist that staff under the age of 18 may not authorise off-sales, since they recognise the difficulties a 16 or 17-year-old may have in enforcing the law."
    If responsible retailers are already imposing their own prohibition on under-age sales, surely this is an instance where the law should follow the example already set by the responsible to curtail the activities of the less responsible. Moreover, the example of responsible retailers shows that any practical difficulties involved in enforcing an 18-or-over rule cannot be insuperable.
    On the question of practicability, the Government's proposal, perhaps contrary to first impressions, is inferior to my new clause 6. As I understand the Government's proposal, it is that each sale of alcohol must be specifically supervised by the licensee or his agent over the age of 18. The difficulty is in imagining how exactly this will be managed in a busy supermarket at peak shopping time. Those who do their own shopping, as I do, will readily recognise the truth of that. The sheer inconvenience of an under-age sales assistant having to call over the licensee or his adult agent each time a bottle or can of alcohol appears among a customer's purchases will surely lead either to impossible delays or, to avoid such delays, the law being widely disregarded.
    It will be far better to agree now to a clear-cut, simple measure which can be enforced. My hon. Friend the Minister has the opportunity to do that, and I recommend new clause 6 to the House.
    Mrs. Golding: It is apparent from new clause 3 that the Minister does not know and does not care about the problems facing many people on housing estates and in other areas where sales from off-licences cause young people to gather together to drink alcohol obtained from those off-licences.
    Does not the Minister know of the time spent by the police in moving youngsters on? Is he not aware of the abuse of local people, and of the threats and damage to their property? If the Minister had my postbag, he would know of the anger felt by many decent people about the apparent lack of control of off-licence sales. What is his answer to those people? It is new clause 3, which continues to allow young people under the age of 18 to sell drinks in off-licences.
    The new clause states:
    "the holder of the licence shall not allow a person under eighteen to make any sale of such liquor unless the sale has been specifically approved by the holder of the licence or by a person of or over the age of eighteen acting on his behalf"
    But what does that mean? What does "specifically" mean? The dictionary meaning is "definitely", "particularly", "not generally or vaguely". Does that mean that permission must be given for every individual transaction?
    If so, let us consider what a sale is. It is the presenting, choosing, advising, obtaining from the cellar or shelf, wrapping and taking of money. All that is involved. Does the clause mean gaining approval for every one of those actions for every individual sale? If so, it cannot be practical in a busy off-licence.
    1042
    Is the law enforceable? If not, it should not become law. If the new clause means that if the holder of the licence gives his approval a 16-year-old can be employed and the supervision is much less, that is wholly unacceptable. It does nothing to prevent the intimidation of a young salesman by less desirable elements in his age group to persuade him, by threats, to sell them alcohol, knowing them to be under-age.
    The Government have had the opportunity in this Bill to prohibit young people under 18 from serving in off-licences. That they have not taken this opportunity shows once again that they are not concerned about young people and alcohol abuse. The control of the sale of alcohol is for adults; it is not for children. It is time that the Government and the House recognised that, and they should accept amendment (a).
    8 pm
    Mr. Garry Waller: I wish to raise two points relating to new clause 3. First, I am concerned about the words "specifically approved". Despite the use of the word "specifically", it is a vague term. My hon. Friend the Minister may say that these words will have to be interpreted by the courts if a dispute arises about what they mean. I am not in the business of providing work for lawyers and I wish to provide more specific wording so that everyone can be clear about the meaning.
    In a chemist's shop, for example, when a preparation is sold, the assistant must hold up the item so that the pharmacist can specifically approve it. Unfortunately, the situation in most supermarkets is not as it is in branches of Boots. For example, in modern retailing, it is frequent practice for sales to take place by means of a laser scanner. The assistant need not press any buttons, but simply moves the items, including perhaps a bottle of spirits, under the scanner, so that the price is computed automatically. It would be helpful to know how such a problem could be tackled by the words "specifically approved". Would it be necessary for the assistant to ring a bell every time—a practice already operated by many responsible retailers?
    Secondly, is it right that there should be no defence to a charge under this provision if, through no fault of the licensee, a sale is made by someone under 18? For example, a young person may lie about his or her age. He or she may go to some trouble to give the impression to the licensee that he or she is over 18. The licensee may have no reason to think that the young person has lied and is under 18. As the clause stands, the licensee would have no defence, yet the person who had lied about his or her age and made the sale would have committed no offence. Should there not be a defence that the licensee had used due diligence and was, therefore, not at fault?
    As a further example, the person who makes the sale may disobey the rule laid down by his or her employer. The young person may be in a hurry and the supervisor, who is over 18, may be some distance away as a queue builds up at the check-out desk. The young person may make the sale, without the approval of the person over 18. Again, the check-out girl or boy has not broken the law under the provisions of the new clause.
    As the new clause stands, the licensee must carry the can, although he may have gone to great trouble to impress on the check-out assistant that the law must be obeyed. Should there not be a defence, if the licensee has used as much diligence as is humanly possible to prevent

    1043
    an offence taking place? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to enlighten me on that point, before we go any further.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I shall answer the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). It is important to consider the new clause closely. An offence occurs only if the licence-holder allows a person under 18 to make a sale unsupervised. If the person under 18 makes a sale which is not allowed, and therefore acts contrary to the instructions which he has been given, the licence-holder is not committing an offence, because he has not allowed the sale.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley asked whether there should be a defence when the employee lies about his age. Perhaps we are piling difficulty upon difficulty, because, in most cases, an employer would want to find out the age of an employee and would take positive steps to do so. With great respect to my hon. Friend, this difficulty may not occur.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) asks that we should adopt one of two alternatives—that there should be either a shop within a shop or a prohibition on the sale of alcohol in off-licences by those under 18. I ask my right hon. Friend not to push the latter proposition to a Division, because it would be immensely damaging to the employment prospects of those under 18. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding).
    Mr. Tony Favell rose—
    Mr. Hogg: I shall give way in a moment.
    At one stage, I was attracted by the concept of a shop within a shop, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, but it would be unduly burdensome on small retail shops and it would be difficult to differentiate in law between a supermarket, where it might be possible to implement such a proposal and a small corner shop, where it would not easily be possible.
    Mr. Favell: In respect of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), that each sale must be specifically approved, does my hon. Friend the Minister anticipate that it will be impossible for a sale of liquor to be made on off-licence premises unless somebody over 18 is present?
    Mr. Hogg: That is my conclusion and that is what we intend. I commend the new clause to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 4

    Transfer of powers with respect to general orders of exemption in London
    'In section 74(6) of the principal Act (discharge of power to make exemption orders in City of London and metropolitan police district)—

    (a) after the word "district", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "subsection (4) of"; and

    (b) for the word "references", there shall be substituted, in the first place where it occurs, the words, "the reference" and in the second and third places where it occurs, the words "a reference".'. — [Mr.Douglas Hogg.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    This is a rather curious and narrow clause which will commend itself to the House and, therefore, I shall deal with it briefly. General orders of extension are, except in London, dealt with by justices. In London, they are dealt with by the two commissioners of police. There does not appear to be a good reason why the two commissioners of police in London should deal with the general orders of exemption. They do not want to continue to do so and justices are willing to undertake the burden. I therefore commend the new clause to the House.
    Question put and agree to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 9

    SALES TO OR BY PERSONS UNDER 18 OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR ON WHOLESALE PREMISES
    'The following section shall be inserted after section 181 of the principal Act—
    "Sales to or by persons under 18 of intoxicating liquor on wholesale premises.
    181A.—(1) In any premises from which he deals wholesale the wholesaler or his servant shall not sell intoxicating liquor to a person under eighteen.
    (2) In any premises from which he deals wholesale the wholesaler shall not allow a person under eighteen to make any sale of intoxicating liquor unless the sale has been specifically approved by the wholesaler or by a person of or over the age of eighteen acting on his behalf.
    (3) A person under eighteen shall not in premises from which intoxicating liquor is dealt in wholesale buy or attempt to buy such liquor.
    (4) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) of this section.

    (a) where the person charged is charged by reason of his own act, it shall be a defence for him to prove—

    (i) that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence under that subsection; or

    (ii) that he had no reason to suspect that the other person was under eighteen; and

    (b) where the person charged is charged by reason of the act of some other person, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence under that subsection.

    (5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (3) of this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
    (6) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) of this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
    (7) In this section "wholesaler" and "wholesale" have the same meaning as in section 4 of the Alcoholic' Liquor Duties Act 1979.".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in line 10, leave out from 'liquor' to end of line 12.
    Amendment (b) to the proposed new clause, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert—
    '(ii) that he had good reason to believe that the other person was over eighteen; and'.
    Mr. Hogg: This is yet a further example of the Government's intention to meet the problem of under-age drinking. We seek to introduce further restrictions on the sale of alcohol to and by young persons. We are applying

    1045
    to wholesalers the same restrictions on the sale of alcohol to and by 18-year-olds as are currently applied to on and off-licence premises. I commend the new clause to the House.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: We support the new clause and its addition to the Bill. However, I suspect that few people will be affected by it. It is unlikely that the majority of people under 18 purchase liquor in bulk from wholesale premises. Nevertheless, we welcome it, and the proposal was recommended by the Masham Committee.
    I shall ask the Minister one or two minor questions about the new clause, because we intended to move an amendment that would omit the necessity for the sale to be specifically approved by a wholesaler, which would be an absolute barrier to any sales in any circumstances by people under the age of 18.
    We believe that there should be no difficulty in finding someone over the age of 18 in wholesale premises to make those sales. I ask the Minister to consider that point and possibly to amend the Bill in another place.
    My other point concerns a recommendation in the Masham report that is connected with the point about wholesale premises. The Masham committee recommended that this provision should be extended to registered clubs. It was thought that it might be necessary to give the police the right to enter such premises, and I can foresee difficulties in that regard. That may be why the Minister left that section out of the amendment, but I should be grateful if he would give his feelings and ideas, because it also may need to be the subject of an amendment at a later stage.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Two points have been raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor); the first relates to clubs. I prefer to be candid with the House, and I usually am—that implies that on occasions I am not. I shrink from the concept of applying the licensing law to clubs. If we were to start applying it to clubs, we should open a Pandora's box which would probably prevent the passage of the Bill. We should not change the law relating to clubs by a side wind. If we want to do so, we must do it in a Bill primarily designed for clubs.
    With regard to the hon. Lady's other point, I have no doubt that it will be possible to find many people over the age of 18 who are willing to sell in wholesale premises. If we were to adopt the hon. Lady's suggestion, we would necessarily exclude those under the age of 18. I do not wish to do so, because of its impact on their employability.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 1

    COACH SERVICES
    `In section 199(d) of the principal Act, for the words "or railway passenger vehicle" there shall be substituted the words "railway passenger vehicle or advertised, timetabled road passenger coach service with serving staff.".'.—[Mr. Roger King.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Roger King: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The purpose of the new clause is to bring up to date the position of a new branch of transportation—inter-city
    1046
    road passenger coach services—which is left out in the cold, in that it is unable to offer for sale alocholic refreshment on its vehicles.
    I have looked at section 199(d) of the principal Act to see whether exemption from the licensing laws enjoyed by railways, aircraft and ships could be extended to road passenger vehicles on scheduled services with staff on board.
    8.15 pm
    One of the greatest successes of the Government since 1979 has been their policy of deregulation. The passenger coach industry was one of the first to be deregulated. It has enjoyed extraordinary success as it has developed into a formidable system, with thousands of services being provided throughout the length and breadth of the country.
    When the principal Act was devised in 1964, this type of service did not exist. Coach services were in their infancy and were not integrated into a national system. But now they are, and they can be seen on our roads system, operating to the requirements of the passengers whom they serve.
    It is a national system; it is sophisticated and respectable. It offers a highly competitive service compared with other modes of transport. It has been sufficiently competitive to force the railways and airlines into competition. In turn, they have reflected, with their improved services, the greater desire of customers to use them.
    Our legislation has opened up the service of road transport to a wide new market. Although coach services cannot compete directly on time, they offer good comfort and a much cheaper service. The latest coaches are not remotely like the traditional football charabancs of the past. They are very sophisticated vehicles, with double-deck construction, air conditioning, aircraft-style seats, video cassette machines, toilets and hostess services. Such service has transformed the principle of coach services. The customer has the highest level of comfort on board, and food is also available.
    Coach services at present are denied the opportunity to sell alcoholic refreshment, which should be put right. One can take drink on board the coach and the operator can give drink away. There is no reason why coach operators should not be allowed to sell drinks on their vehicles. Other modes of transport are allowed to do so.
    I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister to explain why this new clause should be agreeable to him. He has been kind enough to reply, and it seems that there are one or two obstacles that the Home Office and certainly the police find unacceptable. First, there is the worry about football hooliganism. We all agree that we should combat the evils of football hooliganism, which often arises as a direct result of excessive alcoholic refreshment. That problem has not been created by intercity scheduled coach services any more than by inter-city rail services. If we are to ban the consumption of alcohol on a scheduled coach, we must ban alcohol on a scheduled train. It is often going to the same place as an ordinary road coach. To say that a coach operator, operating a timetable scheduled service, attracts football hooliganism is to say that British Rail suffers from the same problem, which it does not.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is not most football hooliganism caused by young louts taking drink on board? I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend, but would there not be the same problem?
    Mr. King: Scheduled inter-city coach services have been with us for a number of years. There is no evidence that football supporters use those services. It is a scheduled service travelling from point A to point B, not to football grounds. However, the problem might occur with private coach operators. The Government have been keen to eliminate that problem by extra policing at football grounds. The problem cannot be laid at the door of scheduled coach services. If it were, it would have been self-evident in the services already provided.
    The Home Office is equally worried about an inebriated passenger on a coach presenting a danger to the driver — hitting him on the head and causing an accident. However, that could happen if he takes his own alcohol on board. The provision of a hostess or steward on the coach would surely eliminate that possibility. In any case, that can happen on a train. The new sprinter trains have alcohol available on them, so it would be easy for an inebriated customer to walk up to the cab, force the door open and accost the driver. That does not happen, so that argument does not stand up.
    It is argued that it would create confusion among continental coach operators who see drinks being provided on one type of coach and wonder why they are unable to provide them. If one travels in any country, one should acquaint oneself with the local laws of the land. I see no difficulty in a foreign operator understanding the difference between his tour operation and a scheduled inter-city coach service.
    I shall not press the new clause, because I understand that there are problems, but it is worthy of further examination, with a view to including it in forthcoming legislation. The argument that the new clause might attract other amendments to the Bill does not hold water. We are talking about one element of public transport which is denied the opportunity to compete in the way allowed to other transportation modes.
    A train will leave Birmingham and travel towards London and a scheduled coach will do the same, travelling on the M1. For three miles they will travel side by side, offering exactly the same services. They are after the same market. One is allowed to sell alcoholic refreshment when it feels like it and the other is denied that opportunity. As our attitude to travel changes, our attitude to the law should change as well. I hope that, in any future revision of our licensing laws, the Government will look carefully at this proposal. There are not many passenger coach operators, but they operate throughout the country with advertised scheduled services. I hope that the Government will allow them to operate on equal terms with operators of other modes of transport.
    Sir Bernard Braine: I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), for whom I have great affection, but this is a dangerous proposition. There is enough trouble on trains now from people who consume too much liquor, but at least passengers have the opportunity to move down the train. Such movement is impossible on a coach.
    There is a growing tendency—my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield seems to think that the law should
    1048
    be brought into line with this growing tendency—for more and more drinking to take place in public, outside public houses and clubs. One sees this disgraceful situation in any London tube station, but especially the large ones. There are used lager cans on the platform and the rail tracks. The abuse is growing every week.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield said that coach travellers take their liquor aboard. Of course they do. That is a well-known fact. They take crates of it aboard. I have just received a letter from one of my constituents, which states:
    "My wife and I are the proprietors of a seasonal business in Southend on the front. Every year is getting worse as far as behavioural problems with language, shoplifting, fighting and sexual abuse, all drink related. My wife is verbally abused, and I myself last year had to call the police several times to our premises. I am 47 years of age and am now at the age when I feel threatened and feel that we can no longer enjoy a happy successful occupation in my trade."
    My constituent refers in particular to the coach trade. He tells how people come down in coaches, flock into the pubs and, after the pubs close,
    "for the next 3 or 4 hours wander round town carrying packs of beer or whole bottles of spirit or cider. They come into our shop and try to steal what they can, and if we object they are abusive, foul-mouthed and dangerous. Nine times out of ten, these coach parties are drunk when they hit town and go from bad to worse."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield made his case moderately and eloquently, but I beg the House not to encourage such behaviour and to compare the coach trade with the railway trade. I would have liquor banned on the railways as well. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned us more than once that if we wish to preserve the health of our young people, we may have to drink less rather than more. The object of the Bill, and of all the proposals along those lines which provide for longer hours, is to make the consumption of alcohol easier.
    There is a price to be paid. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)—I do not know whether hon. Members picked it up, but they should have done—said that it is a well-known fact, established all over the world, that with the increase in the consumption of alcohol there is an automatic increase in the harm done. I make a plea for restraint. That is what the law should observe. I hope that the House will reject this preposterous proposal.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: On the face of it, this is quite an attractive measure. It has been attractively argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). However, I must say, although for slightly different reasons from those advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), that I am not persuaded of the merits of the new clause.
    There are substantially three reasons for that. First, it could give rise to control problems on coaches. It seems to me that passengers on a coach have too ready access to the driver and that is a distinction between coaches and, for example, trains. Secondly, I suspect that the measure would be used by football supporters, at least sometimes, and that would tend to get around the control imposed by the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985. Those two considerations have influenced the police to oppose this suggestion. Thirdly, I have some sympathy with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point that a passenger on a coach cannot move away from a person drinking in the same way as a passenger on a train. That distinction needs to be noted.

    1049
    I should like to be candid, once again. I am against Christmas trees of Bills. I have a feeling that if I were to yield on the new clause, I might find it more difficult to maintain the purity of the Bill that hitherto we have been able to establish. For those reasons, I do not commend the new clause to the House.
    Mr. Roger King: I have listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point made no distinction between the tour tripper going to the seaside on a charabanc and the passenger on inter-city scheduled coach services. There are wide differences, and the two are not to be compared. Of course, there are always problems with tour trippers who go out for the day and with football supporters.
    My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State also made a mistake, if I may use that expression, in suggesting that if drink wereallowed on board an inter-city roadcoach it would attract football supporters. They can use the coaches now and bring their alcohol on board, but there is no evidence that they have done so. By the same token, why is British Rail allowed to run its scheduled Inter-City services to those cities to which football supporters are going, with full drink and refreshment facilities available, but coaches are not?
    The logic is that, if drink is not allowed on the road coaches, it cannot be allowed on the rail system. As for moving away from a person who is drinking, my experience is that it is difficult to do that if the train is crowded. During my frequent rail travel I do not see many instances of excess alcohol consumption. The advantage the coach would have is that an attendant would be visible and present on the same deck as all the passengers. However, I understand what my hon. Friend has said, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New Clause 5

    MONITORING
    `The following section shall be inserted after section 88 of the principal Act—
    "88A. The Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Transport shall monitor the effects of changes in licensing hours on alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems in relation to public order, road safety and public health in England and Wales.".'.—[Dr. Moonie]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    8.30 pm
    Dr. Lewis Moonie: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    I feel marginally—I regret to say, only marginally—warmer towards the Bill than I did on Second Reading and in Committee. It still lacks several essential components, especially in the clause on the monitoring of its effect. It is sad that someone must move a new clause asking the Departments involved to monitor the effects of the changes. Unfortunately, they do not do that in any constructive way, and perhaps hon. Members agree that they should.
    The new clause would ensure that the Departments discharged the function that they should, and monitored the effects of this major change—despite the Minister's having called it a minor one—in the licensing laws. The
    1050
    clause in the Bill involves an increase in the time available for the consumption of alcohol on weekdays by 30 per cent., which is a major change. All changes in the law, in price or in the length of time in which there is access to alcohol produce changes in consumption. That has been proved by countless examples that have been quoted earlier in the debate, and I do not propose to go over them again, but merely to mention other countries in which there have been changes, such as Canada, Australia—there have been changes state by state there — and Finland, in which there is interesting parallel of the laws having been tightened up, followed by a fall in problems and consumption, and then liberalised, followed by a corresponding rise.
    Scotland has been mentioned at length in support of the Bill. There was evidence after the Clayson proposals were implemented that the consumption of alcohol fell there. However, it has been clearly demonstrated that that fall was spurious; it was caused by other factors and not by the change in licensing laws.
    The need for monitoring has, if anything, been underlined by the Scottish experience, by the lack of data on which we can rely and by the ambiguity of the statistics quoted at such great length—
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was one of the recommendations of the Clayson committee that there should be monitoring such as he is now suggesting?
    Dr. Moonie: I am indeed. Again, it is a sad comment on the state of affairs in Scotland that there has not been adquate monitoring of the effects of the proposals, nor has there been full implementation of the Clayson recommendations. Had they been properly implemented, that might have led to a change of the type for which we were hoping from the Bill.
    If the availability of statistics is inadequate, it could be improved. Statistics are available. What is not available is some rational means of collecting and collating them so that they can be compared year by year and their effects noted. Increased consumption means increased problems—of drink-driving, and of injury and death caused by the same, particularly in the late afternoon. That is when a large amount of the extra time will fall—just when our children are returning home from school. That is when drunken drivers will be disgorged on to the streets and into their cars to cause mayhem. That is not an attractive prospect. If we do not bring in new legislation to combat it, we should at least examine it.
    I want to quote from a letter to the Home Office from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, commenting on the Government's consultative proposals:
    "Paragraph 10 of the document states that action is more likely to be effective if it is focused on particular problems rather than if it is co-ordinated across a range of policies. At the same time the Government is making a change in one policy, namely, the extension of licensing hours, without any consideration of other policies which are yet to be developed, even though it is acknowledged that licensing controls have played a significant role in preventing nuisance, and in maintaining public order and safety. It is therefore totally inconsistent to introduce one measure, at this point, which will undoubtedly increase the availability of alcohol to the population as a whole
    There is evidence of a rise recently in overall alcohol intake and in death from cirrhosis. It is at least likely that the increased suicide rate in younger males may be related to alcohol problems, as well as I o unemployment. Many reports indicate that some 15–30 per cent. of general hospital

    1051
    admissions are related to alcohol problems. The present time, therefore, is hardly propitious for an extension of licensing hours. The proposal indicates a lack of concern on the part of the Government about the damage which alcohol does to the community and the individual and also the enormous costs incurred by the Health and Social Services, in terms of disease, morbidity and child care.
    Those European countries which have more liberal licensing laws also seem to have a higher level of overall consumption of alcohol and a higher level of alcohol related disease. All the evidence points to the fact that increasing the accessibility to alcohol by whatever measure increases its consumption …
    However, since the extension of the licensing laws in Scotland, there has been a marked increase in the combination of alcohol and self-poisoning. There has also been a recent acceleration, compared with England and Wales, in the rise of female deaths from cirrhosis …
    We do not accept that the licensing laws are in any way a hindrance to the tourist industry".
    One of the reasons for liberalising them is the tourist industry.
    "They may indeed be regarded as part of the British scene like 'Beefeaters' and other innocuous eccentricities. We believe that a unilateral act of increasing the licensing hours can only lead to increased problems from alcohol, particularly in those who are most vulnerable, i.e. those who already have a high alcohol consumption and also young people whose drinking is already causing considerable concern."
    I have quoted extensively from the letter because it underlines the royal college's concern about the effects of the Bill.
    Mr. Favell: The hon. Gentleman is a Scottish Member. Scotland already enjoys sensible licensing laws allowing people to drink during the afternoon. I am a regular visitor to Aviemore, where the slopes close at 4 pm. After skiing, people in Scotland can go for a drink during the afternoon. Does the hon. Gentleman think that skiing would be as popular in Scotland if people were given a cup of tea after they came off the slopes?
    Dr. Moonie: I shall be happy for English ski resorts to be granted the same privilege. I cannot think of any off-hand, but I am sure there must be one or two. With that in mind, I want to quote from Saunders on licensing laws:
    "A central concern about the extensive granting of 'all-day' licensing is that as with all forms of drug use availability is a key factor in determining levels of harm. As noted above the lesson of Europe is that those countries with little or no legislative controls on alcohol use have the highest rates of alcohol related mortality. All day licensing makes us more like the French not only in drinking style but also in terms of patterns of problems. The French experience is one of infrequent drunkenness but extensive alcohol related mortality (9). It is possible that in Scotland we have created the basis for an explosion of physical damage from alcohol use which will over the next decade become increasingly evident in our general medical wards. With regard to this it is important to note that between 1976 and 1983 alcohol consumption in the UK as a whole rose by 4·5 per cent. but in Scotland per capita consumption increased at a disproportionate level—up by 13 per cent. The enthusiasm with which the Brewers Society is currently campaigning for extended hours south of the Border has no doubt been induced by their appreciation that more hours means more sales. From a public health perspective this inevitably means more harm …
    In Britain alcohol has never been controlled for health reasons, so it is likely that the Brewers Society will succeed in their campaign. Therefore, the next decade will be one in which Britons"—
    meaning the English, I presume—
    1052
    "consume more alcohol and experience more alcohol-related problems. When this melancholic fact is achieved the alcohol producers will have succeeded in making us more like the French."
    I ask the Minister at least to accept the premise that there may be ill effects of the Bill. I trust that he does not hope to cover them up by failing to look adequately at the statistics. Will he undertake to instruct the Home Office to work with other Ministries to make a careful study of the available statistics as they arise? Will he assure us that, should there be clear evidence of harm resulting from the Bill, he will think again?
    Sir Bernard Braine: The new clause concerns the vital need to monitor licensing law changes in relation to public health and social well-being. It will require the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Transport to monitor the effects of changes in licensing hours on alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems in respect of public order, road safety and public health in England and Wales.
    The new clause is entirely constructive. It will in no way damage the main aim and purpose of the Bill or provide any impediment to its full implementation. It merely ensures that adequate information about effects is made available. I hope that the House will consent to it. I remind the House that it consented to an identical clause that was moved on the Report stage of the Licensing Bill which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). That Bill had the Government's approval. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) put her finger on the crucial consideration. In Committee, she observed that almost all debates had been taken up not with differences of political philosophy or moral points of view, but with arguments about matters of fact. Surely few hon. Members would wish to see extended drinking hours if there were no reasonable doubt that the result of such reform would be more deaths and injuries on our roads, more outbreaks of public disorder on our streets, and even more pressure being placed on the Health Service. Equally, few hon. Members would object to extended drinking hours if there were clear evidence that no harm would result.
    Unfortunately, debates on this Bill and on previous Bills — I have taken part in such debates for over 20 years—have been obstructed and prolonged by a lack of basic information. The Scottish experiment has completely failed to produce conclusive evidence on either side of the debate because it was not properly monitored. On Second Reading, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said:
    "The Clayson committee was concerned to ensure proper monitoring of the effects of changes in Scottish legislation, but that has not happened. I hope that, recognising some of the apprehensions voiced today, the Government will feel that that should now be done in the whole of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it may be a topic for consideration by the interdepartmental committee." —[Official Report, 9 November 1987; Vol. 1427, c. 63.]
    That advice should have been taken. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke in favour of the Bill. He was a member of the Clayson committee. I should have thought that his view had added weight, and I endorse it fully.
    8.45 pm
    In his reply, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that he agreed that it would be necessary to monitor the effects of the Bill and that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys had already undertaken

    1053
    an up-to-date survey of drinking habits in England and Wales to provide data against which any changes could be measured. I have had on more than one occasion to point out to the House that that same monitoring did take place, but that the Government sat on the findings for over a year. I am glad that they have now seen the light, but it is not nearly enough. Many other aspects of the matter need to be examined in depth. If the Scottish experiment is any guide, even the OPCS survey, which the Minister mentioned, may turn out to be of only limited usefulness.
    I have lost count of the number of occasions on which the OPCS survey, "Drinking and Attitudes to Licensing in Scotland", has been cited as providing conclusive proof that extended drinking hours in Scotland have had no adverse affects but, possibly, some beneficial effects. In the view of one neutral reviewer, Dr. Philip Davies, the study
    "provides very little empirical evidence to support those who wish to see a further relaxation in licensing laws on either side of the border."
    I do not think that I am distorting Dr. Davies' views by adding that neither does the Scottish survey provide clear evidence against further liberalisation. That is the precise point that I make. For example, Dr. Davies points out that questions about alcohol problems or the abuse of alcohol were beyond the remit of the survey and that, similarly, questions regarding drinking practices in relation to eating out or other social activities were not asked.
    Therefore, the survey provides no information about whether married couples are drinking together in pubs more frequently now than they were before relaxation, or whether they are using pubs more frequently for eating out or other recreational activities, with or without their children. In other words, the survey provides no information about whether licensing reform in Scotland has encouraged more civilised drinking, as the Clayson committee had hoped. The fact is, however, that those who drank heavily before the Scottish reform now drink more heavily. There is some evidence, therefore, that the reforms are not all what their advocates had claimed.
    Although I am pleased to know that the Government have already laid a small part of the foundations for monitoring licensing law changes south of the border, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure the House that the surveys that are planned for England and Wales will be rather less incomplete and superficial than their Scottish counterpart. I hope that he will also accept that, although drinking surveys are important, they are only one part of the picture. We also need detailed studies of the matters that were excluded from the Scottish survey, for example, alcohol abuse.
    The Erroll committee strongly recommended that detailed monitoring of licensing law changes be carried out, and suggested that an interdepartmental working party should be created to direct and supervise the work. That was an excellent suggestion. I spent years advocating something along those lines. The Wakeham committee is now in existence, and I warmly welcome it. If there is one Minister in whose judgment and integrity I have supreme confidence, it is my right hon. Friend the Lord President and Leader of the House. The Government made a wise choice in putting him in charge of the interdepartmental committee.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members might support him if he were to state
    1054
    that he supported one of the other recommendations of the Erroll committee, which was that public houses should be open until midnight?
    Sir Bernard Braine: I have heard some odd, peculiar and irresponsible suggestions in the years but—
    Mr. Knight: It is in the Erroll Committee report.
    Sir Bernard Braine: No Government have ever dared to implement the Erroll committee's recommendations. There is now an attempt to move a little in that direction. So far, no Government have ever done so, because of the known and uncontrolled harm that is done. My hon. Friend must not push me too far, or I shall trot out the case in detail. The Erroll committee was not wholly wrong. It was wise in making that one suggestion. We must not take away that little credit. Indeed, the Government and supporters of further licensing liberalisation should welcome the clause. I gave way to my hon. Friend because I thought that he, for whom I have great respect, was going to say that.
    There is a direct precedent. Following the passage of the Defence of the Realm Act 1916, some provisions of which this Bill seeks to reform, the Central Liquor Control Board was established to monitor its working and effects. If the changes that are brought about by the Bill are monitored in the same meticulous way as the Defence of the Realm Act was monitored by the Central Liquor Control Board, in five years we shall have the facts and experience to make rational decisions about the role that opening hours should play in national policy.
    I stress that between the two wars under that regime this was the most sober country in the civilised world. The deterioration in behaviour with regard to alcohol goes back only 15 or 20 years. During that time we have seen a huge increase in alcohol consumption and a huge increase in harm. That is the lesson that I am trying to put over today. It is a difficult task, but it must be done.
    Once we have proper monitoring, we can formulate policy along the lines confirmed by careful social investigation and no longer be in the present position of having to take steps in the dark. I do not deny that the required monitoring system would be extensive. One of the main distinguishing features of alcohol abuse is that it impinges on almost every aspect of social life. That is precisely why we should be so cautious about extending drinking hours. There is no need for me to describe at length all the various manifestations and consequences of alcohol abuse. However, I am bound to say that as a result of the helpful intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight)—
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: He did not mean it.
    Sir Bernard Braine: He challenged me and I responded.
    I remind the House that the Bill is designed to increase the availability of a substance that is already an important contributory factor to approximately one in five admissions to general medical units. It is responsible for 40 to 50 per cent. of violent crime and approximately one third of divorce petitions and cases of child abuse. It is by far the single main cause of death and injury on our roads. Need I say more? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The truth shall make ye free. There are times when it is necessary to say these things so that hon. Members may understand that their liberalising efforts may have worthy objectives, but they carry a heavy price.

    1055
    Alcohol abuse is a problem for all society, not merely for a small minority of unfortunate individuals. I will not claim that it can be proved in advance that the Bill will make matters worse. I cannot say that. I can merely say that there is an obvious danger that it will do so. We are therefore under a considerable obligation to discover what the effects will be. Special social impact surveys will be needed to provide that information. The monitoring process must be regular and consistent, not spasmodic or erratic. It will also be necessary to ascertain regional variations in patterns of alcohol use and abuse. The effects of the Bill may differ from one part of the country to another. It may differ between urban areas and rural areas and it might vary between the north—which has a tradition for hard drinking — and the south. Those differences must be identified and understood.
    While the monitoring process will undoubtedly require considerable activity and expertise, it should not place an impossible burden on the three Departments named in the new clause. Increasingly, data on alcohol-related problems are being gathered, although as I suspect the Wakeham committee has already discovered, the information is far from complete.
    Some district health authorities have already begun to measure the incidence of alcohol-related accidental or non-accidental injuries presented to accident and emergency departments in a given locality according to the hour of day and the day of the week. Health authorities are also already improving their capacity to measure by means such as hospital activity analysis data the number of patients being treated for alcohol-related disease and the financial cost to the taxpayer of such treatment.
    If the Government are undertaking a review of the Health Service, including its costs, organisation and administration, they should consider alcohol abuse very closely. The cost to the nation as a whole is very high. Similarly, it would not be too difficult for the home accident surveillance system to be adapted to identify the contribution of alcohol abuse to home accidents including fires, the importance of which has been recognised in recent publicity.
    I remember the surprise I caused when commending some time ago the practice of one chief constable who listed whether alcohol was related to every charge on his records. That was not then a common practice in the police, but it should have been so that we could understand the total cost of alcohol abuse.
    Equally, there is no reason why social services and probation departments as well as the police should not be able to develop systems for the routine monitoring of caseloads and offences to identify the contribution of alcohol abuse. At the moment, individual pieces of research suggest strongly that alcohol abuse is a significant factor in all those areas, but we need to know much more. The Bill is before the House; why is the opportunity not being taken to include such a provision? I am here to help the Minister to move in the right direction.
    Whatever form the monitoring process takes, the public health and social well-being of the community requires that the results should be made widely available and of course to Parliament. This may or may not be the last occasion when an attempt will be made to change the licensing law, although I cannot believe that another Bill of this scope will be presented to the House in the
    1056
    foreseeable future. The least that we can do now, if we vote the Bill into law, is to ensure that a comprehensive monitoring process is established to bring the facts to light and inform those who have responsibility for public health, public order and public safety. The new clause can be regarded as a threat to licensing reform.
    Mr. Charles Irving: I rarely intervene in debates, but it is rather cold at this end of the Chamber. I think that the boiler has fused. I am so interested and excited by my right hon. Friend's dissertation. Is he suggesting that all the new regulations should apply to the House of Commons? As temporary landlord of the bars and facilities here, I should be grateful to know, so that I can make appropriate preparation.
    Sir Bernard Braine: I should not be drawn in that direction, but many of our constituents ask why the bars in the Houses of Parliament are outside the licensing law. If the matter rested with me, they would not be. I understand that this has something to do with the fact that we occupy a royal palace which is not subject to the normal licensing laws. I will not defend that for a moment. However, my hon. Friend, who presides as Chairman over the House of Commons Catering Sub-Committee with such grace, charm and high competence—never has the food here been so good—must address himself to that point. I should not tread any further down that inviting but perhaps rather dangerous road.
    The least that we can do now if we vote the Bill into law is to ensure that a comprehensive monitoring process is established to bring the facts to light and inform those responsible for public health, public order and public services. The new clause can be regarded as a threat to licensing reform only by those who fear the facts. I cannot believe that the House will take such a view and prefer ignorance to knowledge. I therefore commend the new clause to the House.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: I shall speak briefly in support of the new clause. My only interest in the debate is to represent the well-being of my constituents in Wakefield. I never cease to be amazed in such debates to see the number of Conservative Members who directly represent business interests. Tonight, Conservative Members have excelled themselves.
    9 pm
    It worries me that people outside the House assume that hon. Members come here to represent their constituency interests. We know exactly what interests Conservative Members represent in tonight's debate. As the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said, we are debating what is virtually a brewers' charter. The Bill is a brewers' charter. It is in the interests of the brewers and the business people who sit on the Conservative Benches. The Bill is a present from the Conservative Government to those who have loyally supported them in the past. [HON. MEMBERS: "Absolute nonsense."] It is a fact. The right hon. Member for Castle Point virtually conceded that point in his earlier comments. It is amazing that the Government can find legislative time to discuss extending drinking hours but not the real issues that have been touched upon — those relating to the problems of alcohol in our society. Those problems worry me, they worry other hon. Members, and they certainly worry my constituents in Wakefield.

    1057
    The problem of drunken driving has been referred to in the debate. Every year there are 100,000 drink-driving convictions, and every year accidents involving drivers who are drunk cost the country £89 million. There is a public clamour for random breath tests. We should be discussing those issues instead of extending drinking hours. We should be discussing family problems, marital violence, marital breakdown and child abuse related to drinking. The Government should be giving the House time to discuss those issues instead of what we are debating tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has referred to the £2 billion that alcohol-related illness costs the National Health Service.
    I should like to say a few words about drink-related crime. It is quite clear that there is a definite connection between offences that occur late at night and the amount of alcohol that people have consumed. I shall not go into great detail on the points that I made in Committee about the concern in my west Yorkshire constituency about drink-related offences which occur late at night, at around the time when pubs and clubs are closing.
    Drink-related crime has reached a crisis point in west Yorkshire, and I suspect in certain other parts of the country. The Minister will recall that I mentioned in Committee the police figures for the Wakefield subdivision of west Yorkshire police. My constituency has the largest percentage of offences for violence against the person in the whole of west Yorkshire. That is because there is more drinking in Wakefield than elsewhere in west Yorkshire. It is accepted that we have more late-night licences. People come from as far away as London on trips to Wakefield, which is deemed to be a drinking town. It is not my constituents who are the drinkers. The problem is that people come from outside to my constituency. They come in busloads. Football supporters use my constituency for late-night drinking.
    The huge crime figures, which have increased recently within the Wakefield sub-division, clearly correlate with closing time. The police say that around closing time in Wakefield city centre — Wakefield is small, with a population of less than 60,000 people — as many as 6,000 people can be milling around in various stages of intoxication. That is the cause of problems in Wakefield. Shortly before Christmas, 37 people were arrested for drink-related offences in Wakefield city centre in one night. The local police station had great difficulty in accommodating them.
    We need to have encompassed in the legislation a review of what exactly is happening as a result of drinking. The local authorities in the Wakefield area are blamed for that problem. We are told — this point was made in Committee—that local authorities can block those late-night licences through their entertainment licensing powers. I made the point in Committee that the authorities in Wakefield attempted to do that, but time after time on appeal they have lost and had costs awarded against them in their efforts to defend the interests of my constituents. The local people are desperate for action, but it will not come from this legislation.
    Mr. Waller: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the new restriction orders, which are an intrinsic part of the Bill, address directly the problem of which he has just spoken?
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I accept that, but I am concerned about entertainment licences. That problem is not dealt with in
    1058
    the Bill, despite the fact that I raised it several times in Committee. The only way to deal with it is to follow the provisions of new clause 5 and hope that subsequently the Government will realise the extent of the problem in many parts of the country because of drink-related crime. The Government are totally oblivious to this worrying problem.
    I want to make three points, to which I hope the Minister will respond. It is vital that the Government examine the evidence from the police in areas such as west Yorkshire about drink-related offences. They will get a message contrary to what they are providing for in the Bill. The problem, which will be evident from the figures provided by the police, should have been tackled in the Bill.
    The Government should also take action to curb the increasing problem of late-night establishments which charge inflated admission prices of £4 or £5 and then sell beer or lager at 10p a pint. That is a financial incentive to people to get blind drunk. I accept that the Government do not want to get involved in market forces, but this practice encourages people to get drunk and commit crimes. Local authorities should be given real powers to block late-night entertainment licences and to tackle the problems of late-night drinking in areas such as Wakefield.
    The Goverment are unbelievably complacent about the real problems referred to by the right hon. Member for Castle Point and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). The provision for monitoring is essential. It is crucial to ensure that people's real concerns about alcohol are tackled by Parliament.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Monitoring would have limited value. I intervene only to answer the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). While we all accept that alcohol abuse leads to severe illness and death and to big social problems, restrictionism does not always equate with sobriety.
    Last week I was talking to a leading Swedish politician whom I know well. He told me that in his country alcohol is extremely expensive and that there are many restrictions. Has that caused a lowering of alcohol consumption? It has not. Alcoholism is on the increase in Scandinavia, and particularly in Sweden. It has reached the stage where large numbers of people, including families, have their own stills to make alcohol. That is against the law, but the Government, presumably abandoning the monitoring that they had undertaken, have turned a blind eye to what is happening. They do not prosecute the individual; they prosecute only when a person gets ambitious and starts selling the product.
    I am not suggesting that we will get to that position. Indeed, the liberal and far-sighted approach of the Government in this excellent Bill will assist us in being sensible about the problem. Time and again one hears from the critics a tale of woe and disaster. The one way of countering the problem is to stop drinking altogether or to restricti it severely. In some parts of the world restricton has been attempted but has not worked.
    Mr. Anderson: I should like to respond to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith). All the figures that I have seen, both national and international, suggest that there is a correlation between availability and consumption and between price and

    1059
    consumption. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it is important that the facts be established. I do, and that is why I support new clause 5.
    I hope that everybody agrees that we need an informed debate on this vital issue. There must be greater public knowledge about it. We need legislation which is not a stab in the dark but based on the best available knowledge of what the effects of that legislation are likely to be. I hope that the Government will monitor those effects and will publish their findings. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington can feed in his own considerations, and we can all come to reasonable conclusions on the basis of knowledge rather than our respective presuppositions.
    We also need enforcement and action. Our fear is that the Government may not want too much knowledge as they might be forced, as a result of public opinion, to take some action which they found distasteful. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) observed that if the Government want to save money on the National Health Service, they should address themselves to the enormous financial burden on that service caused by alcohol abuse. That burden can be increased or decreased by Government policy on alcohol.
    We need monitoring, as it is quite clear from what the Minister and the Secretary of State have said that the Government take a dynamic view of the liberalisation of the licensing laws. This is only the start. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that he would go much further. There is a dichotomy between his restrictionism with regard to refugees and immigration and his liberalism concerning the licensing laws. He favours more liberalisation for Sundays and, given half a chance, the Government would add to the liberalisation represented by the Bill. The Government are approaching the matter on an incremental basis. They will go step by step towards, possibly, total deregulation. It is therefore all the more important that we should know what the consequences of such action might be before it is taken.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) said that the Welsh Office is mentioned in an amendment which we are to consider later. I shall not bore the House with the arguments that I made in Committee, but there is indeed a Welsh dimension. The scale of the problem is much greater in Wales, so I hope that the Welsh Office will take a role in the issue.
    If the Government do not want to know the facts, they will continue to stumble along in the dark. It seems that they are unprepared to research the effects of the changes. Perhaps the findings of such research would be unwelcome to them.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I do not commend the new clause to the House. My reasons are both broad and narrow, and I shall deal with the latter first. This House should not impose statutory obligations that are incapable of enforcement. The new clause seeks to do just that, because, although it specifies objectives, it does not specify means. Nor does it say what has to be done to comply with a statutory obligation. On those narrow grounds alone, the new clause is defective.
    Secondly and broadly, the problem is not lack of information—there is plenty of information—but lack of interpretation of the information. We can have all the
    1060
    information that we like, but I strongly suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), with all the eloquence for which he is noted, would argue for a different conclusion to be drawn from that information from that which I would draw.
    Government Departments such as the Home Office, the Department of Transport and the DHSS accumulate a vast body of information relating to the problems of drink, their consequences and their characteristics. In places like this, we are concerned not with lack of knowledge but with the interpretation to be placed on it. That being so, although I greatly admired my right hon. Friend's speech, I cannot commend his new clause to the House.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 270.

    Division No. 166]

    [9.16 pm

    AYES

    Allen, Graham

    McCartney, Ian

    Alton, David

    McCrea, Rev William

    Anderson, Donald

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Barron, Kevin

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Beggs, Roy

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Beith, A. J.

    Maxton, John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Michael, Alun

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Murphy, Paul

    Cryer, Bob

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Cummings, J.

    Parry, Robert

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Patchett, Terry

    Dalyell, Tam

    Pike, Peter

    Dixon, Don

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    Doran, Frank

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Douglas, Dick

    Robertson, George

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Short, Clare

    Fearn, Ronald

    Skinner, Dennis

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Flynn, Paul

    Spearing, Nigel

    Foster, Derek

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Hardy, Peter

    Turner, Dennis

    Haynes, Frank

    Wallace, James

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Howells, Geraint

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Kilfedder, James

    Dr. Lewis Moonie and

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

    Mr. Eric Illsley.

    Livingstone, Ken

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Alexander, Richard

    Boswell, Tim

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Allason, Rupert

    Bowis, John

    Amess, David

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Arbuthnot, James

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Brazier, Julian

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bright, Graham

    Atkins, Robert

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Atkinson, David

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Baldry, Tony

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Burns, Simon

    Bendall, Vivian

    Burt, Alistair

    Benyon, W.

    Butler, Chris

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Butterfill, John

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Carrington, Matthew

    1061

    Cash, William

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Chope, Christopher

    Hunter, Andrew

    Churchill, Mr

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Irvine, Michael

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Irving, Charles

    Colvin, Michael

    Jack, Michael

    Conway, Derek

    Janman, Timothy

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Jessel, Toby

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Cope, John

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Couchman, James

    Key, Robert

    Cran, James

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Crowther, Stan

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Knapman, Roger

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

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Day, Stephen

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Devlin, Tim

    Knowles, Michael

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knox, David

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Dover, Den

    Lang, Ian

    Dunn, Bob

    Latham, Michael

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Evennett, David

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Farr, Sir John

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Favell, Tony

    Lightbown, David

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lord, Michael

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    MacGregor, John

    Forman, Nigel

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Maclean, David

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Franks, Cecil

    Madel, David

    Freeman, Roger

    Malins, Humfrey

    French, Douglas

    Mans, Keith

    Gale, Roger

    Maples, John

    Gill, Christopher

    Marland, Paul

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Gorst, John

    Mills, Iain

    Gow, Ian

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Greenway, John (Rydale)

    Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

    Gregory, Conal

    Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Moss, Malcolm

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Grist, Ian

    Neubert, Michael

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

    Hannam, John

    Page, Richard

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

    Paice, James

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Harris, David

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Pawsey, James

    Hayes, Jerry

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hayward, Robert

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Price, Sir David

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Raffan, Keith

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hill, James

    Redwood, John

    Hind, Kenneth

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Riddick, Graham

    Holt, Richard

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Howard, Michael

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

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

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    1062

    Rost, Peter

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Rowe, Andrew

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Thorne, Neil

    Ryder, Richard

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Tracey, Richard

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Tredinnick, David

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Trippier, David

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Viggers, Peter

    Shersby, Michael

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Walden, George

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Speed, Keith

    Waller, Gary

    Speller, Tony

    Ward, John

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Squire, Robin

    Watts, John

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wells, Bowen

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Wheeler, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Whitney, Ray

    Stern, Michael

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Stevens, Lewis

    Wilkinson, John

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Wilshire, David

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Stokes, John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Wood, Timothy

    Sumberg, David

    Woodcock, Mike

    Summerson, Hugo

    Yeo, Tim

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Mr. Peter Lloyd.

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Question accordingly negatived.

  New Clause 8

    GARAGE SALES
    After section ((3) of the principal Act, there shall he inserted the following subsection—
    "(3A) premises which in whole or in part are engaged in the retailing of petrol or dery to motorists or other users of motor vehicles shall be disqualified for receiving a justices' off-licence.".—[Sir Bernard Braine.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    9.30 pm
    Sir Bernard Braine: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The purpose of the new clause is to prohibit the granting of off-licences to petrol stations and garages. The arguments in favour of the clause are simple, obvious and self-evident: alcohol and driving are plainly mismatched.
    I have been unable to obtain up-to-date information about the number of off-licences granted to garages and petrol stations, but I understand that the number is not large—probably less than 100. Indeed, I understand that licensing committees are more likely to refuse than to grant such a licence. However, the fact that applications are being made is a cause for concern. The purpose of the clause is to ensure consistency of practice by giving licensing committees clear directives, which I believe the vast majority would greatly welcome. Some directives would also be particularly welcome to the licensing justices in the vast majority of areas which have, quite rightly, held out against the granting of such licences.

    1063
    The police would also welcome the clause. Indeed, it was prompted by a letter to me from the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, which stated that, at the last executive committee meeting of the association in December, a motion was put forward by districts and subsequently adopted as official policy of the association, seeking the abolition of a loophole in the liquor licensing law created by section 4 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979. That section allows liquor to be sold in bulk as a wholesale transaction without the need for any particular form of licensing control of the premises concerned.
    The letter stated:
    "In this respect many garage forecourts are supplying bulk amounts of alcohol to motorists and general shoppers, which the Association feels is in direct conflict with the duty of the police to reduce drinking and driving, apart from any other reasons to tighten up control over this kind of outlet."
    The House will be aware that police superintendents are senior field officers and their view should not be taken lightly.
    Mr. Roger King: Would my right hon. Friend care to explain the problem that might be encountered at hypermarkets, where the sale of petrol is undertaken on the same premises where food and alcoholic drinks are also for sale?
    Sir Bernard Braine: At this late hour I am not prepared to go into detail. All I will say is that the principle enshrined in my clause should commend itself to all hon. Members. However, I am not prepared to be diverted.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Sir Bernard Braine: I will not give way because Mr. Speaker clearly wants the business to move on.
    The arguments in favour of the clause are straightforward. First, given the large number of outlets for alcohol that now exist, it can hardly be claimed that sales from petrol stations are necessary for the convenience of the customer. Secondly, sales from petrol stations are totally and inherently inconsistent with the whole aim, purpose and direction of national policy against drinking and driving.
    I am not in a position to claim that alcohol sales from petrol stations have led directly to drink-drive accidents because if that were the case it would not be apparent from the official statistics. However, the fact is that alcohol sales from petrol stations give entirely the wrong message. The whole purpose of the Department of Transport's campaign is rightly to dissociate drinking from driving and driving from drinking. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) understands that.
    The codes of advertising practice—albeit voluntary—prohibit the association of drinking with driving in advertisements. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how an actual physical association between the two activities can be justified. Motorway service areas are, of course, already prohibited from selling alcohol.
    It may be argued that my new clause is unwarranted because there is no essential difference between driving off having stacked up the boot of one's care with alcohol bought at a local supermarket and doing the same thing with alcohol bought at the petrol station. I submit, however, that there is a fundamental distinction between
    1064
    the two cases. The function of legislation is not merely to affect behaviour in an immediate direct sense; in a democratic society such as ours, legislation also has an educational function. It is an important way in which our society makes a statement to the effect that some way of behaviour is unacceptable.
    Granting licences to petrol stations makes exactly the opposite statement to the one we wish to make. By definition, the essential aim and purpose of petrol stations, unlike supermarkets, is to serve motorists. The idea of serving motorists with alcohol is anathema to everything that the Department of Transport is trying to accomplish through its campaigns and publicity.
    The passage of the new clause will cause little, if any, significant inconvenience to the public and, indeed, strengthening the arm of the licensing benches to refuse inappropriate applications for licences from premises, the primary purpose of which is to serve drivers, would meet with the approval of the great majority of the public and those responsible for safety on our roads. I commend the new clause to the House.
    Mr. Anderson: Many of the considerations that apply to motorway service stations also apply to the new clause. The particular problem of hypermarkets could be solved by the words "primary purpose" or "ancillary to" if there were an appropriate qualification. I hope that at least the principle of the new clause commends itself to the Minister.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The House would like to express its thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for the brief, clear way in which they have advanced the argument. There are three reasons why I cannot commend the new clause to the House.
    First, the general powers which enable justices to refuse licences are sufficient. That probably explains why there are only about 150 garages with off-licence facilities.
    The second reason relates to the problem of hypermarkets. Hon. Members will know of the increasing tendency for out-of-town supermarkets and hypermarkets to sell both alcohol and petrol. One cannot honestly say that that was mistaken. If we follow the route of the hon. Member for Swansea, East, we shall reach every kind of complexity.
    Thirdly, in some—not many—small rural areas local stores sell groceries, alcohol and petrol. They serve a local need and it would be wrong to stop them. For those reasons, I cannot commend the new clause.
    Question put and negatived.

  New Clause 10

    DELEGATED POWER OF LICENSING JUSTICES
    'In section 6 of the principal Act (provisional grant of new licence or removal), in subsection (4), after the word "justices" there shall be inserted the words
    "or a single licensing justice with delegated powers authorised under Schedule 1 Part I Paragraph 7 to this Act.".'.—[Mr. Waller.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Waller: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 11—Adjudication of application by single licensing justice—
    'The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 6 of Schedule I Part I to the principal Act—
    "7. In the case of an application under section 6(4) above licensing justices may adjourn the hearing of such an application and delegate its adjudication to a single member of the licensing committee.".'
    Mr. Waller: Like the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who came to the Chamber, made his diatribe against Conservative Members and departed, I speak for my constituents and I am concerned on their behalf alone.
    The existing law on the issue of licences is inconvenient not only for many new supermarkets and premises but for the public. Retailers who are opening new stores face a particular problem with section 6(4) of the principal Act, in that licencing justices can have a provisional grant of a justices' off-licence declared final at a transfer session only when such premises are completed in accordance with plans deposited. That leads to difficulties, as such sessions may often be held only five times a year. The likelihood of a new store being completed in accordance with the deposited plans on one such day during the year is rather remote.
    Consequently, a company opening premises on the day after a transfer session may face the prospect of not being able to sell liquor for a considerable period—perhaps as long as 10 weeks. It is difficult to see that any public good is achieved thereby. For example, when the Gateway store in Lavender Hill opened, it faced a delay of three weeks before it could sell liquor. In other cases, the opening of a store has been delayed because it did not coincide with the transfer sessions. Although the Bill contains a provision to change the number of licensing sessions to be held, the minimum number of such sessions will remain unchanged. The Bill does little, therefore, to improve the situation.
    New clauses 10 and 11 seek to enable the applicant who applies for a final order under section 6(4) of the 1964 Act to apply for the matter to be heard upon the date on which the premises are declared to be completed. A store would already have been granted a fire certificate by the local authority. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say that he sympathises with and will consider ways of taking on board this point.
    The proposal would delegate power to one licensing justice to hear the application, rather than inconvenience, the bench and require the minimum of three justices, as are required to attend a licence transfer session. I do not foresee that any disadvantages will flow from this proposal and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has asked me to say two things: first, that I sympathise with the point; and, secondly, that I shall consider ways of taking it on board. I shall do both of those things.
    Mr. Waller: In view of that response, which, albeit brief, I take to be sympathetic, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 1

    MODIFICATION OF PERMITTED HOURS
    Mr. Colvin: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—
    1066
    '(2) In section 60(1)(b) of the principal Act (permitted hours in licensed premises on Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday) for the word "five" there shall be substituted the word "three" and for the words "beginning at two in the afternoon" shall be substituted "between two and seven in the afternoon.".'.
    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—
    '(2) In section 60(1)(b) of the principal Act (permitted hours in licensed premises on Sundays, Christmas Day, and Good Friday) the words "with a break of five hours beginning at two in the afternoon" shall be omitted.'.
    Mr. Colvin: We might describe one of these amendments as frivolous and the other as eminently sensible. Both relate to the permitted hours issue on Sundays. Amendment No. 4 is rather impractical, at least in political terms, as it attempts to treat Sundays like other days of the week by abolishing the need for licensees to close during the afternoon. In the light of the Shops Bill, I do not think that the House is ready for such a change. I am sure that the time will come for such proposals, so for the moment I shall not seek to press amendment No. 4.
    Perhaps it would be advisable to remind the House of the licensing law on Sundays, Christmas day and Good Friday. The permitted hours are from 12 noon to 10.30 pm, with a break of five hours beginning at 2 pm. Pubs are therefore closed between 2 pm and 7 pm, a total of five hours. My proposal would limit the closing to three hours only, leaving it to the publican to decide during which of the three hours between 2 pm and 7 pm he would close.
    I realise that I am on extremely dangerous ground, as I have dared to touch on the issue of Sunday trading. This is only a modest inching forward on this issue; it is not even a step forward, but it is a modest move in the right direction towards what we might describe as "sense on Sunday". I am mindful of the ignominious fate of the Government's Shops Bill, defeated in the House by an unholy alliance of the official Opposition, the trade union movement and a number of Back Benchers, no doubt with marginal seats, who demonstrated the truism that a politician's mind is conditioned by the state of his seat.
    Mr. Patrick Cormack: That is a monstrous, disgraceful and utterly untrue statement. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it.
    Mr. Colvin: With respect to my hon. Friend, I shall withdraw it. If I have touched on any sensitivities, I withdraw that statement unreservedly.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Would my hon. Friend also withdraw it in respect of myself? Over the years, I have been consistent on this subject. It has not affected the vote in my constituency, which, I am happy to say, has increased at every election.
    Mr. Colvin: If it needed to be shown that Sunday trading is a sensitive issue, I have done so. I unreservedly apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine).
    Amendment No. 2 also questions the Government's commitment to reforming the laws on Sunday trading. They should be a little more courageous than they have been in this Bill.

    1067
    9.45 pm
    I draw the House's attention to a commitment in the Conservative party manifesto of the last general election. The relevant paragraph appears immediately before the commitment to reforming the licensing laws. It reads:
    "We will, therefore, look for an acceptable way forward to bring sense and consistency to the law on Sunday trading."
    In that regard, I suggest that amendment No. 2 would be a sensible first step.
    Earlier my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said that public houses in Britain are changing very fast. Many public houses now offer meals. To cope with the provision of meals, a measure of flexibility in Sunday opening hours would merit serious consideration.
    What I am proposing would ensure that Sundays were still treated specially. One cannot change that by law. I do not believe, as do my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that the amendment would jeopardise the Bill. On Second Reading, they were questioned about their attitudes on changing the Sunday trading law. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) to say whether he would agree to changing the law on Sunday hours. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) asked:
    "Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he would vote against an attempt to extend the Bill to Sundays?"
    The Secretary of State said:
    "I am not. I am simply stating facts."—[Official Report, 9 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 41.]
    When pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellet-Bowman), he was still a little ambivalent. There is much support, not only on the Conservative Benches but in the Government, for a change in the law on permitted hours on Sundays. I have heard no good arguments advanced for preserving the status quo. No doubt hon. Members who feel strongly on the subject will make their views known.
    We must accept that the social scene in the United Kingdom is changing very fast. In keeping with the efforts that are being made to encourage tourism, particularly in rural areas, licensees should be given an opportunity to respond to the demands of their customers.
    Essentially, we are talking about an element of choice, and choice is an important Conservative principle. At present, public houses open at midday and have to close at 2 pm. Two hours is not long to eat a lunch on Sundays. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State looks very much like a port and pheasant man. He has already admitted in another debate that he is a shooting man. I am sure that, when he has finished his lunch on Sunday, he will not be able to enjoy his glass of port before being driven home by his wife, who has been drinking Perrier water, because there will not be time to do so. That is ridiculous.
    If we accept, as I believe we have, the arguments in favour of a change in the so-called permitted hours from Mondays to Saturdays, surely it is inconsistent and illogical not to reform the hours on Sundays, Good Fridays, and Christmases as well.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is not here to move this amendment. He has taken part in previous licensing reform debates and was present during the lobby of Parliament last December. He told some 400 assembled licensees in the Great Hall that he favoured a change in the
    1068
    licensing law operating on Sundays. A number of Opposition Members favour a change in the law on Sundays with regard to licensing, although they do not favour a change generally with regard to retail trading.
    This is not what is described a probing amendment. It is essentially a prodding amendment to persuade the Government to think again. We shall listen carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister.
    Sir Dudley Smith: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who has moved the amendment in a moderate way. Three headings need to be taken into account. First, I do not think that there is any hon. Member who does not believe that this change will eventually come about. I emphasise the fact that this is a modest move, which paves the way for future change. If the change is not made now, and the amendment is not accepted—I do not expect that it will be—surely it will come within the next decade.
    Secondly, the present Sunday opening hours are not understood by foreign tourists. They find all our licensing laws puzzling, and Sunday hours are especially puzzling. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said, many modern public houses serve food. Many foreign tourists eat in public houses and it becomes something of a liability if the bell is rung at 2 o'clock.
    Thirdly, I submit that a limited change is sensible and would not cause any more disturbance than now occurs on Sundays. I support the movement to keep Sunday special, with only limited shop opening. I abstained in the vote after the Sunday trading debate. I am certainly not a free-for-all man in respect of Sundays. In speeding this legislation on its way, we should take account of the position on Sundays and provide for a modest increase in hours.
    Sir Bernard Braine: I oppose the amendment, which is clearly against the public interest and which, moreover, runs counter to many of the assurances given with regard to the modest scope and purposes of the Bill.
    I wish to be fair to the Government. I voted against the Bill on Second Reading because, with the Wakeham committee having just been established—a development which I warmly welcomed—I did not believe that this was the appropriate time to meddle with the licensing laws and because the Bill did not at that time include any safeguards in relation to the problem of under-age drinking.
    I am glad to concede that the Government have taken important steps towards the inclusion of additional safeguards. Whether I vote against the Bill on Third Reading depends on the outcome of the drink industry's attempts to obtain longer opening hours. I shall await what my hon. Friend says about that with the greatest of interest.
    I am pleased that so far, during Second Reading and in Committee, the Government have honoured the assurances that they gave the House about Sunday opening. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will continue to resist pressure from the drink industry with the utmost vigour.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Would it help my right hon. Friend to know that we have no intention of departing from the assurances that we have already given?
    Sir Bernard Braine: I did not think for one moment that my hon. Friend would depart from his assurances, but it

    1069
    is necessary to make a stand in these matters so that there should be no misunderstanding. Some of the speeches in the debate have shown a considerable misunderstanding of the position. For that reason, I am entitled to give my reasons why the House should reject the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).
    I have already mentioned my first reason, which is that to accept the amendment would renege on repeated assurances that the Bill would exclude Sundays. The Government's consultative document stated that they would be excluded, as they were, and the Bill completed its Committee stage unaltered in that respect. No doubt there would have been more opposition to the Bill in Committee if Sundays had been included.
    The second reason is that there is no evidence that the majority of the public want extended drinking hours on Sundays. Indeed, the evidence from opinion polls strongly suggests that a large majority of the population opposes such a change. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside has said, it is necessary for me to say something. The MORI poll in November 1987 found that only 29 per cent. of the population agreed with longer pub opening hours on Sundays, while 59 per cent. were opposed. Thus, to accept the amendment would he not merely to renege on previous assurances but to do so knowing that we were flying in the face of public opinion.
    The third reason for opposing the amendment has to do with the additional harm that would be created by extending drinking hours. In the first place, there is the matter of prolonged annoyance and aggravation to local residents. For many people, Sunday afternoon is the only time in the week when they can enjoy rest and relaxation with their families at home, free from the noise and disturbance that characterise the rest of the week.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) said, Sunday is regarded by many people as a special day. The amendment, if carried, would be likely to spoil that specialness for a great many people. I do not represent and have never represented the views of Sabbatarians but a vast number of our people who do not go to church or have religious views about Sunday want to keep one day in the week when they can enjoy peace and quiet. Those living in the immediate vicinity of a pub would he especially likely to experience additional annoyance, but the problem would by no means he restricted to them.
    Many of us are anxious about the likely effects of the Bill in increasing outbreaks of public disorder during the week, which is why I have tabled an amendment to improve the safeguards. But the disorders are most likely to occur at weekends, the time of the week when most alcohol is consumed. We await with some trepidation what will happen in our streets and town centres on Saturdays once the Bill is in force. The prospect of the peak drinking period being extended to include Sundays would certainly cause considerable alarm to the staff of the accident and emergency departments of hospitals and to the police, who will have to cope with the consequences.
    I quote a brief extract from the Yorkshire Post on 21 September last year. It shows what I have in mind. The heading is:
    "A wet Friday night out"
    It states:
    1070
    "A scream of obscenities was followed by a thud as a drunken youth pushed another up against a hot-dog stall, raining blows on his face … as we passed McDonalds restaurant to see (another) youth, face covered in blood, being comforted by his friends … Across the road, a line of young drunks urinated in a shop doorway in full view of a crowd of young girls … It was a wet Friday night in Leeds as the city centre pubs disgorged their customers, many of them below the legal drinking age."
    Mr. Couchman: My right hon. Friend has read a graphic account of trouble outside a public house on a wet Friday night. I understand that the amendments concern Sunday hours, not wet Friday nights.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

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

    Licensing Bill
    Bill, as amended, (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
    Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
    Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend's intervention was a waste of time. He should have listened a little longer. He is prolonging what I have to say. The problem in Leeds is to be found in many towns and cities.
    Mr. Couchman: Not on Sunday afternoons.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Not yet, but certainly on other days. I have given evidence of that over and over again. My hon. Friend's ears are closed to the subject.
    The report stated:
    "It was a wet Friday night in Leeds as the city centre pubs had disgorged their customers, many of them below the legal drinking age."
    The House will he well advised to note what happens on Saturday afternoons and bank holidays after the Bill is put into operation before making any further extension of hours to those proposed by the Government and undermining traditional family quiet days such as Christmas day and Good Friday. Moreover, the amendments are likely to have a particularly marked effect on problems caused by alcohol abuse.
    In Committee, the Minister conceded that a relaxation of the Sunday law would probably lead to an increase in consumption. That is a frank admission from the Government. It has been stated over and over again, the world over, that increases in consumption are accompanied by increases in social and physical harm. The Minister also argued against allowing airports to have extended licensing hours on Sundays, on the ground that to do so would be likely to give rise to an increase in drunken driving. There is good evidence to show that the Minister was right on both counts.
    Dr. D. Smith of the Western Australia Alcohol and Drug Authority has shown that, following the introduction of Sunday alcohol sales in Perth, there was a 63·8 per cent. increase in the number of persons killed on Sundays in comparison to the other six days of the week. Similarly, in Brisbane, following the introduction of two two-hour drinking sessions on Sundays, road casualties increased by 130 per cent. If my hon. Friend would like me to tell him what is happening in other countries, I am ready to do so.

    1071
    The introduction of a 10-hour Sunday hotel session in New South Wales was followed by a 22 per cent. increase in fatal road traffic accidents. The House already knows that the peak time for alcohol-related road accidents occurs when pubs are turning out, and especially on Friday and Saturday nights.
    In introducing the Bill, the Government have taken no counter-measures to prevent such harm from increasing. It would be utter folly for the House to pass my hon. Friend's amendment without also strengthening the law against drinking and driving.
    If libertarians want a person to be free to drink when and where he likes, and if the drink industry wants the opportunity to sell alcohol at any time during the day, they would make a better case if, at the same time, they were prepared to see the Department of Transport's "Don't drink and drive" policy better enforced by introducing random breath testing, increasing the penalties for such offences, and lowering the legal limit. Until such action is taken, removing the existing safeguards on alcohol consumption without replacing them with other measures is tantamount to aiding and abetting the killing and maiming of more people on our roads.
    The amendment is trade-inspired. It promotes a drinking day rather than a family day. It is more likely to promote "one for the road" than "none for the road." By maintaining the present Sunday licensing law, there is a greater likelihood that pubs will open and sell tea and coffee—as was recommended by many hon. Members—and attractive alcohol-free drinks which all the family can enjoy, including the driver.
    Mr. Colvin: How can a licensee start selling tea at 7 pm on a Sunday afternoon? If the Government accepted my amendment, the publican would have the flexibility to close at 2 pm and open at 5 pm. That is a far more practical proposition, and the publican could do what he wanted.
    Sir Bernard Braine: How naive can my hon. Friend get? The whole object of the amendment—never mind where it comes from—is to increase the sale of alcohol. The House is not composed of fools. We know the purpose of the amendment,. Perhaps some people believe there is no great danger in the amendment, but many of us believe there is.
    By maintaining the present Sunday licensing laws there is a better chance of getting public houses to open and sell tea, coffee and attractive alcohol-free drinks which all the family can enjoy. We should encourage rather than obstruct such a change in our drinking habits. I hope that the House will reject the amendment decisively.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: I will be brief, but I want to say a few words because these are important matters. The cost of alcohol-induced accidents and alcohol-induced disease is a major problem. If we did not have to look after people suffering from an excess of alcohol, our National Health Service would not be in crisis. There would be a surplus of beds because so many of them at present are occupied by people with alcohol-induced difficulties and diseases.
    I want to speak out clearly against the amendment. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said earlier that these amendments were trade-inspired. I am beginning to wonder whether Agnes Maude Royden's aphorism, that
    1072
    "The Church should no longer be satisfied to represent the Conservative party at prayer"
    is any longer true. It looks as if the Tory party is more concerned about praying to the brewers than being part of the Church of England.
    Although I would not argue that Sunday should be closed or isolated from many human activities, some of which employ people, we must decide whether we are trying to preserve Sunday as a reasonably quiet day with some people having to work to provide services, such as the supply of electricity, staffing hospitals and running the railways and other public services. We accept that that is part of Sunday. We must also make a judgment not to extend the law to erode Sunday so that the precious nature of Sunday is removed for many people. That precious nature may stem from a religious preference, and, although I do not particularly share that, I honour and respect those people who wish to make a decision in that direction.
    People may want to maintain Sunday as an emphatically family day. We must be careful not to allow Sunday to be eroded gradually by watering down legislative safeguards that have not been properly examined. As the right hon. Member for Castle Point said, a committee is examining the procedure. I regret the fact that the committee did not report to the House before the legislation was introduced.
    We must consider another aspect of this matter—the workers. Wherever Sunday working is introduced, there should be safeguards for workers. There should be a conscience clause that people can exercise so that employers cannot force them to work on Sundays against their will. People may argue that that does not apply in some industries at the moment, and that is probably true. I regard that with considerable regret because employers can pressure people into working when they want to keep Sunday free.
    Even when there is a conscience clause, it is often honoured more in its breach than its observance. It is difficult for people who are faced with the possibility of dismissal — not because they would not work on Sundays, but because an employer would choose another reason to dismiss someone who was not prepared to cooperate and work on Sundays.
    That was the argument against the extension of Sunday trading. I do not think that that argument was properly made. The amendments contain no protection for workers. There is no protection in the parent legislation. I should have thought that if hon. Members were really concerned about the rights of those who differ from the movers of the amendments, they would include in their proposals safeguards so that people are not coerced into working on a Sunday if they do not wish to do so.
    Lastly, representations have been made to me by members of the St. John the Evangelist parish church at Great Horton. They sent me a petition, containing more than 400 signatures, expressing opposition to the Bill. I share that opposition. The vicar, Canon H. M. Wigley, asked me specifically to oppose the legislation. That is why I am taking the opportunity to speak out against proposals for the incursion of yet more pub opening hours on a Sunday.
    I do not like the Bill, but I certainly dislike those aspects which, as the right hon. Member for Castle Point put it so aptly, are trade-inspired. I do not like trade-inspired amendments, because we are making a judgment. My

    1073
    judgment is that the two amendments will not add to the sum of human happiness or pleasure. They will cause more pain than pleasure. They will cause more discomfort and more disagreeable intrusions into a day which, when we examine the circumstances, we should try to keep as free as possible from difficulties for people who wish to take pleasure in a simple family day.
    Sir Raymond Gower: For reasons similar to those expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), I oppose the amendment. It is unfortunate that it was introduced at this late stage. It should have been considered on Second Reading, not on Report.
    Nevertheless, I respectfully submit that, even today, the comparative peace of Sunday is invaluable to people, whether or not they are churchgoers. That peace can easily be eroded, and we would then regret its departure. It has become part of the life of this country; and it is difficult to envisage a seven-day working week, which is what we are in danger of achieving.
    There have been many attempts to erode the difference of Sunday. Fortunately, the Shops Bill 1986 was defeated, but it would have been an invitation for the wholesale secularisation of Sunday, and the creation of a good deal of traffic, disorder and destruction of the environment, all of which would be undesirable.
    In the eyes of its sponsors this is a modest change. Unfortunately, it is a move in the wrong direction. They are all incursions into the kind of Sunday that we have known, and in the long term they are cumulatively injurious to the environment. I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that people who are under pressure to work on Sunday should have some protection. There was no such protection in the Shops Bill. There was not the complete protection that is desirable.
    I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has given an assurance that the Government will not adopt the amendment. I hope that very few hon. Members will vote for it and that it will be defeated conclusively and comprehensively, as it is an undesirable move in the wrong direction.
    10.15 pm
    Mr. Anderson: This is not the time to rehearse all the arguments about the special nature of Sunday, but, like the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), I have the honour to be a patron of the Keep Sunday Special campaign. We look back with interest at the campaign which we waged in the House on the Shops Bill. We also look back to last Friday when the Government, after their experience on the Shops Bill, were much more wary on the Sunday Sports (No. 2) Bill, the key effect of which would be to open betting shops on Sunday.
    The Government are treading warily because of their experience, in spite of the fact that the Home Secretary sees the need to make Sunday like any other day of the week. I do not believe that that is in tune with the wishes of the great majority of the people. I shall not rehearse the general arguments, but I am glad that the Government —at least for the moment—resist the amendment.
    Mr. Couchman: The Government have been timid on the question of Sundays. A small adjustment, such as that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) to allow a slightly longer
    1074
    lunchtime session on Sunday, would have satisfied many people who like to take their families out for lunch on Sunday. At present, opening hours are unequal on Sundays. As a result of the noble Lord Montgomery's Licensing (Restaurant Meals) Act 1987, restaurants and public houses with restaurants which are entirely separate may open throughout the entirety of Sunday afternoon to serve drinks with meals.
    Public houses are constrained by the antiquated requirement whereby they can open only from 12 midday to 2 o'clock. If they wish to serve food during Sunday afternoon, they are still constrained by the 12 to 2 o'clock rule. As I said on Second Reading, the rule is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. There is more abuse of the opening and closing times at Sunday lunchtime, particularly in London, than in any other session during the week.
    I take issue with the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) that a modest increase in the number of hours allowed at Sunday lunchtime would lead to an enormous rise in crime, motor accidents, and so on. Sunday is a day when people would very much like to go out with their families for a meal and to have a slightly longer time in which to buy a drink with a meal in a public house which offers such good value in the food that it serves.
    My right hon. Friend suggested that the amendment was inspired by the trade. If the trade, in its desire to serve its customers with what customers want on a Sunday, has inspired the amendment, that is nothing to be ashamed of. I accept what was said about this being a prodding rather than a probing amendment, on which I suspect that we will not get a result this evening, but I hope that the Government will bear in mind that the question of opening hours on Sunday is still alive, whereas, had they taken a modest step to increase the Sunday lunchtime session, the whole question of the permitted licensing hours on Sunday would have died not for the next five or 10 years but probably for 25 years. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State must expect the question to be raised again, even if the amendment does not get the approval of the House tonight.
    Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) has spoken modestly and persuasively. Had my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) spoken in similar terms when he moved the amendment, he might have won more friends, although he was gracious enough to apologise and to withdraw his remarks which impugned the motives of some of his colleagues. None of us should ever do that. It set the debate off on a sour note.
    Many of us believe that Sunday is special and different and that it should not become a duplicate Saturday. That is why I have resisted attempts to encourage Sunday trading. It is not that I do not believe that the law needs tidying up—it does—but that I do not want Sunday to become a second Saturday. We should be doing a great disservice to the British people if we took such a course.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside prayed tourism in aid. Tourism is extremely important. It brings great revenue to the country. Tourists are welcome, but, although we welcome and must look after them, we do not have to change all the laws of the land to accommodate them. That is a slightly threadbare argument, and it should not be pushed too far.

    1075
    I was glad that my hon. Friend the Minister said that the amendment would be resisted. I hope that it will not be put to a vote. I hope that there can be a long and—I choose my words advisedly — sober look at the law governing Sundays in all respects to meet the legitimate designs and aspirations of everyone. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of a small group of hotels.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham said, we should take into account the fact that people who can afford a fairly expensive meal can buy drinks, but those who cannot do not. We must nevertheless be extremely careful. The hours of trading must be restricted. Sunday must not become a second Saturday. We should therefore follow the lead offered by my hon. Friend the Minister and, if the House divides, we should support the Government against the amendment which I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside is proposing unadvisedly.
    Mr. Chris Butler: Although I represent an English constituency, I come from Wales. I must say that there is something reminiscent, in the arguments against the extension of flexibility on Sunday, of the arguments in the Principality against drinking on Sunday. Under the force of public opinion and democratic voting, flexibility has gradually been extended. I believe that even the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) will admit that Wales has not turned into a terrible Sodom and Gomorrah. Indeed, it has benefited.
    The Government have implicitly accepted the arguments in favour of liberalising the licensing laws on the grounds of the extra amenity and employment that would be created. I should have thought that those arguments applied just as much—if not more so—to Sunday as to any other day of the week.
    I am in favour of extending choice, provided that that does not overbear on the choice available to others to keep Sunday as they wish. I want the Government to be more radical on this matter.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I do not commend the amendment to the House for two reasons — one broad and one narrow. I shall deal with the latter first.
    The proposals amount to flexible hours, but make no provision for enforcement, without which the amendment cannot sensibly be proposed. The amendment therefore falls on that narrow ground.
    There is another point, which is of greater substance. The Government have made it wholly plain that we do not intend at the moment to change the law on Sundays. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made an unequivocal statement to that effect, and I echoed it. Other people, including hon. Members, altered their stance on the basis of those assurances. It would be wrong to depart in any way from those assurances. I hope that I can persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends to take up the same position.
    Mr. Colvin: I am pleased that I tabled these two amendments, and that the more modest of the two has been debated. I think that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it has been an extremely good debate and I for one could not have been accused of closed ears. When
    1076
    my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) was on his feet, who could have closed his ears to such eloquence and power?
    There have been strong arguments for and against some relaxation of the law on Sunday. The Government must now consider how they will honour the manifesto pledge to bring sense into the law on Sunday trading generally. I was proposing a modest step in that direction with licensing law reform. Having made my point, and having listened to the arguments, I can only hope that, when the other place comes to debate this matter, with the will of the House, it will pick up the banner and carry it forward, and that an amendment along the lines of mine will be tabled.
    The anxiety expressed by Ministers about opposition to changing the law on Sundays arises mainly from their fear of what might happen in the other place. As hon. Members know, in this place we can be dragooned in the right direction to a certain extent, as we are being tonight. That is regrettable, when Opposition Members have the opportunity of a free vote, such as that which we enjoyed in the debate on the Shops Bill in 1986. With those thoughts in mind, and in the hope that an amendment like this may appear in the other place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—
    `(2) In section 60(1)(b) the words "The licensing magistrates may modify the permitted hours for bona fide English vineyards so that they begin no earlier than 12.00 noon for a total of no more than five and a half hours" shall be added.'.
    This is an interesting and unusual issue which I feel that the House, even at this late hour, would like to hear a little about. There are 200 commercial vineyards in this country, 100 of which are open to the public. Increasingly, they are a tourist attraction, but they are also a sort of small business enterprise, and many of them are on farms, where farmers have heeded the Government's exhortations to diversify and have gone into the vineyard business. They are creating successful wines which are the envy of many parts of Europe and the world.
    The problem, which is endemic, is the law relating to wine tasting or sampling, and the amendment specifically deals with that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when he has heard the argument, will be able to say something helpful about the general point of tasting and sampling, beyond the scope of the amendment.
    Let me deal first with the issues. At present, a tourist visiting an English vineyard can taste wines if that vineyard has an on-licence during the hours that a public house is open. One can go to an English vineyard—as one can go to one in Germany, France or Italy—but one can taste the wines and enjoy the quality that the vineyard has produced only during the hours of 11 am to 3 pm in the day and from 5.30 pm to 11 pm at night. It will be appreciated that vineyards will be open not at night, but only during the day. If the charabanc arrives before 11 am or after 3 pm, the people in it will be shown the wonderful vineyard but told that they cannot taste what it produces.
    10.30 pm
    Sir Dudley Smith: I have been following my hon. Friend's remarks with interest. Surely, if one goes into any

    1077
    wine merchant's shop in a town or city with the possible intention to buy, the wine merchant will give one a tasting to enable one to make up one's mind. Is that against the law?
    Mr. Steen: As always, my hon. Friend has made a telling point. He must have foreseen what I was about to say. If the charabanc travellers arrive at the vineyard outside on-licensing hours, they may find that the owner of the vineyard has had the forethought to apply for an off-licence.
    In that case, in addition to the vinery, with tastings during on-licensing hours, he will have a separate building —which he will have had to build—containing an off-licence. The charabanc travellers will go into the off-licence and say, "I would like a bottle of wine." But they will not be allowed to taste it unless the tasting is free. The House will appreciate that if 1,000 visitors to the vineyard are all tasting the wine free in the off-licence, the modest farmer who is trying to diversify will be out of pocket very quickly; all his bottles of wine will be consumed at the off-licence outside on-licence hours.
    There is a much more serious problem. If the visitors buy a bottle at the off-licence in the hours when the on-licence does not apply, they are not allowed to consume it on the premises. Therefore, arrangements have to be made to take the bottle off the premises — [An hon. Member: "To the charabanc."] Yes, but they cannot drink it in the charabanc if it is parked on the premises of the vineyard. The vineyard owner will have to make arrangements with the next-door farmer to construct a third building to which the travellers have to go to open their bottle of wine. If there are a corkscrew and glasses in that third building, the travellers can then taste the wine.
    I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House—even at this late hour—will appreciate that the 1964 Act could never have envisaged this ridiculous state of affairs. In 1964 we did not have 200 commercial vineyards and the Government were not exhorting farmers to diversify because of our problems with food surpluses.
    Mr. Michael Grylls: My hon. Friend is making an important point. I am sure that the Government will listen to his argument about the problem and attempt to put it right to encourage this growing sector of business.
    Just outside Dorking in Surrey — not in my constituency, but not far from it—a new vineyard was planted two years ago. It is not producing yet, but its area is 120 acres, so it will be the biggest vineyard in Great Britain. It will be an important enterprise. It is a new business which has drawn on expertise from Germany and the rest of the continent. That is an example of how new firms can grow, which is exactly what the Government want.
    Any impediment such as the licensing impediment to which my hon. Friend draws attention should be removed if we wish such businesses to expand. Wine growing is very suitable for small, new businesses—just as it is on the continent. I do not say that 120 acres is small; indeed, it is very large. However, there will be many opportunities for small vineyards to start up, creating new jobs and new enterprises. I wish my hon. Friend well and I hope that the Governent will pay attention to the point that he makes.
    Mr. Steen: That was a helpful intervention. Although the vineyard to which my hon. Friend referred is not in his
    1078
    constituency, I know that he is interested in vineyards—particularly in the new vineyard at Dorking, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Other vineyards not quite as large as that are well known to my hon. Friend. The largest one — Lamberhurst — is already 55 acres and is doing very well and many other vineyards, in constituencies from Berkshire to Gloucestershire and right across the country, are springing up fast and doing well.
    I do not want to detain the House. I have set the scene of the problem and now want to explain briefly what will happen when the Bill becomes law, as I hope it will. The new law will help the vineyards — there is no doubt about that—because they can get an on-licence, not just for the pub opening hours as at present, but for the new pub opening hours of 11 o'clock in the morning to 11 o'clock at night—not that many people will want to taste wine at 5 o'clock in the evening until 11 o'clock at night.
    Therefore, although this is not directly connected with the amendment, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will perhaps encourage the other place to consider whether the 12 hours — 11 am to 11 pm — could be slightly flexible so that the magistrates could not, heaven forbid, increase the number of drinking hours, but allow the hours to be from, say, 10 am to 10 pm or even from 9 am to 9 pm. There could still be 12 hours, but perhaps they could be moved a little. That discretion and flexibility would allow our English vineyards the scope that the rigidity of allowing them to open only from 11 am to 11 pm prevents. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will say something which, although not immediately relevant to the amendment, will assist us when the Bill goes through another place.
    I turn to the sharp end of the amendment. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) will be attentive to this point because the 1964 Act, which will not be changed by the Bill, states that the number of hours on a Sunday will follow the identical hours of the pub openings. That means that on a Sunday, when the vineyards have their big tourist attractions, they are caught by the limitations of the pub openings as at present. That means that they cannot have any wine tasting on their on-licence before 12 o'clock midday and must stop their wine tasting immediately at 2 pm. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point will realise that, from 7 pm to 10.30 at night on a Sunday, there is no point in having wine tasting, unless it is by candlelight or in the vaults.
    The purpose of my amendment is to allow the magistrates some discretion to distribute exactly the same hours on Sunday, but to make those hours not from 12 o'clock to 2 o'clock and 7.30 pm to 10 pm, but to allow the English vineyards to provide a sample of wine between 12 o'clock and 5.30 pm. That would cover just the type of family outing that so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends talked about a moment ago. What nicer way is there of spending a Sunday afternoon than for a family to go out in their private car to look at some of the wonderful and enterprising vineyards and to enjoy a sample at the same time?
    Mr. Robert Key: My hon. Friend has done us a great service by drawing this matter to the Government's attention and I hope that they will listen carefully. I endorse his point about family outings on

    1079
    Sundays. My hon. Friend the Minister for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) mentioned earlier the problem of not having to change all our laws in this country just to suit tourists. When the three commercial vineyards in my constituency have opened on Sundays, they have attracted a completely different clientele—local families who want to see the process of wine making and the parents who, of course, want to enjoy the prospect of buying and drinking the product.
    Mr. Steen: I am delighted that so many hon. Friends, who have vineyards in their constituencies, have made such points, because my hon. Friend the Minister will obviously be impressed by the strength of feeling among Conservative Members. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for making that important and telling point.
    The amendment will give the magistrates in each locality a discretion to manoeuvre the hours on Sunday —but not to increase them—so that families can enjoy wine tasting on an on-licence. It does not alter the fact that English vineyards will still need to have an on-licence and an off-licence.
    If the Minister rejects the amendment it will mean that at 2 o'clock sharp on a Sunday the vineyards—all 100—will have to have an off-licence. People will have to move from the on-licence, where they are sampling wines, to the off-licence. Unless those wines are provided free, people will have to buy a bottle and traipse over to the next-door farmer, with the corkscrew and the glasses, to sample the wines on their own in a little hut.
    The Minister may believe that such problems are modest and trivial, but tens of thousands of people visit vineyards. The present ridiculous anachronism could be altered at a stroke by the Minister.
    We are faced with the problems of on-licences, off-licences and flexi-hours on Sundays. I do not know whether my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken with such fervour would feel the same way if magistrates were given the discretion to switch and distribute the Sunday hours. The on-licence, instead of being confined from noon until 2 o'clock and from 7 pm until 10.30 pm, could be distributed differently.
    I should declare an interest. I have been involved with the English Vineyards Association for many years and indeed, I have four vineyards in my constituency. Many hon. Members believe that the amendment is important. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to say something constructive that will enable us to believe that, if he cannot act immediately, he will do his best to get rid of the present anachronism. Many European visitors to our vineyards consider that anachronism to be out of place and out of character with the British habit of getting things done in an appropriate way.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The amendment deals exclusively with Sunday and the points that I made in the previous debate apply to this one. Therefore, I cannot offer my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) any hope.
    My hon. Friend has clearly described the wider problems faced by British vineyard owners on days other than Sundays, Good Friday and Christmas day. My hon. Friend has described those problems so graphically that I
    1080
    feel that I would like to reconsider the problem relating to those days to see whether there is anything that we can do to assist in resolving the problem that he has described.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks.
    I support my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) I am a non-executive director of the Bluebell railway and at Sheffield Park, at the end of that line, there is an English vineyard.
    One of the problems that we face is that English wine has been cursed for years by ignorant people calling it "British" wine. In the past few months I have been able to introduce a major French wine grower to English wine. To his astonishment he found it drinkable. We all know that it is.
    Is the Minister saying that he will look at the general issues with a view to telling his draftsmen, if he is convinced, that something must be done when the Bill reaches another place?
    Mr. Keith Speed: I support my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). In my constituency we have Biddenden vineyard, which won a prize for its Ortega 1986 vintage. Indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House chose it in the wine-tasting before Christmas.
    My hon. Friend was right to underline the problems that over the years have been piled on English vineyards, but, despite those problems, they have thrived. At one time we had many Dutch, French, Belgian and German tourists passing through my constituency, and for them English wines were a joke until they tasted them. Now they enjoy them and like to taste them without all the nonsense that my hon. Friend described.
    I hope that the Minister and his team at the Home Office will take a long hard look at this, so that we can make life easier for enterprising English vineyards which produce some of the best wine in the world.
    10.45 pm
    Mr. John Browne: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for meeting us halfway, and support entirely the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen).
    England was excellent wine, but it is new wine on the world circuit, so is relatively unknown. Therefore, wine tasting is particularly important in order to sell it within the EEC and throughout the world. In the debate on the previous amendment, my hon. Friend the Minister clearly explained the problem with Sunday, and I accept what he said. But I urge him to persuade his hon. Friends to be flexible, because Sunday is a big day for bringing clients to vineyards. In Hampshire we have four big vineyards: Lymington, Swanmore, Ringwood and Beaulieu. Putting major investment into these alternative crops also fits the Government's policy of alternative use of farmland.
    I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for agreeing to consider days other than Sunday, but I urge him to press his colleagues to think again about Sunday.
    Mr. Conal Gregory: I support my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and his moderate new clause. My hon. Friend the Minister certainly made a brief response which caused some disappointment.

    1081
    Has the Minister held any discussions with his hon. Friends in the Department of Employment? He did not mention the employment aspects, which are great, or tourism in connection with English vineyards.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have not held such discussions. This matter has not been raised with me previously; it was first brought to my attention when the amendment was tabled. I am against nonsense and there seems to be a certain amount of nonsense involved. If we can resolve it, we shall do so. But I cannot help my hon. Friends about Sundays.
    Mr. Gregory: I am grateful for that further comment from my hon. Friend. Nevertheless, I hope that in another place he will consider getting out the old files; over many years there was enormous correspondence with his predecessors about this.
    Britain has enjoyed English vineyard wines since the Roman era. Those who look at Christies' catalogues and others will know that vineyards now extend even into Wales. The new interest since 1945 is attractive, but there is nothing special in our having vineyards, although we now have many hundreds of acres under the vine.
    Tonight we are faced with classic red tape. I do not believe that the Government wish to support red tape, but my hon. Friend the Minister is certainly putting up a good case for keeping the scissors in the cupboard. I wish he would take them out, cut the red tape, and consider the employment aspects of English vineyards and the English vineyard trail. What is so immoral about someone tasting a glass of wine on an afternoon in the south of England and even as far north as Yorkshire with a view to purchase? That should be considered in another place.
    For all those reasons, I hope that the scissors will be used and that my hon. Friend's officials will consider the matter in another place.
    Mr. Michael Shersby: I support my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and I am pleased to hear that the Minister wants to get rid of much of the nonsense.
    I am chairman of the Conservative party's Back-Bench food and drink sub-committee. We recently held a wine-tasting, attended by many hon. Members. We tasted 10 wines, five English and five continental wines, in a blind tasting. The five English wines did very well, winning the first three prizes. That reflects the excellence of English wines and the desire of many people in this country to taste them.
    I am grateful for what the Minister has said tonight about getting rid of some of the nonsense, and for dealing
    1082
    with the problems explained to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams about days other than Sundays. I hope that the Minister will be able to bring forward proposals in the not too distant future.
    Mr. David Nicholson: I do not wish to detain the House, except to say that I support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen).
    I first became aware of English wines recently at a reception organised by an extraordinarily paradoxical body, the Milk Marketing Board. I support the proposal and hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will carefully consider it. Perhaps he will reflect that we might not have found ourselves in the present inflexible position in respect of Sunday if the Home Office, in the last Session, had not got us in such a mess over Sunday trading.
    Mr. Paul Marland: I apologise for not having been present throughout the debate. I have been detained elsewhere on important constituency business.
    I wish to add my voice in support of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), because there is a vineyard in my constituency and I respect the way in which it has sought to bring employment into a rural area. It appears to be inhibited by these petty restrictions.
    Mr. Steen: I should like to rise quickly to prevent any more of my hon. Friends from rising, as I know that quite a number of them planned to intervene. I want to curtail that by saying that this has been an interesting debate. It has shown the strength of feeling on the Conservative Back Benches about English vineyards and the anachronisms and antiquated laws which affect them.
    I was tempted to press the amendment to a Division, but that would be quite inappropriate after the Minister's generous and flexible response in recognising the strength of feeling on this matter. It caught him by surprise, so he wants time to consider the issue. In view of his flexibility and intelligence and the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) supported most of my speech, the Sunday trading lobby may not be opposed to a little flexible discretion by the licensing magistrates.
    Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend has made a most interesting speech, which has already evoked a little promise from the Minister. I advise him not to spoil it.
    Mr. Steen: Whenever my right hon. Friend gives advice, one is wise to take it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 3

    RESTRICTION ORDERS
    Sir Bernard Braine: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 18, after 'premises', insert
    `or a number of licensed premises'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 8, in page 3, line 19, after 'premises', where it first occurs insert
    `or a number of licensed premises'.
    No. 9, in page 3, line 20, leave out 'vicinity', and insert `surrounding district'.
    Sir Bernard Braine: One of the illusions fostered about the Bill is that we must choose between individual liberty on the one side and health and well-being on the other. The issue of public order makes it plain that the choice is between the liberty of one person, or group of people, to drink in public houses and the liberty of others not to suffer unacceptable disturbance in consequence of their drinking.
    I tabled this amendment because I do not believe that the Bill achieves a proper balance between these two objectives and it is, therefore, likely to fail and to facilitate the increased occurrence of disorder on our streets, while giving the licensing justices inadequate powers to deal with such events.
    The Government claim that the Bill already contains adequate safeguards in the form of restriction orders. The Bill allows the licensing justices to impose an afternoon break when disturbance, annoyance, noise and disorderly conduct occur within or in the immediate vicinity of an individual licensed premises. That is most certainly a safeguard and I welcome it, but it is not nearly enough.
    In Committee the Minister implicitly conceded the Bill's inadequacy every time he reminded hon. Members of the narrowness of the concept of restriction orders. He said that a restriction order was narrow in character and designed to achieve an entirely local result. For that reason the right to make application for a restriction order was limited to those people whose life was likely to be disrupted. By that he meant the disruption by noise or disturbance of the lives of those living in the immediate vicinity of a particular licensed premises.
    The difficulty with the Bill is that, while disorder is often confined to within the public house itself, or to its immediate vicinity, there are also many occasions on which disorder spreads much further afield. The Bill gives the licensing justices no powers to deal with that kind of problem. Fights, or other kinds of disorderly conduct, may spill out not just on to the pavement immediately outside the pub; they may occur en route from one pub to another, or may arise as a result of drinking in a number of pubs and occur some distance away — on the way home, in the local park, or elsewhere. It is a very serious problem.
    We all know of instances of drunken youths—I say "youths" because in the majority of cases those involved appear to be below the age of 25, if not considerably younger—going around in gangs and causing havoc in city centres and elsewhere. While the drinking may be done in a public house, or in a number of public houses, the
    1084
    disorder occurs somewhere else—not necessarily in the immediate vicinity of the pub where the alcohol was consumed.
    In Committee the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) referred to the kind of incidents that I have in mind when he quoted from a report in the Yorkshire Evening Post. It is worth while repeating the words:
    "'Gangs of drunken youths roaming the streets of the county's towns and cities cause apprehension and fear' said the chief constable. 'Street nuisances, disorderly behaviour, vandalism and crime are often caused by individuals who have consumed too much alcohol … Young males … in an intoxicated state roam about or congregate in the streets … and behave in ways that they would not even contemplate sober'."
    The point to which I want to draw attention is that there is no suggestion in that report of the disorder occurring within or in the immediate vicinity of any individual pub or club. Perhaps I might rub in the point by referring to a cutting from another local newspaper on 7 December 1987. It quoted the chief constable as blaming the late-night opening policy for the growing problem of public disorder on the streets. He said:
    "between 2 am and 4 am, particularly at weekends, around 2,000 18 to 25-year-olds are congregating in the city centre. Disorder is now escalating and, to control the situation further, adjustment to the system of policing has become necessary and overtime is being incurred … one year's overtime costs are being projected at £115,000. This is unacceptable."
    It is highly significant in the context of this debate that the city in question is Aberdeen. There is little suggestion there of the great improvement in public order that licensing relaxation in Scotland is supposed to have brought about. A hint of why the official drunkenness statistics for Scotland have declined so steeply is the comment of a superintendent of the Grampian police: that police resources are so stretched at weekends that they had to let many people off with a warning because they could not afford officers to leave the street to take offenders into custody. The city is Aberdeen. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy will know whether or not that statement is exaggerated.
    Many arrests for offences other than drunkenness are, however, made. Speaking to the Aberdeen licensing board in September 1987, the chief constable, Mr. Alistair Lynn, said:
    "The threat of a lot of public disorder in Aberdeen city centre remains very much a reality."
    He informed the Aberdeen licensing board that, in the previous month, 140 arrests had been made in the Union street area alone; 67 of them were for breaches of the peace, 37 for assault and 13 for vandalism, but apparently none for drunkenness.
    If we are honest with ourselves, this is taking place in every city. It is taking place not far from my constituency, in Southend on one side and Basildon on the other. Therefore, the same consideration applies to England and Wales.
    We should be extremely sceptical about the claim that drunkenness offences are declining. Any magistrate will confirm that the majority of criminal damage and breach of the peace cases are committed by people under the influence of alcohol. It may be that officially recorded offences are declining because charges other than drunkenness are being brought.
    Earlier, my hon. Friend the Minister rejected my suggestion that these matters should be properly

    1085
    monitored. This is one of the best examples of where information is needed if policy and legislation are to match the reality of the matter.
    11 pm
    I cited the example of Aberdeen for two reasons. First, the picture of Scotland that is so assiduously painted by proponents of extended drinking hours may be seriously misleading. There is every reason to be extremely wary of the effects of extended drinking hours on public order. Secondly, the disorder described in press reports is precisely the kind that the Bill in its present form does not take into account because it does not necessarily occur within the immediate vicinity of licensed premises.
    The Aberdeen report describes disorder occurring during the night. There is a clear danger that the Bill will increase the chances of similar outbreaks occurring during the afternoon, when there is likely to be even more disruption to the local population. Licensing justices will need extra powers to deal with such eventualities. To do so, they will need the power to impose restriction orders, not merely on individual public houses but throughout an area.
    The existing provisions of the Bill to deal with the sort of problems that I have described will be extremely cumbersome to operate. It would be necessary for the licensing justices to deal with each licensed premises separately.
    Significantly, the Erroll committee, whose recommendations provide much of the rationale for the Bill, recommended exactly the safeguard contained in my amendment. Its report stated:
    "Licensing justices … should be empowered on application, to make an order, if satisfied that it is in the interests of public order … requiring any one or a number of licensed premises to close for a period of up to two consecutive hours at a time before 7 pm."
    This is a far more useful proposal than the unduly narrow concept of restriction orders enshrined in the Bill. Not only would it give the licensing justices more effective powers; it would save court time and, thus, costs to the taxpayer.
    It may be argued that the police already have powers to prosecute individuals behaving in an unruly manner and that restricting pub opening hours is not, therefore, a necessary or an appropriate means of dealing with these problems. My answer to that is that of course the police have the power to prosecute individuals, but after the disorder has occurred, assuming they have the manpower and resources available. The case of Aberdeen suggests that they may not.
    We are considering the need to prevent disorder occurring in the first place. That is what legislation should be about; not tinkering with the problem as the Bill does in so many different aspects.
    The police have powers to prosecute individuals behaving in an unruly manner at football matches, but that is not regarded as an argument against restriction. Alcohol is banned on the way to and from football matches. The principle is the same. Why should law-abiding citizens, who want nothing more than to go about their business in peace, have to tolerate large areas of their towns and cities becoming no-go areas of the antics of groups of people who have spent too much time and money in the pub? If serious disorder associated with and arising from drinking in public houses and clubs occurs on one occasion—perhaps a Saturday afternoon — it is
    1086
    likely to occur on others in the future, and the licensing justices should have the power to order the afternoon closure of pubs in the particular area of the town concerned.
    I do not suggest for one moment that the exercise of the power given by my amendment will be a daily occurrence, but there are particular times of the year, such as the Christmas holidays or the summer season at seaside resorts, when the licensing justices of the population whom they serve will need this power, and they will not thank us if they do not have it. I commend the amendment to the House.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Despite the passionate speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), I am afraid that I cannot commend the amendment to the House. The restriction order deals with particular problems that emanate from particular pubs, but the amendment enables the court to make a restriction order in respect of any licensed premises, including those that are not directly concerned with the public problems that give rise to the application in the first place. I cannot believe that that is just.
    There is another consideration which makes it even more unjust. Under the power proposed by my right hon. Friend, the court could make a restriction order in respect of a licensed premises, the licensee not knowing of the application and having no knowledge of the peril in which he stood. I do not believe that that is right either, nor I think does my right hon. Friend.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 8, leave out 'or'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 7, in line 10, at end insert
    '; or (d) any head teacher of a school in the neighbourhood.'.
    Mrs. Taylor: This is a straightforward amendment but it concerns a significant point which we tried to explore in Committee and which I should have thought would have been resolved by this stage. The amendment deals with the role of a head teacher in applying for a restriction order in the area of the school. At the beginning of our proceedings, the National Association of Head Teachers expressed concern about the impact that the Bill might have on children's drinking habits. We can understand the dangers. When pubs are open in the afternoon, there is a great temptation for children to absent themselves from school or to go out and drink at lunchtime. A large number of teachers are increasingly concerned about the number of their pupils drinking and see the legislation as providing new temptations.
    One measure which we suggested in Committee was that head teachers should be able to apply for a restriction order, thus limiting the availability of alcohol by restricting the hours during which pubs in the vicinity may be open. It is relevant that head teachers should he able to apply for a restriction order because teachers arid schools are often aware of which public houses are responsible for selling alcohol to their young people. Therefore, they should have a role in applying for restriction orders. It is impossible to understand why the Minister has not conceded this point.
    In Committee, the Minister said that he hoped that the word "occupier" would cover this point. He said that he

    1087
    could give no guarantee that that was the case, and promised that he would return in Committee or on Report with amendments if he found that the existing wording was not satisfactory. Since our discussions, I have checked with several justices clerks, whose experience is well recognised and well respected. Some have said that they would interpret "occupier" as covering a head teacher of a school, but others have said that they would not. So there is a clear need for clarification, which can come only from the legislation. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I entirely agree that head teachers should have a right to make the application. I said so in Committee and I say so again today. I am afraid that the amendment is probably not the best way of going about that, because there is a danger that if we singled out headteachers we would exclude from the ranks of those able to make an application some people who are not strictly occupiers, but who are managing a business in the neighbourhood.
    It could be said that we should have put our tackle in order and tabled a proper amendment; I agree with that criticism, and I apologise. In the other place we shall table an amendment that makes it p1,111) that head teachers and, when appropriate, other people who are running businesses who are not occupiers are in a position to make an application— sorry that our tackle is not in order.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: We accept the Minister's apology and are glad to hear that he intends to table an amendment in due course. I am not sure whether someone who manages a business in a neighbourhood should have the same rights as a head teacher, who has a more specific and meaningful role to play in terms of restriction orders. On the basis that the Minister will deliver the promise that he has made this time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 4

    ABOLITION OF RENEWALS OF EXTENDED HOURS ORDERS
    Amendment made: 10, in page 5, line 9, leave out
    "'order", where first occurring,' and insert shall" '.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

  Clause 8

    REVOCATION OF JUSTICES' LICENCES AND CANTEEN LICENCES
    Amendments made: No. 11, in page 8, line 15, leave out from 'sessions' to 'other' in line 16.
    No. 12, in page 8, line 18, at end insert
    ',either of their own motion or on the application of any person.'.
    1088
    No. 13, in page 8, line 23, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
    '(3) Licensing justices may only exercise the power conferred by this section if, at least twenty-one days before the commencement of the licensing sessions in question, notice in writing of the proposal to exercise the power or, as the case may be, to make the application has been given to the holder of the licence and, in the case of a proposed application, to the clerk to the licensing justices, specifying in general terms the grounds on which it is proposed the licence should be revoked.'.
    No. 14, in page 8, line 43, leave out from 'sessions' to `other' in line 44.
    No. 15, in page 8, line 46, at end insert
    ',either of their own motion or on the application of any person.'.
    No. 16, in page 9, line 4, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
    '(3) Licensing justices may only exercise the power conferred by this section if, at least twenty-one days before the commencement of the licensing sessions in question, notice in writing of the proposal to exercise the power or, as the case may be, to make the application has been given to the holder of the licence and, in the case of a proposed application, to the clerk to the licensing justices, specifying in general terms the grounds on which it is proposed the licence should be revoked.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

  Schedule 3

    MINOR AMENDMENTS OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT
    Amendments made: No. 17, in page 15, line 8, leave out first 'the' and insert 'any'.
    No. 18, in page 16, line 29, at end insert—
    '. In section 169(1) (selling to persons under 18), for the words "subsections (4) and (10)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (4)".'.
    No. 19, in page 16, line 29, at end insert—
    '. In section 168(3)(a) (due diligence defence), for the word "used" there shall be substituted the words "exercised all".'.
    No. 20, in page 16, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 42 and insert—
    Extension to certain proceedings under this Act of section 97 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
    196A. — (1) For the purposes of section 97 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (procuring the attendance of witnesses etc. at the hearing of a complaint) the following proceedings shall be treated as the hearing of a complaint—

    (a) proceedings on an application—

    (i) for the grant of a justices' licence;

    (ii) for the revocation of a justices' licence or canteen licence; or

    (iii) for the making, variation or revocation of a restriction order; and

    (b) proceedings in connection with the exercise by licensing justices of the power to revoke a justices' licence or canteen licence of their own motion.

    (2) Licensing justices before whom any such proceedings as are mentioned in subsection (1) above take place shall be treated for the purposes of section 97 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 as a magistrates' court for the petty sessions area constituting the licensing district.".'. — [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

  Schedule 4

    REPEALS
    Amendments made: No. 21, in page 17, line 39, at end insert—
    `In section 169 — in subsection (1), the word "knowingly", in the first place where it occurs; and subsection (10).'
    No. 22, in page 17, line 41, at end insert—

    `1977 c. 45.

    The Criminal Law Act 1977

    In Schedule 6, the entries relating to section 169 of the Licensing Act 1964.

    In Schedule 12, in the entry relating to the Licensing Act 1964, paragraph 2.'.— [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

    Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 33.

    Division No. 167]

    [11.13 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Alexander, Richard

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Allason, Rupert

    Gorst, John

    Amess, David

    Gow, Ian

    Arbuthnot, James

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Greenway, John (Rydale)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Gregory, Conal

    Atkinson, David

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Baldry, Tony

    Grist, Ian

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Grylls, Michael

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Sevan, David Gilroy

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Hannam, John

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Boswell, Tim

    Harris, David

    Bottomley, Peter

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Hayes, Jerry

    Bowis, John

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Brazier, Julian

    Hayward, Robert

    Bright, Graham

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Hill, James

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Hind, Kenneth

    Burns, Simon

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Burt, Alistair

    Howard, Michael

    Butcher, John

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

    Butler, Chris

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Butterfill, John

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Cash, William

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Hunter, Andrew

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Chapman, Sydney

    Irvine, Michael

    Chope, Christopher

    Jack, Michael

    Churchill, Mr

    Janman, Timothy

    Colvin, Michael

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Conway, Derek

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Key, Robert

    Cope, John

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Couchman, James

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Cran, James

    Knapman, Roger

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

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

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Knowles, Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Knox, David

    Devlin, Tim

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lang, Ian

    Dover, Den

    Latham, Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Favell, Tony

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lightbown, David

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lilley, Peter

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lord, Michael

    Forman, Nigel

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Foulkes, George

    MacGregor, John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Maclean, David

    Franks, Cecil

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Freeman, Roger

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    French, Douglas

    Madel, David

    Gale, Roger

    Malins, Humfrey

    Gill, Christopher

    Mans, Keith

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Maples, John

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    1091

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stern, Michael

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Stevens, Lewis

    Mills, Iain

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Moss, Malcolm

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Neubert, Michael

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Thorne, Neil

    Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Page, Richard

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Paice, James

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Parry, Robert

    Tracey, Richard

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Tredinnick, David

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Trippier, David

    Pawsey, James

    Turner, Dennis

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Viggers, Peter

    Price, Sir David

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Rattan, Keith

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Rathbone, Tim

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Redwood, John

    Walden, George

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Riddick, Graham

    Wallace, James

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Waller, Gary

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Ward, John

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Warren, Kenneth

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Watts, John

    Ryder, Richard

    Wells, Bowen

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Wheeler, John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Whitney, Ray

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Wilkinson, John

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)

    Wilshire, David

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Shersby, Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wood, Timothy

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Woodcock, Mike

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Yeo, Tim

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Squire, Robin

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and

    Steen, Anthony

    Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

    NOES

    Anderson, Donald

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Beith, A. J.

    Michael, Alun

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Cryer, Bob

    Mullin, Chris

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Pike, Peter

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Dixon, Don

    Skinner, Dennis

    Faulds, Andrew

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Fearn, Ronald

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    Flynn, Paul

    Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

    Foster, Derek

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Hardy, Peter

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Haynes, Frank

    Howells, Geraint

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Mrs. Llin Golding and

    Illsley, Eric

    Dr. Lewis Moonie.

    Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

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

Welsh Development Agency Bill
Considered in Committee.
[SIR PAUL DEAN in the Chair.]

Welsh Development Agency Bill
  Clause 1

    INCREASE OF FINANCIAL LIMIT
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    11.26 pm
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: We are grateful for the opportunity to explore further the finances of the Welsh Development Agency and the work which we hope those moneys will provide in our communities. The Bill lays down new financial limits for the WDA. It is right for hon. Members to take the opportunity to explore what the agency can achieve within those limits in the development and regeneration of our communities.
    We had a useful and constructive debate on Second Reading. It was made clear that the Opposition support the Bill and the work of the agency. But we want to elicit information about what the agency will do within its new financial limits and investigate further its budget. The Secretary of State told hon. Members on Second Reading that the budget would be £113 million and he gave the amounts to be spent on various aspects of the agency's work. We can now take the opportunity of the Committee stage to prise from the Minister more details of the budget.
    The Secretary of State told us that the financial provision for the industrial estates role of the agency would be encompassed in the broader financial limits of the Bill. He explained that the budget for the industrial estates function of the agency for the next financial year would be £44 million and said:
    "Together with the increased factory rents and sales that are taking place, it means that the total potential expenditure for the agency for this coming year will increase to £113 million-31 per cent. more than the budget for the current financial year."
    This is not a Second Reading debate, so we can probe what he meant. The first question for the Minister is what is meant by the words:
    "Together with the increased factory rents and sales that are taking place".
    What proportion of the industrial estates budget for the next financial year will be financed by sales of factories and rent increases? Both are significant to our communities, especially rents. For several years, hon. Members on both sides of the House, but particularly Labour Members, have made representations to the agency about its rental policy as we fear that, as a result of rent increases, some of the marginal companies in agency property could be threatened with bankruptcy.
    11.30 pm
    Sales are important for another reason. Everyone knows that a balance of available property is vital in any commercial portfolio. How much pressure is there — I suspect that there is considerable pressure from the Treasury—to sell a considerable amount of the agency's estates? What assumption of sales has been made to finance the increased budget for the industrial estates?
    The Secretary of State also said:
    "I have also agreed new mechanisms in which the agency can use its finances to attract a considerable volume

    1093
    of private investment into new factory and commercial building."—[Official Report, 28 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 559.]
    New mechanisms should not go through the House on the nod without our knowing what they are and what method of financing will be used to make them effective. If it is a new departure, we need much more explanation of what it is about. It was not us, but the Secretary of State, who drew attention to it.
    The remainder of the Secretary of State's speech on Second Reading did not describe the new mechanisms, so I examined the agency's announcements. I looked at a glossy brochure called, "Property Development Programme", which refers to this matter but does not spell out the new mechanisms and the financial arrangements to make them work.
    Sir Raymond Gower: I assume that the hon. Gentleman accepts the desirability of attracting private investment.
    Mr. Rowlands: We are justified in probing the Government. The Secretary of State has talked about new mechanisms, but I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman knows what they are. I am trying to find out. All I could find was not in an official document but in a WDA press release which accompanied the glossy brochure I mentioned. It gives us some insight into what the mechanisms will be. To my knowledge, it is the only source of information on these new mechanisms. We did not get any information on Second Reading, and we are hoping for some when the Minister replies.
    Under the title "Private Partnership", the press release refers to an "important new ingredient" in the new property development initiative
    "a new grant facility recently agreed by the Secretary of State for Wales."
    The agency and the Secretary of State might agree, but the Committee does not know what the terms of those agreements are, and we were not told about them. I am not complaining or objecting, but if a new grant facility is to be made, and used to develop private estates, the Committee should know about it.
    The press release continues:
    "The Initiative is designed to encourage private development to complement the Agency's own property programme, and more generally to encourage the participation of private developers in industrial development in Wales."
    Again, I am not complaining about the objectives. However, the press release also says, and this is what I question:
    "The WDA will promote specific schemes where it might be prepared to offer a grant to private developers to help make some of these projects a viable proposition. Initial priority will be given to projects at Deeside, the Delyn Enterprise Zone, Cardiff, Bridgend, and Swansea."
    Is this grant facility to be confined in this fashion? What is the grant facility? What proportion of any private development scheme is to be financed by grant? Under what head of the WDA's budget is this grant to be made to private property development? I am not objecting to it, but we should know how it is to be operated, in what form, what sort of money we are talking about and in what proportion. More important, what about its geographic location and spread?
    The press release goes on:
    1094
    "A range of other measures also aimed at assisting private sector investment will be available throughout North and South Wales, including risk sharing partnerships, and help with feasibility studies and marketing of new developments."
    Again, I am not objecting, but these are new mechanisms, new ideas and new grant facilities. I may be less than diligent, but the only information about this that I have read comes in a press release from the WDA. Therefore, I want a much more detailed explanation from the Minister and I want to know why this private property development grant facility is initially confined to that particular area.
    I asked the Minister to explain my next point on Second Reading, but, understandably, he did not get round to answering. I asked him, in the context of my constituency, how private initiatives of the kind that has been described would work. In the section on the industrial estates property called, "Heads of the Valleys region" I read, as I mentioned on Second Reading, that the regional office
    "identified the following opportunities locally for possible private sector development — Goatmill Road, Merthyr —small factories".
    I did not realise that what is behind these mechanisms for attracting private investment in property development is a grant facility by the WDA. Is this area to be the subject of possible grant facility arrangements under the new mechanisms to promote private commercial industrial development?
    An opportunity is identified in the property development programme; a new mechanism is announced by the Secretary of State; a press release tells us that it is a grant facility, although implying that it will be confined to certain geographical areas and enterprise zones. I want to know what is in it for Merthyr and Rhymney. I want a straightforward answer because it is extremely important to us. There is a general issue of principle, too. If the Government intend to introduce a new grant facility arid new arrangements, the Committee needs to know their exact character and nature.
    When the Secretary of State opened the Second Reading debate he told us in part about the size arid character of the WDA's budget. He gave us figures for derelict land and for property — for commercial and industrial development. He did not give us figures for the WDA's budget for 1988–89—on WINvest, for example — or for the WDA's venture capital role. When I pressed the Minister during his wind-up speech he confirmed that the venture capital figure for 1987–88 was £10 million. I am glad to say that he also confirmed that he saw the venture capital role of the agency as vital, because we are worried that it might be pared and clipped. Will the Minister tell us the budgets for WlNvest and the venture capital side in 1988–89? He gave us some of the figures, but not all of them.
    My main point concerns the role and finances of the WDA in relation to the needs of our valley communities. The Secretary of State was very sensitive when my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) dared to query whether the much-heralded valleys initiative was included in or excluded from the WDA budget and the known public expenditure figures. My right hon. Friend will remember that question, which got the Secretary of State to his feet on Second Reading. The Secretary of State was rather testy about my right hon. Friend's prompting. That exchange appears in column 562 of Hansard on 28 January 1988. My right hon. Friend made a fair point. It is not Opposition Members who have

    1095
    been advertising and trailering a great new valleys initiative; it is the Secretary of State himself. He gave an exclusive interview to the Merthyr Express and another exclusive interview to the Western Mail—two exclusive interviews—trailering a major new valleys initiative.
    We were enthused and encouraged and we have been waiting with great interest for the announcement. It would not have been unfair of us to draw the conclusion from those exclusive interviews that there would be a major new special budget for the valleys initiative. It was perfectly reasonable for us to conclude that there would be a major new budgetary announcement; indeed, I assume that that is still in the pipeline.
    Curiously, in the exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West on Second Reading, the Secretary of State appeared to imply that at least the industrial estates side of the great valleys initiative had already been announced and that it was incorporated in the new programme of factory development that the WDA had announced that day.
    I should like the Minister to clear up this point. Has the factory side, the industrial estates corporation side, of the Secretary of State's major new valley initiative, for which we are all waiting with great interest and enthusiasm, already been announced or is there more to come? Is it part and parcel of what was announced on 28 January, or is there a new package of industrial estates development?
    11.45 pm
    It is not our fault that we are confused about what the valley initiative is, and about what is involved in it. Are Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr and Cynon Valley the announced parts of the industrial estates corporation side of the so-called valley initiative?
    Even more interesting is an answer that I received yesterday to a written question that I tabled to the Secretary of State asking him whether the valleys initiative budget was included in or additional to the public expenditure totals that were published in the Command Paper on public expenditure a week or two ago. The reply that I received yesterday stated that they were inclusive and that the valley initiative is buried in the public expenditure totals in the Command Paper.
    There is a lot to be done and some questions need to be asked. If the valleys initiative is buried in those totals —[Interruption.] Indeed there should be some answers. My hon. Friends should not be too sceptical. I am sure that the Minister will give clear answers to all of this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Since when?"] I have greater faith in human nature than some of my hon. Friends. Anyway, as a result of yesterday's answer to the question that I had tabled, plus the exchanges that we had, it is at least clear that a largish proportion of the great new valleys initiative is already available in one form or another somewhere in the House, but we cannot find it. We want to know where the totals are. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the initiative."] Again, I am sorry that my hon. Friends are showing scepticism. I am willing to suspend judgment. Let us find out. I hope that there is a valleys initiative.
    I am somewhat disappointed that the valleys initiative will be inclusive in the existing totals because that means that we are competing for existing resources within the Principality, whereas I thought that it would be additional money. We all thought—it was the whole notion of the
    1096
    two exclusive interviews that we have read—that there would be additional money in an additional budget, over and above the sums within the known totals.
    I should like the Minister to answer two questions. First, has the valley initiative — the industrial estates commercial side—already been announced by the WDA on 28 January, or is there more to come? Secondly, will he give us some idea of when the initiative will be announced and in what form? I ask that because I am concerned that the valleys initiative should be a visionary, positive and forward-looking concept. Since the Secretary of State's interviews one other major piece of new information has become available to us. The Institute of Welsh Affairs has published an interesting and constructive report, entitled "The South Wales Valleys—An Agenda for Action". I think that the Secretary of State gave it a positive and constructive welcome, although I am not quite sure what he thought about it.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): If the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) looks at the record, he will discover that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had announced his own valleys initiative and his intention to make a further statement upon it before "The South Wales Valleys: An Agenda for Action" report appeared.
    Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that the Minister is correct, I am not suggesting otherwise.
    I want to know how many of the interesting ideas contained in that document will be incorporated in the new valleys initiative and how they are to be financed.
    The clause will raise the financial limits available to the WDA. The report "The South Wales Valleys: An Agenda for Action" contained 57 recommendations and proposals and more than 40 of them require WDA action, participation and funding. That demonstrates the relationship between the report and clause 1.
    I agree that the Secretary of State announced his valleys initiative before the report was published, but how many of the report's recommendations will be incorporated in any valley initiative? I am sure that my hon. Friends will not be surprised to discover that I am anxious to know how many of the recommendations relating to my constituency will be incorporated in the Secretary of State's valleys initiative.
    Under the title "A pilot area project" on pages 13–14, paragraphs 220–221, the report recommends that Merthyr Tydfil should be a pilot area project. It recommends seven or eight major action measures for the Merthyr project. All of them would involve WDA financing. The report mentions the preparation of a town development appraisal, key site properties and development opportunities. Indeed, it is pertinent to my constituency that the report discusses the relocation of the WDA's regional office from Hirwaun to Merthyr. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) is not here, because that is a sensitive issue.
    The report also recommends the development of a key strategic industrial site at Pentrebach by the WDA with forward investment in advance factory provision. The list of specific recommendations by the authors of the report deserves a serious and genuine response from the Secretary of State. They are part and parcel of the WDA's budget and needs for 1988–89.

    1097
    How many of the ideas in the report will be incorporated in the valleys initiative and, therefore, be the subject of financial requirements from the WDA in the coming year?
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: Has my hon. Friend also considered derelict land? The chief executive of the WDA made it clear to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs that all the derelict land in Wales would be removed by the end of the century. Is my hon. Friend confident that that goal will be met by the proposals in the Bill?
    Mr. Rowlands: I have not dwelt on derelict land reclamation sites tonight because I discussed them on Second Reading, when I pointed out that one of the most interesting recent reports by the Welsh Coalfield Communities suggested that we were scarcely even-stevens with the pace of land reclamation; that as much reclamation was being created as we were clearing, despite tremendous efforts; and that a budget of £25 million a year was required to make inroads. The budget will be about £20 million so it will fall short of a known need. I pressed that point on Second Reading and do not want to weary the Committee by going over the same argument.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Will my hon. Friend consider the problem that will be posed by the pit closures announced today? In mid Glamorgan the programme of reclamation must inevitably fall behind. As additional closures are announced, the programme that has already been approved will not keep pace with, let alone match, the additional problems caused by new closures.
    Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend poignantly describes the position. On Second Reading several of us said that a problem of the pace of derelict land reclamation was its tight connection with pit closures. I did not draw attention to the disastrous news today about pit closures because I hope that the two pits are not yet lost and that we can dissuade the board from proceeding with two disastrous additional pit closures.
    My hon. Friend is right that If British Coal goes ahead with the proposals and attains the closures—I do not know the Abernant site but I certainly drive past the Lady Windsor site every week — there will be an enormous extra burden of land clearance. I hope to goodness that we do not reach that stage and that the pits may be saved. If they are not, a major additional problem of land reclamation and dereliction will be added to an already heavy historic burden.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: In addition, it is important for the Minister to bear in mind that the implications for the WDA budget and expenditure are important in terms of knock-on effects. British Rail, for example, relocated its freight depot at Pantyffynnon close to the Wernos washery. If the closures go ahead, with the consequent knock-on effect to that rail freight depot, we shall have an additional need for additional funding for the WDA. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the closure of the pits is important and must be prevented.
    Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), who knows the details of these matters, will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He will develop the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell).
    I was drawing the Committee's attention to the major recommendations in "The South Wales Valleys: An
    1098
    Agenda for Action", especially the preparation of a town development appraisal. On Second Reading I asked the Minister about the matter, but he did not answer. I do riot complain because he could not answer all the points. But now is his chance. One of the new functions of the WDA is the creation of an urban renewal unit which will play an important role in the commercial, non-industrial development in some of our communities. I am not clear what its function will be and how its function, expenditure and budget will relate to the urban development grants which will remain with the Welsh Office.
    I understand that the urban renewal unit of the agency will not be a grant-giving body. It will be a lending agency. How will it relate to what remains of the urban development grant system in the Welsh Office? We hope that it will help to develop and diversify the economy of local communities such as mine. We watched with modest envy the developments in Cardiff and Swansea and we want to see such developments extend into our valley communities. We are interested to know what role the urban renewal unit of the Welsh Development Agency will play in that.
    Vital questions remained unanswered on Second Reading. This is our chance to get some answers. The agency is one of the most important and powerful instruments for the regeneration and renewal of our communities. Some people in the agency have dubbed me Oliver Rowlands, the man who always asks for more. I do ask for more because the communities that I represent have given so much historically and have every right to demand more. By supporting the Bill, we hope that we shall get the extra resources to develop the communities that we represent.
    12 midnight
    Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has made a far-reaching speech. It is the Opposition's job to probe, examine and question. I do riot wish to be offensive, but he would have made his job easier if he had tabled precise amendments. It would also have made it easier for the Minister to produce precise answers. It is impassible, in these circumstances, for the Minister to have any foreknowledge of the subjects likely to be raised.
    Mr. Rowlands: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Opposition Members considered means of amending the Bill, but, when the money resolution on a one-clause Bill has been passed, there are only limited ways in which we can amend the Bill. We cannot amend the figures because they were approved in the money resolution, so we must try to amend the Bill through a clause stand part debate.
    Sir Raymond Gower: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but he might have considered the matter further.
    We now see the agency in a different light than we did some years ago. It had a precise role in those days when its chief function was to erect advance factories and to arrange for the clearance of disfigured parts of the landscape after the closure of coal pits. It was possible to forecast expenditure very precisely, but it is now difficult to be so precise. For example, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney referred to the agency's function of attracting private investment. We cannot say how much private investment might be attracted, but we hope that the agency will be successful.

    1099
    The hon. Gentleman rightly expressed concern about the mention of Deeside, Cardiff, Swansea and Bridgend to the exclusion of the valleys. He was right to stress the importance of the valleys, with their very great problems. Nevertheless, he should not go so far as to try to block development in Cardiff, Swansea and Deeside. That would be fatal. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is right to do everything he can for his constituency, but it is short sighted of him to try to block the Cardiff bay development.
    Mr. Alun Michael: One of the precise questions that was asked in last week's debate but that the Minister failed completely to answer was why there was no precision about what the WDA would be doing for Cardiff. Firms wish to develop there and factory and workshop space is required, but that need is not being met. Does the hon. Gentleman join with me in hoping that the Minister will answer that question at the end of the debate?
    Sir Raymond Gower: I do not dissent from that, but my point is that it is impossible to promote great expansion in Merthyr and in Cynon valley if the natural development of Cardiff, Newport and Swansea, which lie near to the motorway, is slowed down. Some companies might be persuaded to go there, whereas even very large inducements would not persuade them to go further. Nevertheless, the very real needs of the valley communities must be attended to.
    I am impressed by the number of factories that are to be built in some of those areas. That is the dispute to which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney referred—the dispute between his right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Our impression was that the right hon. Gentleman was treating factory building in those areas as chickenfeed, but that is not so.
    I foresee that the agency will have both its old functions of clearing dereliction and building factories — in particular, advance factories and those that are ordered by industrialists who intend to come to Wales—and also new functions. It will act as a finance house, as a merchant bank. That part of the agency's work will be vital. However, it is difficult to foresee the extent of its success or failure. I hope that its success will be tremendous. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done a wonderful job in publicising the work of the agency. He has a splendid sense of public relations. It is a great asset.
    Mr. Donald Coleman: I welcome this opportunity to make a brief intervention in this short debate. It should never be forgotten that if some Conservative Members had had their way when they were in opposition—including perhaps the Secretary of State for Wales, who in those days did not take quite such an interest in Wales as he does now—we should not be having this debate, because there would have been no Welsh Development Agency.
    I welcome the increase in the financial limit of the agency, but there must not be untrammelled euphoria about it. There should be a larger increase in the ceiling than that proposed and there should be an acceleration in the rate at which we spend the WDA's money, because in
    1100
    the projected planned expenditure for Wales over the next three years — 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 — we can expect a fall compared with the level for 1987–88.
    Another reason why I want a higher ceiling for the WDA—it has already been alluded to in the debate—is rather more important, particularly with regard to my constituency. This morning we heard the terrible announcement by the management of British Coal in south Wales that it intends to close the Abernant colliery and the washery at Lairgwaith, which is also in my constituency. It is a devastating blow for the area. Employment opportunities in the Amman valley will be reduced by about 800 jobs. That is a bleak prospect for the Amman valley. It will affect a number of constituencies located in the area.
    When I hear the Secretary of State talk about the valleys initiative, and when I look at the Amman valley, I wonder what he means. Does he mean that we will be included in it? At present, there is precious little activity by the WDA in the valleys when it comes to providing employment.
    It is all very well making advances in prestigious industrial parks. Given the magnitude of today's announced redundancies, the WDA needs to give much more attention to the valleys than it has done in the past.
    I want more money to be spent, and spent more speedily. I want jobs for those men whose jobs will disappear once these closures take place. That will be the test of the Secretary of State. Let him or the Minister say how they propose to respond to that test, which is very much on his doorstep as a result of today's announcement.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I want to ask four questions about the WDA: how much; how; when; and why?
    The "how much" question relates to the WDA's response to the 1,500 jobs that will be lost in the closures announced today by British Coal.
    I had a Kafkaesque experience this morning in the Energy Select Committee. We were examining Sir Robert Haslam on British Coal's accounts. I put the rumour to him that the Lady Windsor colliery and one other were to be closed. He did not respond. A telephone call led me to be able to put the fact, in a much firmer fashion, that the announcement had been made 25 minutes before. He said that it was a decision to be made by the area management of British Coal and that it was not a matter for him. One found the discussion moving into the realms of complete unreality. The chairman of British Coal did not appear to think that it was worth briefing himself on the loss of 1,500 jobs in an area of high unemployment like south Wales before he met the Committee to discuss the industrial relations and social aspects of British Coal's operations.
    The task of providing alternative jobs cannot be left to British Coal. This morning, when we put to Sir Robert what the British Coal Enterprise initiative could do about the 1,500 jobs that would be lost in one fell swoop, he mentioned a new workshop complex at Tondu, at which one man was showing great initiative in breeding pythons. I have heard of pit ponies but not of pit pythons. I wonder how many vacancies will be provided for the pythons that formerly worked for British Coal. It cannot possibly meet the requirements that will be laid on the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency and British Coal Enterprise

    1101
    in facing up to job losses of such magnitude, coming on top of all the other problems, including the underlying lack of diversity in south Wales.
    12.15 am
    The "when" question concerns our demand to know when the factories which are specified in the glossy brochure, which was published last week by the WDA and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred, will be completed. The advance factory programme appears to be for 1.5 million sq ft. Will it be completed over the next two financial years, or sooner? If it will be carried out over the 1988–89 and 1989–90 financial years, the programme may be just below the average of the last decade. Will there be a further programme next year which will cause the figure to be above or below average? As I pointed out in last week's debate, the average was 746,000 sq ft per annum. It looks as though it will be just below that, at 740,000 sq ft, if the work is completed within the next two years. I should be glad to hear the Minister's views.
    As to the "why" question, why is the WDA advance factory programme 22 per cent. behind schedule this year? To give us complete confidence that the WDA is doing its job properly and is not being hog tied by the Welsh Office and the Treasury, we need an explanation.
    Mr. Keith Raffan: The hon. Gentleman is harping on the point that he raised last week. Does he accept that, in talking about the factory-building programme in Wales, one talks about not only the advance factory programme but the bespoke tailor-made factory units, in which the WDA has had singular success? The hon. Gentleman is selecting the advance factory programme out of the total factory programme.
    Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that he has picked on a fault of mine. The problem with bespoke factories is that they need to be bespoken. Advance factories represent a commitment by the Government to build. Bespoke factories, in so far as they appear in a budget figure at all, are either a guess or a maximum. Advance factories are a minimum — a commitment by the Government. When a figure on bespoke factories is announced, that cannot be the same as a commitment. If the factories are not bespoke, they are not built, and there is no budgetary figure. Last week, the Minister did not explain whether the figure he gave on bespoke factories was a guess or whether the Treasury was imposing on the WDA a maximum beyond which it was not allowed to go.
    The Government, the WDA or the Treasury and its controls have allowed the WDA to fall 22 per cent. behind the programme announced last year. We need to know why the WDA is 22 per cent. behind in completions under this year's capital programme. As the WDA accepts, this year the demand is high. If the WDA is 22 per cent. behind, it will miss 22 per cent. of its opportunities.
    On the "how" question, how does the WDA intend to achieve some of its objectives when the local authorities, on which the WDA is dependent to prepare the land, are hog tied? The WDA has announced in its glossy brochure that it intends to develop a major new complex at Miskin in the M4 corridor. Although Miskin is not part of my constituency, what happens there affects my county. That is a prestige site. It will be done in partnership —according to the WDA's glossy brochure— with South
    1102
    Glamorgan county council. Unfortunately, the capital programme that the Welsh Office has given the council will not enable it to prepare the land in the first place. If the Welsh Office does not allow the county council the capital programme to develop the land in the first place, the European regional development fund cannot give a 50 per cent. grant towards the costs of the infrastructure. One hand of the Welsh Office does not appear to know what the other is doing. If it hog-ties the capital programme of the county council that is meant to supply the infrastructure, the WDA will never get to the stage at which it can build the factory economically. That is a major problem. I hope that the Minister will deal with it and the other points that I have raised.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: The House is conscious that the hour is late, but it is necessary to refer again to two closely inter-related matters that I raised on Second Reading. Those matters were also touched on by my constituent, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), whose constituency contains almost the whole south Cardiff redevelopment area.
    The points to which I alluded were the WDA's land holdings in the area of the south Cardiff redevelopment, and the apprehension abroad in Cardiff—among some people—about the use of compulsory purchase orders to pursue the redevelopment of south Cardiff. My hon. Friend the Minister replied by advising me and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to take up specific Cardiff problems with the WDA, as he would advise any other hon. Members who were raising constituency problems.
    I want gently to chide my hon. Friend the Minister about that. The south Cardiff redevelopment is no minor constituency matter. It is a most important development. It was the inspiration of my noble Friend Lord Crickhowell. It represents a tremendous prospect for the future — —[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) wants to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that he will. I would give way to him, but I fancy that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I have a far better knowledge of this matter, which fact the hon. Member for Newport, East is giving away by his sedentary interruptions.
    The redevelopment represents a tremendous potential for the future, not only for Cardiff, but—more widely—for the valleys of south Wales and the whole of south Wales. The last thing any of us want to do in Cardiff is to undersell ourselves on the south Cardiff redevelopment or Cardiff's potential.
    I do not necessarily expect my hon. Friend to reply tonight. I shall be content if he will reflect on this matter after the debate and further consider the points that I and the hon. Member for Cardiff South, and Penarth tried to make on Second Reading. Perhaps he will go into them on his later visits to the WDA and the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The last thing I want is for the Government or the Welsh Office to regard the matter as a local constituency problem.
    Mr. Michael: In view of the gentle and polite remarks made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) about south Cardiff, the Minister should take his point on board and respond to it. The point has been made in a reasonable way on both sides of the House, and the Minister should therefore listen to it.

    1103
    It makes no sense to take up specific problems with the WDA because it is clear that influence has been brought to bear upon it to be involved in the area. That is why a transfer of land is going on at the present time. As I stressed on Second Reading, the whole strategy of the development of south Cardiff needs to be got right and done in partnership.
    The Ministers who are involved in decision making must understand the delicate nature of the partnership and the need for them to be involved in it. They must make sure that it works so that jobs are retained and encouraged rather than lost through the process. It is important that the WDA's expertise and knowledge is fully utilised in the process. The problem with last week's announcement, the points that were raised in last week's debate, and the lack of ministerial response is that no reassurance has been given on that point.
    I record a note of disagreement with the hon. Member for Cardiff, North. Whereas we welcomed the support and personal commitment that Lord Crickhowell gave the Cardiff bay development, the starting point for the scheme was the initiative of the South Glamorgan county council, a Labour authority, against Conservative councillors' opposition when it committed public investment to building the new county headquarters.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, North may be aware that the gentleman who represented his party in the last election was photographed in front of a development that he had opposed within the county council.
    It is a minor matter. I raise it only because it has been referred to by hon. Members. It is only right that it be put into the right context.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: The hon. Gentleman and I have similar thoughts on the subject. I should not want to provoke a great quarrel with him, but I invite him to study the St. David's day debate in the Chamber in 1983, when my noble Friend Lord Crickhowell launched what has now become the work of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. His initiative came forward at that time. It had previously gelled from a visit to the docks by my predecessor, the late Michael Roberts, in company with the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Lord Callaghan. It was brought out before the Welsh Select Committee visited Cardiff. The chief executive of South Glamorgan county council laid the credit at the door of my predecessor the late Michael Roberts, Lord Callaghan and Lord Crickhowell. It was then enthusiastically taken up by all political parties in the two authorities in Cardiff.
    Mr. Michael: Perhaps I may intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech. That approach can be counterproductive. With great respect, the hon. Gentleman provoked a response. What I said is true. In the first instance, South Glamorgan county council put its money where its mouth was. Despite Conservative councillors' opposition, it went ahead with its development of the new county headquarters and the partnership with private enterprise, to try to get things moving in the docklands. That takes nothing away from the fact that there was then a positive intervention by Lord Crickhowell, as he now is.
    In the past, because of the nature of the political makeup of the area, we in Cardiff have managed to maintain cross-party continuity of local authority control from one period to another, as the hon. Gentleman will know. From
    1104
    time to time, the hon. Gentleman and I have bantered across another chamber. It is important to say where the real start of initiatives began and where the real opposition has lain. I do not wish to be taken any further down that avenue. I intended to explore it only briefly in response to what was said earlier.
    There have been no answers regarding the intentions of the Welsh Office and the Ministers concerned. In Cardiff, there is a serious lack of industrial development opportunities because of a lack of land and factories. That was not spelt out in the WDA's announcement last week. There is an inevitable freeze while decisions are made about planning in south Cardiff. Nevertheless, that means that the area is losing opportunities and jobs. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that there will be a speedy response to these points and support for the local authorities as they try to tackle those elements in the area.
    12.30 am
    Mr. Alan Williams: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) should not be quite so surprised that the Conservative party is trying to lay claim to the credit for the Cardiff bay scheme, because in this debate Conservative Members are trying to claim credit for the existence and success of the Welsh Development Agency. This is a standard tactic. They oppose an idea when it comes forward, and then claim the credit once it gets off the ground.
    I am delighted to see the Minister of State. It gives me great pleasure that he is to reply to the debate. We all like and have a great affection for him. We particularly like his well-known characteristic that he would not dream of leaving the Chamber until he has answered every point that has been put to him tonight. We know that that is the standard that he has set himself, and that is the standard by which we will judge him this evening. To that end, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has started a checklist of the various questions to the Minister. Indeed, it might facilitate matters if we organised a photocopy of the list for the Dispatch Box so that the Minister could have the list.
    We welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber in the unexplained absence of the Secretary of State. Where is he? He should be here. After all, his Welsh valleys initiative is buried somewhere in the Bill and we would expect the Secretary of State, of all people, to be here to tell us about it.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been to Brussels today and was returning this evening. While in Brussels, he was working very much in the interests of Wales.
    Mr. Williams: In that case, as the Secretary of State knew that he was going to Brussels, and if he was so enthusiastic to be here, I am surprised that the man who we are told has such massive influence in Cabinet was unable to persuade the business managers to hold the debate tomorrow evening or yesterday evening instead of this evening. It is an astonishing discourtesy to Wales that on one of the few occasions when we have an opportunity to deal in Committee with specifically Welsh legislation the Secretary of State feels that he is too grand to be here. Perhaps he is out preparing yet another press release on the valleys initiative. He will not tell us about that, but no doubt there will be a press release.

    1105
    My hon. Friend the Member for—[Interruption.] Sir Paul, you are fortunate this evening to be sharing an experience that we thought was normally unique to Welsh Members. I invite you to watch the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) carefully during the debate. You will see that he has a rather unusual characteristic. His jaw is well worth watching. It is the nearest thing to political perpetual motion that you will ever come across. I invite you to observe his conduct during the debate.
    Mr. Raffan: Perhaps I should hold up a sign reading "Laughter".
    Mr. Williams: There you are, Sir Paul. It is fascinating. We should record the hon. Gentleman's peculiar antics. Perhaps he will say something as well as emitting noises.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney hit on a very important point. He said that there is an initiative that may be of some importance. We do not know. However, if it is important and valuable, we welcome it. At least we are entitled to know about it.
    The initiative relates to the use of private funds for property projects backed up as necessary where it may facilitate viability, as the press release says, with funds from the private sector.
    There are important principles here as well as important points of detail and we are entitled to know about them. For example, if the WDA is to determine that its commitment of funds is appropriate to achieve viability, will it, as it is attaining that viability, get a share of whatever profits are made? Because viability is involved, will it be expected to go before the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board for approval?
    In this context I agree with my hon. Friend's puzzlement about priority areas. I would not exclude any of them, particularly as one is in my constituency, so my hon. Friend will recognise that I speak not entirely impartially. If the valleys initiative is buried somewhere among the proposals for the Welsh Development Agency, why are the valleys excluded from the bold new initiative? One would have thought that they would be the very areas to be included.
    We would also like further information on the new consultancy scheme which the WDA and the Welsh Office will be pushing in Wales. This is put forward by the Secretary of State as an important addition to his regional weaponry or his arsenal of inducements for the regions. Yet no doubt he will have seen that the regional director of the Department of Trade and Industry for the south of England, the most prosperous area of Britain, has said that that area, with 30 per cent. of the population, expects to get 40 per cent. of the money available under the new scheme.
    So, far from being a regional policy, it seems to be a counter-regional policy. The area of greatest innovation will apparently get the greatest benefit. Therefore, with a relatively low level of innovation, we may lose out. We want clarification on that. It is difficult to quantify in advance projects which are dependent on demand. However, the director for the south of England put figures on it, so no doubt the Minister of State will feel able to do the same.
    Derelict land clearance has been raised. The moment one points out something that is even slightly critical of the performance of the Government the Secretary of State bounces up and down in a paddy and starts muttering;
    1106
    occasionally he bounces to the Dispatch Box with irrelevancies. I asked specifically about this on Second Reading. The Minister of State did not answer when he replied to the debate, no doubt because he did not have time. Knowing what a courteous man he is, I am sure he intends to give me the answer tonight.
    I made the point that, whereas England has two and a half times the area of derelict land that we have in Wales, about five times as much is being spent on clearing the dereliction. When does the Minister think that the programme of dereliction clearance will end? It has been pointed out that the WDA hopes to achieve the clearance of all derelict land by the turn of the century. I said on Second Reading that the programme for this year is good. Even on that performance, the agency will not achieve clearance until the year 2020. If the WDA's claim that the clearance will be complete by the end of the century is to be fulfilled, this year's programme will have to be more than doubled. Is that end of the century target an official Government target or something that the chairman of the WDA produced off the top of his head?
    Does the Minister recognise that this much boosted extra money for the WDA, which the press has blazoned, is coming from other parts of the Welsh budget and the Welsh regional assistance budget? All that is happening is that the same money is being moved around.
    The inadequacy of it all was shown up by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) when he commented on the 1,600 jobs that we have lost today. We are told how wonderfully Wales is doing, but in one day we have had three announcements—the proposed loss of the Lady Windsor pit, the proposed loss of the Abernant pit, and the proposed loss of a Wernos washery. That means that 1,600 jobs will go.
    The astonishing thing about the announcement concerns Abernant, which produces anthracite. The Welsh director of British Coal went on Welsh television just before Christmas to boast of the turnaround there which had reached the point at which it was making a profit on every tonne of coal produced in November. Today, however, he announces its closure.
    As for Lady Windsor, believe it or not, as a result of some investment, which is due to be completed in five week's time, and which could double output, it has the second highest productivity of any Welsh pit on one of its faces because of the changes that are in hand. As it is working ahead, as required by the rescue programme decided by British Coal with the NUM in November, British Coal rats on the agreement.
    As for Wernos, the announcement has come as a surprise to everyone. I understand that Abernant is to be used instead.
    These announcements delay the activities of the WDA. What is now to happen? Is the matter to go through the review procedure? The NUM is in great difficulty because, under the existing scheme, there is a £5,000 premium on redundancy payments until 31 March. If the union initiates the review procedure, it will go on beyond 31 March and therefore its members stand to lose the extra £5,000. If it does not initiate the review procedure, however, the Government will accuse it of agreeing to the closures.
    Either way, we want to know what the WDA intends to do and what programme the Secretary of State will bring forward to help those three areas. We do not expect the extra demand to be met out of the extra budget for the

    1107
    WDA or the Welsh Office. We want there to be new money to meet these requirements. We have lost 11 pits and 11,000 jobs in the coal industry during the past four years.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: The Secretary of State has been in Brussels all day working for the interest of Wales.
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Member must be careful. It was his Secretary of State who, as Secretary of State for Energy, drove the knife into the heart of the Welsh mining communities and now, as Secretary of State for Wales, he is taking away regional development grants, thus turning off the life support scheme which was intended to help them recover from the blows that he delivered. It strikes us as somewhat paradoxical that we have lost all these jobs in the mining areas, over the past four years, and they should be the supreme example of where regional aid should work, but in the same four years their special development area status has been taken away. Now the regional development grants are being taken away.
    12.45 am
    We welcomed the announcement on the WDA factory programme last week, as I am sure the Minister will recollect. It has said that it is taking an extra 1·5 million sq ft of factory space next year. The WDA talks about the creation of 4,500 jobs over the next few years. That means that, for every 1,000 sq ft of factory space, we get three jobs. To put the announcement of the next year's programme into perspective, we should remember that the three closures today would require more than 500,000 sq ft of new factory space to provide alternative jobs. So, while 1·5 million sq ft sounds a lot, when one sees it against the problems with which we are trying to deal, one begins to realise how small and inadequate it is.
    Table 2·2 of the public expenditure White Paper lists the spending programmes Department by Department. We have all seen in the Welsh press, particularly the Western Mail, editorials about the miracle man from Worcester who is producing all this extra money for Wales. Unfortunately, he has not told the Treasury about this, and it does not know that it is giving extra, so it has done him a disservice and written it up wrongly in the White Paper. He has got it right and it has got it wrong.
    Table 2·2 shows that, far from there being an increase next year, expenditure for Wales goes down by £6 million. I gave that figure in a press release some weeks ago, but was castigated by the Secretary of State for doing so. The following year, the great achievement of the wonder worker from Worcester is that we shall lose £24 million. To show that it was not a mistake the first time round, according to the White Paper, in the third year of the projected period, we shall lose another £24 million. The Secretary of State and the Western Mail are telling us that we are getting this extra money, but no one has told the Treasury, and it thinks that we shall lose £54 million in the next few years. Much as I like the right hon. Member for Worcester, I am inclined to take more notice of what is said in the White Paper than of what is said in his press releases.
    Let us follow the logic of this. If next year we shall lose £6 million from our budget, but this extra funding will go to the WDA and we will get the Welsh valleys initiative somewhere in this slimmed-down budget, where is the
    1108
    money to come from? Which Welsh pocket is being picked to provide the funding that the Secretary of State is talking about?
    I am delighted that we have an answer from the Welsh Office confirming that the valleys initiative is within these published figures. The valleys need many things. They need improvements in housing, but the housing programme is cut in the second volume of the White Paper. They need improved transport links, but spending on those, too, is massively cut.
    Wales needs more spending on education. A Welsh Office press notice talks about a wonderful expansion in the education budget for Wales over the next three years —0·5 per cent. a year. Where is the initiative? We want to know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said. It does not seem to be in housing, transport, or education. So how many of these factories—how much square footage, how many jobs and at what cost—are part of the new valleys initiative, so coyly introduced by the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Morgan: Sounds like a python.
    Mr. Williams: I shall leave my hon. Friend to grapple with his python.
    The Secretary of State is not a man to hide his initiatives under bushels, yet we have had to winkle out from him the fact that the initiative has already taken place. He has devised a new parliamentary game, hunt the initiative, and my hon. Friends are trying to do just that. Will he tell us where it is, how much it is and where the money has come from? Which part of Wales is having to pay for the so-called initiative?
    Let me remind the Minister of the background to the debate, in case he gets carried away with the hyperbole used by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. In December last year, unemployment was still double what it was in December 1979. The WDA budget, which the Government are boasting about, has been £40 million, or 60 per cent., more in the past. That is how good it is now. The factory building programme that the Government are telling us about has been I million sq ft larger in the past, yet we are told, "You are lucky. Look at these marvellous achievements under this brand new Secretary of State for Wales." Just to make sure that we do not feel that there is anything to which the Government's malevolent attentions have not been turned, regional grants have been 50 per cent. higher in the past.
    That is the background: less money, less factory space, less WDA funding and double the unemployment. Will the Minister please convince us now, detail by detail, and tell us what the initiative is, where the extra money is and, above all, where that money is coming from?
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: It is high time that we reminded ourselves that the clause simply authorises an increase in the limit to the amount of money that can be made available to the WDA by Parliament out of the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund and that we are increasing the limit from £450 million to £700 million because of the enormous success of the WDA. We covered most of the activities of the agency in the three-hour Second Reading debate last Thursday. We referred to the record factory letting this year–2·3 million sq ft—and to the WDA's intention of completing 1·5 million sq ft next year. We also stressed that the WDA's potential spending is up to £113 million next year–31 per cent. more than

    1109
    the budget for this year. We expect the WDA's success to continue. We expect it to continue to succeed in attracting new industry, in building and letting factories and therby bringing much-needed employment to Wales.
    Expenditure by the agency depends on several factors, some of which are outside its control, such as the needs of Welsh industry for investment finance; the availability of land for environmental projects; the speed with which the agency can devise plans and implement schemes; and the ability of the agency and Wales as a whole to continue to attract inward investment.—[Interruption.] Several hon. Members have referred to the serious situation with regard to pit closures, so I should have thought that they would be prepared to listen with some attention to what I have to say.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: What about the 1,500 jobs?
    Mr. Roberts: I expect the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure takes this matter seriously, as I do, to listen to what I have to say.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I—indeed, all Conservative Members—were naturally sorry to hear of the pit closures that were announced earlier today. However, maintaining uneconomic operations is simply not the answer to the long-term future of the south Wales coalfield, as, indeed, the Opposition discovered when they were in government and had to close pits.
    British Coal has acknowledged its responsibility to mining communities by the setting up of British Coal Enterprise, which has — to date — offered £10 million assistance to small business projects in Wales. That is a valuable offer. The schemes involved are expected to create or safeguard about 6,500 jobs.
    Of course, the WDA will also have an important part to play in encouraging the economic redevelopment of the communities involved. The programme of factory building announced last Thursday will provide many job opportunities throughout the south Wales coalfield.
    I have been looking at the specific programmes of the WDA in the heads of valley regions, in the Treforest region and in Swansea, all of which will at least be helpful in the present situation.
    The WDA is also discussing with British Coal the prospects of developing managed workshops in the valleys. Account will clearly now be taken of the latest closure announcements when deciding on particular sites.
    Colliery land is often a major asset and provides an opportunity for future development. The agency will, therefore, have urgent discussions with the local authorities involved to explore whether the sites can be brought within the scope of the new land reclamation programme that the WDA plans to launch in March or early April.
    Sir Raymond Gower: In connection with the valleys problem, if it is possible to have another enterprise zone in Wales in the future, could the claims of the valleys area be considered? Would it not be a great advantage if an enterprise zone were to be set up at some crucial central point in the valleys area?
    Mr. Roberts: I note what my hon. Friend says. I am coming to the main theme to which he referred.
    Mr. Coleman rose—
    Mr. Roberts: Perhaps I could continue by giving the House our immediate responses on the day of the announcement of the closures.
    The long-term prosperity of the valleys can be secured only through a complete restructuring of its economy and a major enhancement of the environment.
    Mr. Coleman: Will the Minister tell me and the House when he first knew that Abernant would be closed? I have listened carefully to what he has said. Last week he talked about announcements of factories. Did he know then?
    Mr. Roberts: I was referring to what the WDA announced last week — [HON. MEMBERS: "Did the hon. Gentleman know?"] The information sheets that I have in my hand were part of the package given to hon. Members by the WDA. Of course, I did not know in advance about the closures; neither did the WDA. Such knowledge could not be inferred from the references that I have made to the activities of the WDA in the various parts of the south Wales region.
    1 am
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is addressing the precise issues to which I have just referred in the coming weeks before he makes his announcement on his strategy for the transformation of the valleys. Labour Members have already pressed me hard this evening to give further details on the so-called valleys initiative, but, however hard they press me, they know that it would be totally inappropriate for me to make an announcement at this stage.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Why?
    Mr. Roberts: Because we are still awaiting the valleys initiative. Indeed, Opposition Members have been contributing ideas — the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) knows that—and we are bringing that information together. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement in due course. We want that initiative to be as good as it possibly can be.
    We must remember that my right hon. Friend's predecessor, Lord Crickhowell, began a valleys initiative in 1986. I am sure that Opposition Members would want us to pursue that initiative and take further action. However, it is not for me to make an announcement tonight.
    Mr. Rowlands: I still have my checklist and I have not ticked anything off yet. Will the Minister confirm whether the valleys initiative includes the possibility of additional factory space over and above that announced by the WDA on 28 January? The Minister should say yea or nay.
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman must await my right hon. Friend's announcement, which I promise will be made in due course. As the hon. Gentleman has been in government, he must appreciate that.
    The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked me a great many questions. He asked me to put figures on various items, but I am extremely hesitant about doing so. I will look carefully at the questions as he put them to me and give him such figures as I can. However, he knows as well as I do that answers to some of his questions involve rather more than simple arithmetic, and I certainly do not intend to indulge in even simple arithmetic at this early hour of the morning.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Not just one figure?
    Mr. Roberts: No. I will give some figures later, but they will not have involved any calculations on my part.
    The hon. Gentleman's theme was the interaction between the WDA and the private sector. There is no conflict between the two. The agency is there further to develop a prosperous self-sustaining market economy, and all its policies are geared to that end. The emphasis is increasingly on the agency as a facilitator or encourager of private-sector action, but there is much more emphasis now on partnership with the private sector and with local government.
    Direct agency provision is focused on the market gaps, and naturally it will withdraw from areas when private-sector interest has been demonstrated. The property development grant is an example of the effort to stimulate private-sector solutions. It is a new grant to encourage private-sector developers to become more heavily involved in promoting industrial property in Wales. Similarly, the enterprise initiative consists of new business development grants which are administered in Wales by the WDA. The aim is to increase the flow and access to a wide range of top quality, private-sector consultancy advice. Obviously, the WDA is alert to other opportunities to stimulate greater private-sector involvement in the development of the Welsh economy.
    One can say a great deal about the investment department and its workings within the WDA, but I do not think that I would be pleasing the House if I pursued the detail of that policy.
    Mr. Rowlands: The Minister is moving on to deal, or not deal, with another point, as may be, but he has not said anything about the new property development grant. Will it be a certain percentage of a total project? What are the criteria? Who will make the assessments and judgments? Will it be the subject of an industrial development agency-type arrangement? It is an important initiative and we should like to know much more about the nature and character of this new grant facility. What about geographical limitation?
    Mr. Roberts: I can certainly clear up the point about geographical location. There is no such thing as a geographical limitation within Wales for this grant. It is extremely difficult to do anything other than estimate, or probably guesstimate, the expenditure at this stage.
    Mr. Rowlands: Give the figures.
    Mr. Roberts: No. I refuse to give the figures because this is a new development and must be tested. We must see exactly what the demand for this particular service will be.
    The investment policy department in the WDA seeks to ensure that viable companies have access to adequate financial backing, so as to promote economic growth and create jobs. That department complements the agency's main developmental objectives. Its policy is that it invests only when private-sector sources of venture capital cannot be attracted. It invests on a commercial basis in the expectation of a return, albeit a lower return than most private investors would be prepared to accept.
    The agency's main market is seed capital and start-ups. Start-ups alone now account for over half of all new investments. In the current financial year, all agency investment in excess of £250,000 will be syndicated with private-sector partners. That is part of the new mechanism. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and
    1112
    Rhymney will know that a policy review was conducted with the Welsh Development Agency and the agency is now investigating whether more can be done to lessen the obstacles to private funding, particularly at the smaller end of the market.
    The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) referred briefly to the scale of land reclamation in England. The Department of the Environment has provided grants worth about £440 million to clear almost 11,000 hectares of damaged land. We are also proud of our record in Wales. Successive Governments have taken pride in their achievements.
    The agency's contribution to the regeneration of the Welsh economy and the transformation of the environment has been enormous. That is recognised on both sides of the House. Opposition Members claim credit for the agency, but I must remind them that we changed the character of the agency, through the Industry Act 1979, when we came into office.
    Mr. Rowlands: The Minister has so far answered half of one point. Let me try him on another which should be easier. Will he cover the point about the relationship between the urban renewal unit and the WDA as a lending agency?
    Mr. Roberts: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the close co-operation between the Welsh Development Agency and the Welsh Office and between local authorities and other agencies. Urban development grant is very much within the control of the Welsh Office, but that does not prevent us from using it to further developments in which the WDA has an interest. I am sure that will continue. We deal with each and every project as it arises.
    It is worth emphasising that since 1979 the Government have enabled the agency to invest about £850 million, at today's prices, in the redevelopment process. The output in terms of new jobs, capital projects and reclaimed land was described in detail in last week's debate. Opposition Members will not want to hear all that good work and all those great achievements described again.
    We are the first to accept that the task is nowhere near complete. The Government plan to allow the agency to invest a further £345 million over the next three years—over £100 per head for every person in Wales. That is the measure of the Government's commitment to seeing the task through and of their commitment to Wales.
    In order to pursue its very wide range of activities and to complement the Government's economic and regional policies, it is necessary to provide a statutory basis for the continued funding of the agency. That is the purpose of the clause and the Bill. Once again, I commend the clause to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 2

    SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    1.15 am
    Mr. Coleman: Clause 2 says:
    "This Act does not extend to Northern Ireland."

    1113
    Why is Northern Ireland being specifically excluded? What about Scotland and England — perhaps even Worcester? Will the Minister explain why Northern Ireland is being discriminated against in this fashion? It is important that the people of Northern Ireland should know that the people of Wales are not prepared to allow them to be discriminated against.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: I do not want to have to remind Opposition Members that the report of the Committee stage will be read in Wales. If it is thought that attempts are being made to block or hinder the passage of the Bill, the people of Wales are entitled to take note of that fact.
    Mr. Coleman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for the protection of the Chair against the Minister. I am asking a perfectly valid question. I am asking for information. I am not being facetious. Therefore, I call on the Minister to withdraw.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I think that it would be better if the Minister were to be allowed to reply.
    Mr. Roberts: I made that comment because a clause excluding Northern Ireland from a Bill's provisions is—as the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) must surely know, because he has been a Member of this House for much longer than I—frequently to be found in Bills that refer to England and Wales.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill to be reported, without amendment.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

International Development Association
1.17 am
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft International Development Association (Eighth Replenishment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to authorise a contribution of £524,160,000 to the eighth replenishment of the International Development Association. This is a major element of our aid programme — our second biggest single commitment, after our contribution to the European Development Fund.
As the House will know, the association is the soft loan affiliate of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development—more popularly known as the World Bank. It was set up in 1960, when it became clear that many countries were too poor to take on conventional World Bank loans on quasi-commercial terms. Because its terms are highly concessional, the IDA is mainly funded by donors' contributions and not, as with the World Bank, by borrowing on the financial markets.
IDA approved credits of $3·5 billion in the year to June 1987. In the same period, the World Bank approved loans totalling $14–2 billion.
The IDA aims to promote economic progress in the poorer developing countries by providing financial and technical assistance, mainly for specific projects. Just as the Bank's goal is to bring its borrowers to a point where they are fully able to turn to the world's financial markets to meet their needs, so IDA aims to bring its borrowers to the point where, one day, their needs can be met by the Bank.
Many countries have benefited in this way over the years. The most notable case is, perhaps, Korea, which graduated out of IDA in 1973, and whose economy has gone from strength to strength. But most of the poorest countries of Africa and Asia, which are IDA's customers, will continue to need substantial and highly concessional aid flows for many years to come. IDA, therefore, has a key role to play in their development.
Our efforts, through IDA and other international development agencies, complement our aid programmes, to which we attach particular importance. We maintain a substantial and effective bilateral aid programme, the quality of which was recognised by the OECD at its last review of British aid. It is focused primarily on the poorest, IDA-eligible, countries; more so than OECD bilateral aid generally.
Although IDA credits are mostly for projects, in recent years there has been an increasing emphasis on non-project lending, mainly structural and sectoral adjustment loans. Lending of this kind provides vital foreign exchange to help finance essential imports for those countries that are making an effort to get their economic house in order. Structural adjustment programmes usually follow a period of economic decline, which inevitably brings increasing hardship. There is understandable concern, which I share, about the plight of the poorest and most vulnerable groups in those circumstances.
In the long run, everyone should gain from the resumed economic growth made possible by successful adjustment. In the short run, there are some gainers too. For example, policy reforms such as higher agricultural prices will

1115
benefit many poor farmers. But there are other groups who will lose, particularly townspeople who have previously received Government subsidies in one form or another.
The World Bank and other donors, including Britain, have become increasingly aware of the human cost of economic decline in poor countries, and are trying to find ways to give a human face to the adjustment process by targeting aid on the needs of the poor.
The ODA took part last year in an initiative launched by the Government of Ghana, with assistance from the World Bank and the United Nations agencies, to consider what may be done to help poor and vulnerable groups in that country during the period of adjustment. The Government of Ghana have produced a programme which will be discussed later this month at a donors' conference, at which Britain will be represented.
The bank, the UN development programme and the African Development bank are together paying for a five-year project which aims to assess the impact of structural adjustment and to design poverty-alleviation programmes, which will increase the access of the poor to employment and to income generation. This project, which many of the United Nations agencies will supervise, is to be executed by the World Bank. But developing country governments must face up to some difficult political changes, so that their own resources are deployed where the benefits to poor people will be greatest.
It may help if I give the House some of the background to this new obligation to IDA, which we have accepted, and which I now ask the House to endorse. Negotiations for the eight replenishment were tough and lengthy, but there was a sense of urgency and even generosity about them, by contrast with those of the seventh replenishment, which began a year late and yielded a negotiated total of only $9 billion –25 per cent. down, in cash terms, on the sixth replenishment. As it was soon recognised as inadequate, especially to meet the needs of the poorer countries in Africa, the seventh replenishment was supplemented by a special facility for Africa. That brought the total up to $10·6 billion. Britain played its part in providing a contribution of £75 million to the special facility.
For the eighth replenishment, donors have agreed a negotiated total of $11·5 billion. We shall contribute our 6·7 per cent. share to that—the same percentage as last time. In addition, however, some donor countries are making voluntary extra contributions. These total $900 million, including a special pledge of $15 million from the United Kingdom. The overall amount raised by donors is $12·4 billion.
When account is also taken of repayments of earlier loans, IDA should be able to sustain a lending programme of more than $13 billion over the three years of the replenishment. Some 70 per cent. of contributions are payable in non-dollar currencies, in amounts fixed at 1986 rates of exchange. Thus, IDA is substantially protected from the effects of the depreciation of the dollar since 1986. At today's rates of exchange, the replenishment is worth considerably more than $12·4 billion. Early in the negotiations a target range of $10·5 billion to $12–5 billion was established, and the result is at the top of the range.
Many contributors to IDA are above all concerned that the amounts that they provide should help to deal with the
1116
special problems of the poorest countries, particularly in Africa. It has been agreed that at least 45 per cent. of eighth replenishment lending should go to Africa, and that an additional 5 per cent. would be available if necessary to meet the needs of countries making structural adjustment efforts. That compares with only 44 per cent. of the combined seventh replenishment and special facility. Up to $3–5 billion will be allotted to fast-spending adjustment aid. The bulk of IDA's lending will still be for longer-term development projects, however, and we are particularly satisfied that, in addition to Africa, the needs of the large developing countries in Asia have been recognised.
Countries south of the Sahara are facing exceptional difficulties. I am glad to say that there is widespread recognition by African Governments of the need for determined measures to lay the foundations for economic recovery. The World Bank has taken the lead in providing balance of payments assistance for countries prepared to adopt the necessary policy reforms. We strongly support these structural adjustment programmes and we have provided funds from our bilateral aid programme to supplement IDA resources in such cases.
Like the bank, Britain is at the forefront of efforts to increase resources available to support economic reform in the low-income, debt-distressed countries in sub-Saharan Africa. At a very successful meeting in Paris in December, bilateral donors pledged a total of $6·3 billion of aid as part of the bank-led effort to ensure well coordinated support for these reform programmes. For our part, we have said that we would expect to make available up to £250 million of British bilateral programme aid over the next three years.
Agreement has been reached in the IMF for a substantial increase in the fund's structural adjustment facility, which will increase it almost threefold. Through additions to the aid programme, Britain is contributing sufficient to subsidise interest on £750 million worth of new structural adjustment facility lending, at current interest rates. This offer was warmly welcomed by M. Camdessus, the IMF managing director.
Additionally, as the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made far-reaching proposals to ease the burden of debt on poorer countries in Africa undertaking economic adjustment, the cost of which would be additional to the existing planned aid budget. There is also general agreement on the need for an early and substantial increase in the World Bank's capital, to enable its lending programme to expand, as we all would wish, over the next five or six years. Discussions are proceeding on these matters, and I am sure the House joins me in hoping that they will be concluded successfully.
The order will give the Secretary of State authority to make a United Kingdom contribution of £524·16 million. We shall pay this to IDA by depositing three promissory notes, for equal amounts, over three years from 1988. These will then be encashed over a longer period, to match spending incurred by IDA as a result of its commitments during the replenishment period. The costs of encashment will be met as they occur, from sums voted for overseas aid. The detailed arrangements of the workings of this replenishment are clearly set out in the reports of the bank's executive directors which, together with the IDA resolutions dated 24 February 1987, have been published as a White Paper with which I am sure the House is familiar—Cmnd. 251.

1117
There is, perhaps, one point which I should draw to the attention of the House, on which I am bound to say that we did not achieve quite the result that we should have liked. The terms of IDA-8 credits will be slightly less concessional than those under the previous replenishment. With a grant element of 77 per cent. for the poorest countries and 74 per cent. for others, however, they will nevertheless be more generous than the 72 per cent. grant element which was provided for the first IDA credits in 1961.
We argued that the softer IDA-7 terms should be retained, but eventually conceded some shortening of maturities to secure agreement on the highest possible replenishment total. When maturities are shortened and credits are repaid more quickly, that does of course have the incidental benefit of making more money available for new commitments in the short run. It is also true that for the poorest countries the new IDA lending terms parallel those already in use in the Asian Development Fund.
We are glad to support IDA's central aim of alleviating poverty, and its concentration of resources in key areas, especially in agriculture, rural development and energy. We welcome its action to tackle the problems of the poorest, and particularly the poorer indebted countries in Africa. We support its attempts to help those countries improve the co-ordination of aid from all sources. We play a vigorous part in such co-ordination.
The IBRD and IDA are the world's leading development institutions. They constitute the cutting edge for change and for improvement in the social and economic conditions in developing countries. Successive British Governments have supported them, and our commitment now is as firm as ever. I commend the order to the House.
1.30 am
Miss Joan Lestor: We welcome the order for the eighth replenishment of the World Bank's International Development Association. As the Minister has said, the IDA is the most important multilateral aid agency that provides funds to the poorest countries. It plays a crucial role in development, providing concessional funds to countries that are almost wholly dependent on public, rather than private, flows of finance.
Today's Financial Times carries a report on the latest aid survey conducted by the OECD. It provides ample evidence to illustrate the crucial importance of the IDA, and paints a gloomy picture of the outlook for aid from the industrialised countries. The volume of overseas aid is growing at a mere 1·5 per cent. in real terms. That is even less than the OECD's projected trend of 2 per cent. a year. The aid performance of industrialised countries is clearly inadequate, and more funds, bilateral and multilateral, are urgently needed.
More official aid is needed because the private sector is no longer funding development on the scale achieved in the 1970s. The OECD report, published yesterday, shows that since 1980 the share of private flows to the Third world has dropped from 51 per cent. to 32 per cent., whereas the share of total official development assistance has almost doubled from 36 per cent. to 65 per cent. What an extraordinary verdict that is on the monetarist 1980s. All that spirit of enterprise unlocked, all those unfettered free markets and the end result is that the Third world is more dependent today on public-sector finance than ever before.
1118
For these reasons, the IDA is becoming more, not less, important; and that is why we welcome the replenishment order. The sum agreed over the next three years is $12·5 billion. We welcome that amount, but believe it is far too little, given the needs of the poorest countries. The last but one replenishment of IDA — the so-called IDA-6 — in 1979 amounted to $12 billion in cash terms, so, in real terms, today's replenishment is drastically reduced.
So, too, regrettably, is the British Government's contribution. In 1979, the United Kingdom contribution to IDA-6, agreed by the Labour Government, amounted to 10·1 per cent. of the total replenishment. The Tory Government subsequently slashed the size of our contribution to only 6·7 per cent. That dramatic cut in United Kingdom support for the IDA should be reversed as quickly as possible. At the time, Tory Ministers gave the excuse of a weak economy to justify the reduction in Britain's role within the IDA. The Chancellor seems to have billions available today for tax cuts. Is it not time, therefore, to restore United Kingdom status within multilateral agencies, such as the World Bank, by increasing the size of our contributions?
I hope that the Minister can substantially improve on the recent small increase in the aid programme. Increased spending would be welcome in both bilateral and multilateral aid. Our record against the United Nations target is deplorable and likely to get worse as the United Kingdom economy grows faster than the small increase in the aid budget. The Minister should re-commit the Government to the UN aid target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP and establish a timetable of spending increases.
That is why I again refer, as I did on Monday, to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunningharne, North (Mr. Wilson) has introduced a Bill to require a timetable and to concentrate our aid on the poorest countries and the people within them. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the Bill. Given the time constraints, it is unlikely to be given a Second Reading on 12 February, but perhaps the Minister, as I asked him the other day, can persuade the Leader of the House to provide some time in the near future to discuss the matter.
Of course, as the Minister has said, the International Development Association is similarly concerned with the poorest countries. It is mandated to lend to low-income nations, but it is not primarily concerned with the poorest groups within such countries. Opposition Members would like to see a greater emphasis on poverty alleviation in IDA programmes. Projects that are specifically targeted to benefit the poor are often the most challenging. Nevertheless, the World Bank should ensure that it becomes a pioneer agency in project work among the poorest groups.
Many hon. Members will remember that, in 1973, Robert McNamara's famous speech in Nairobi gave the major impetus to the bank's work on poverty alleviation. The rural poor became the focus of much activity and programme funding. The study, "Redistribution with Growth", provided intellectual force to the new policy trend. At the same time, the bank markedly increased its lending for agriculture and rural development.
In the 1980s, however, the bank moved away from that agenda. Under the leadership of the commercial banker, Tom Clausen, the explicit poverty focus was weakened and lending programmes—for example, in rural development —have declined. I believe that that change of direction, no doubt provoked by the monetarist ideologues of the

1119
early 1980s, was a big mistake. Under the new leadership of Mr. Barber Conable, it seems that the bank is rediscovering the wisdom of the McNamara years.
There is ample evidence that the bank's work on poverty alleviation was successful. A recent study by the Washington-based Overseas Development Council shows that poverty-focused projects have
"turned out to be what the bank does best".
ODC research proved that the rural poor are amongst the most reliable borrowers; they are more likely to invest wisely and repay promptly than the better-off. The bank's poverty projects also enjoy a better overall performance, with fewer project failures and high rates of return. Such investment in so-called human capital makes humanitarian and economic sense. The ODC concludes that
"empirical research sustains the thesis that satisfying basic human needs yields high rates of economic return".
We hope that the next round of IDA spending will see a return of poverty alleviation as the major mandate of the bank and the IDA. We also expect IDA funds to be used creatively to offset the worst impact of the debt crisis on the world's poorest countries. As a key source of credit, IDA has a major role in the process of economic adjustment forced on so many low-income nations, especially, as the Minister has said, in sub-Saharan Africa.
Recently, both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have spoken approvingly of the arguments put forward by the United Nations Children's Fund for adjustment with a human face. UNICEF argues that the inevitable economic changes required, as a result of mounting debt and the impact of world recession, should not cause a deterioration in the living standards of the poorest groups. Human-faced adjustment would guarantee basic needs and ensure that vulnerable groups, especially women and children, are targeted to prevent undue hardship. There can be no disagreement with that.
Since UNICEF's arguments have been accepted, at least at the level of rhetoric, the challenge now is to implement this policy approach. Donors, both bilateral and multilateral, should now ensure that their grants and loans are tailored to the social and economic needs of the poor. IDA funds are being used to support structural adjustment lending, but the bank's existing record in protecting the poor during adjustment is mixed. The bank's own report, published a few years ago, called "Focus on Poverty", admitted that, although the bank
"has argued forcefully for the removal of subsidies, it has been less effective in finding positive ways of targeting subsidies to low-income consumers".
The report added that the bank has rarely considered
"who will carry the heaviest burden of adjustment."
The bank must now take the lead in promoting adjustment with a human face. That will mean careful analysis in each debtor country of the social side of the economy. Too often, only financial criteria are applied.
Tragically, as we all know, the International Monetary Fund demands stringent adherence to financial targets for public sector budgets. The inflation rate is part of that. Why do we not pay attention to key social indicators of economic well-being, such as infant mortality rates or nutrition levels? They are just as valid measures of economic viability, but they are usually ignored.
Sadly, the adjustment process is more discussed these days than development. The debt crisis has simply arrested
1120
the economic and social progress of the Third world. Hopefully, adjustment with a human face can restore real development. As time passes, IDA will inevitably be at the centre of this debate, but the United Kingdom aid programme also has a role to play. I should be interested to know in what way the Minister is reshaping our country's programmes to ensure that adjustment with a human face will really happen.
An important step to ease the burden of adjustment is the easing of the debt burden itself. In this respect, I think that IDA could take direct action. Unlike the main lending arm of the World Bank, IDA does not borrow on the capital markets or depend on a highly favourable credit rating. The IDA raises all its funds from donor Governments. It could therefore take the initiative to cancel outstanding debts without in any way damaging its ability to make further loans.
IDA now has outstanding credits of about $20 billion. This sum, although small in terms of total debt, will become a significant burden for low-income debtors in th late 1990s. Why not convert these loans into grants and, in the future, offer all IDA funds on grant terms rather than loans?
In 1978, the Labour Government accepted the wisdom of turning former aid loans into grants for United Kingdom bilateral aid to the poorest countries. This policy has featured recently as the true substance of the so-called "Lawson" debt plan. A more imaginative and original idea for the Chancellor to propose would be the effective cancellation of IDA debts. I should be interested to hear the Minister's views on tackling the problem of debt owed to the multilateral agencies.
Finally, most of us would agree that it was very interesting to hear the new president of the World Bank when he addressed the all-party group on overseas development the other week. His speech was refreshing because he addressed many of the points that have been raised today. He recognised the problem of poverty alleviation and of adjustment. In particular, he addressed in a powerful way the eagerness that he has to ensure that the bank adapts its programmes to take account of environmental issues and the role of women in development.
I believe that he is sincere in these ambitions and means to force real change within the bank. We wish him well and hope that the policy initiatives that he is planning in both areas bear fruit. Over the long term, the bank's credibility rests on its ability to tackle poverty and to promote development that embraces all the community — men, women and children. Public support, so crucial for an institution like the World Bank, will depend on the president's ability to translate his words into practice.
1.43 am
Mr. Bowen Wells: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister on the generous way in which he has treated the International Development Agency replenishment and on the way in which he and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have joined together to ensure that the IDA, the World Bank and the international community approach the problems of the most indebted countries in Africa and in sub-Saharan Africa in particular.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he has made certain that we in Britain contribute more than our fair share to the IDA replenishment. We have

1121
contributed an additional $15 million over and above our share related to our gross national product. However, the amount is insufficient, as the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) has said. The need for the original IDA-7 was estimated by the World Bank at $18 billion. The replenishment was originally as low as $9 billion. But for the special facility for sub-Saharan Africa, our contribution to IDA-7 would have been very low. Fortunately we were able to increase it to approximately $11 billion because the Minister agreed to contribute to the special facility for sub-Saharan Africa.
The replenishment at $12 billion is a great achievement and is to be welcomed, but it is lower than the $18 billion which was originally thought to be necessary for 1DA-7. I estimate that the real need approaches $25 billion, which is almost double the replenishment. However, we must not forget the additional amounts put into IDA directly by the profits made out of the World Bank's operations worldwide. That is a considerable increase in the amount available for investment on IDA terms in the poorest countries.
Distribution is always a thorny subject within the World Bank and we must argue it out in years to come. Traditionally, India and the sub-continent of India together have taken well over 40 per cent. of the IDA distribution. That figure is falling. India has voluntarily given up that large percentage and the figure is falling in favour of sub-Saharan Africa, but it is increased by the necessity to give to China—another low-GNP-per-capita but large country. That poses a major problem for IDA in its distribution profile.
I believe that the GNP per capita criterion is misleading. It discriminates against the most impoverished parts of Africa and also against islands and small territorial states which are not in the same league as China or India, both of which are nuclear powers with enormous armies and navies, and which are very powerful in their own right. The smaller countries and island states can lay claim to a higher per capita income but are much less powerful and have many poor people. So the GNP per capita criterion has to be re-examined closely by the bank. It is doing so, but on an ad hoc basis as it tries to give more to sub-Saharan Africa by common consent.
The IDA replenishment is essential for the poverty-stricken countries of sub-Saharan Africa to enable them to handle their debts. There is no way in which those countries could get out of debt without concessional lending. If people object and say that this is the wrong way to help countries out of their indebtedness, let them cast their minds back to the Marshall plan through which the United States helped Europe and Japan to recover from the second world war. It was on even more concessional terms than are given by IDA. What an enormous help that was to enable Europe and Japan to trade again in the world's trading systems, to provide an increasing standard of living and to rebuild their capital equipment.
The same story is repeated in India, for example. The IDA has many proud graduates from the original score of countries which it helped. India is not yet among them, but, through IDA help, she has begun to be able to be self-sufficient in food.
The IDA is able to lead such enormous successes. They must now be reproduced in the poorest countries in Africa. The IDA must try to ensure that the policies that are adopted, conditional on IDA loans, produce the wealth
1122
creation necessary to increase the standard of living so that those countries can absorb our products. We can help them to build up their national resource.
It is only through IDA and similar lending, and the initiatives such as my hon. Friend the Minister has taken by cancelling loans and making them grants, that we can help countries out of their severe indebtedness.
Many Carribbean countries have recently been graduated out of IDA. I remind the House of what I said about small island states. They are graduated on a gross national product per capita basis when they should be IDA recipients for much longer than the criteria presently permit them to be.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, through the alternate directorships of the World Bank, will help the Bank readjust its distribution policies and reconsider how IDA money is distributed and smaller states are treated.
This is a first-class use of part of our aid budget. It is expensive, but it is one of the most effective ways in which we can assist Third world countries to recover from their serious poverty and indebtedness.
1.51 am
Mr. A. J. Beith: I do not know why we have our overseas aid debates at 2 am.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): It is not 2 am everywhere in the world.
Mr. Beith: I was about to say that I do not know whether it is a desire to demonstrate that, while it is dark here, it is light in Dhaka. I think that we must be trying to echo the haunting words of the hymn that runs:
"The sun that bids us rest is waking
Our brethren 'neath the Western skies."
I can think of no other reason for choosing such perverse times to discuss these matters, which are of major importance.
We strongly welcome the order and the decision by donor countries to step up support for IDA. It is worth drawing attention to the positive role played by Japan, which agreed to a significant increase in its contribution relative to other countries. I hope that it is a sign of an increasing Japanese recognition of the contribution that they, with their tremendous economic power, can make to the good of the world, especially parts of the world closest to them.
We are happy to support IDA as an institution, particularly as the help that it provides is targeted to the poorest countries, especially, as the Minister said, in sub-Saharan Africa. It is worth remembering that the region includes many of the poorest countries and those with the greatest problems of debt relative to gross domestic product. The IDA, as a multilateral agency, provides a means of helping poor countries directly, and encouraging a large number of developed countries to play a full part.
During Monday's debate on the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who I think is on the way to Lochaber tonight, referred to the immense scale of the Third world debt crisis and the fact that interest payments are now so high that they outweigh all cash flows into the developing world, leaving a net outflow of cash from developing to developed countries of about $26 billion a year. In response, the Minister referred to this order as evidence of the fact that

1123
the Government are taking action. That is so, but I am sure that the Minister would be the first to admit that the order does not measure up to the scale of the crisis.
Third world countries are, with increasing regularity, defaulting on loans in the face of desperate circumstances. Zambia is a recent example. There is a growing awareness that the debt crisis is holding back economic growth world-wide by limiting demand for Western produced goods in the developing world. It is not merely a question of compassion: it is about the development of our own economy as well. While I welcome the replenishment, I hope that the Government will press for a much broader and more ambitious initiative from the Group of Seven, aimed at dealing with the debt crisis.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) spoke about debt cancellation, but it is unrealistic to talk about that in relation to the relatively small burden of IDA public sector debt incurred in the Third world. The main debt cancellation problem arises in relation to the private bank debts in which so many countries are involved. The cancellation of many of these IDA loans would not have a material impact on the problem, and might undermine a useful system.
I was concerned that the speech made this week by the Governor of the Bank of England might be taken as a signal of the wrong kind. I do not think that he intended it as such, and if his speech is read in full, it does not have that impact. His argument was that the provision for bad debts of Third world countries in the accounts of British banks was becoming too large, and was perhaps becoming an invitation to default. He went on to argue in favour of imaginative schemes and initiatives to deal with those debt problems and to make it clear that he was not intending to discourage those. I hope that the signal is clearly understood as that, and his speech is not taken to mean that the Governor of the Bank is in the closest possible collusion with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and is trying to make more difficult the problems of Third world countries in meeting that debt burden.
One has to remember that the United Kingdom IDA contribution comes out of the limited aid budget, which is still at around only half of the target level set by the United Nations. All the commendation that one delivers for the increased commitment set out in the order has to be tempered by the realisation that we are still far below that level, which many of us believe could be achieved. Against that background, the order looks less exciting and impressive than it might otherwise.
1.56 am
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This debate should be set in the context of the Government's overseas aid record, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said earlier, is not just disappointing but awful. In real terms, in 1978–79, net overseas aid amounted to £1·395 billion, but in 1987–88 it amounted to only £1·198 billion. Even on the Government's plans, by 1991, it will still not have reached, in real terms, what it was in 1978, the last full year of the Labour Government, through what was then the aid to the poorest programme. While one welcomes any money put into the IBRD, it has to be set against that disappointing background.
Paragraph 2·1 of the report about the size of the eighth replenishment says:
1124
"Throughout the negotiations, donors emphasized the pivotal role played by IDA as a multilateral institution providing resources to finance basic investment and support economic policy reforms and structural changes in the world's poorest countries. Moreover, donors also underlined the fact that IDA was a highly effective channel for aid and a key instrument of international cooperation and development."
It goes on to talk about the need for anti-poverty programmes in rural areas and the problem that low-income countries have
"had to rely on inflows of concessional resources that have been scarce in the mid-1980s."
One can agree with, and understand, all that. However, the difficulty of many of us in dealing with this problem and the way that it is presented is that that report was written not by the recipient countries but by the donor countries. Effectively, they are patting themselves on the back for the work they have done. One has to question the economic models forced on the poorest countries by the policies of the World Bank, and influenced through the IBRD.
The Minister quoted Ghana at some length, and one could quote other countries. I would be the first to say that those countries need the largest possible aid programmes at the lowest possible interest rates. Indeed, I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles and say that the loans should be written off and made into straight grants, because that is the only way that many of those countries will get out of the poverty trap in which they find themselves. I am worried that, instead of doing that, the World Bank is forcing on those countries an economic model that is doing more than anything else to destroy their economies and environment and the political gain of independence 30 years ago. That is a serious problem.
Mr. Chris Patten: Has the hon. Gentleman ever talked to a Finance Minister from a sub-Saharan African country? That is not what they say.
Mr. Corbyn: I have spoken to Finance Ministers—not in sub-Saharan African countries but in other countries. I have also spoken to economists in many of those countries, and they express similar views about the loss of independence as a result of economic models forced upon them by the World Bank. If the Minister wishes to refute that, it is up to him, but I suggest that he examines the views expressed by a number of development agencies and the voluntary aid agencies and tries to understand some of their concerns.
I am not attempting to be a scaremonger; I am merely making the point that, if the World Bank adopts an arrogant attitude towards the economic problems of Third world countries while doing nothing to solve the problems of commodity prices or private sector loans — merely saying that it is offering a panacea — it is not doing much to help anyone.
There is much evidence of the greater indebtedness that many of the poorer countries are incurring. I shall cite only a couple of examples dealt with in the January issue of South magazine. Presumably the Minister is well read and reads South, in which case I hope that he reads it carefully. Page 10 of the January issue deals with the slump in commodity prices over the past decade and the export earnings of many of the poorest countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa. The Minister well knows what that problem is and where it has come from.
Page 84 of the same issue gives a very interesting set of statistics, which the magazine produces month by month,

1125
to show what commodities can buy. It gives the number of barrels of oil that 1 tonne of a given commodity will purchase. In 1975, it required 147 tonnes of coffee, and the figure has increased to 152. The figure for cotton has gone down from 119 to 90; for rubber, from 53 up to 65; and for tea from 129 down to 114. Taken overall, the poorest countries in the poorest parts of the world are getting progressively lower prices for their goods. They are paying higher and higher interest rates on the private sector loan market and are getting deeper and deeper into debt.
I support the IDA in giving soft loans to help rural development, but that does not solve the problem of the private sector loans and the countries' indebtedness. The only way that they can get out of that indebtedness is by selling assets through the encouragement of foreign investment, which creates serious political problems.
Mr. Wells: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the countries that qualify for IDA loans are not those that have incurred, or can afford to incur, debts from private banks?
Mr. Corbyn: Many of them have incurred private sector loans in the past, although there is some merit in the hon. Gentleman's assertion, as it is not the very poorest that have incurred the biggest loans. That is true enough. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is still the problem that the countries cannot borrow that money because they are already too much in debt or because they are given such a low credit rating.
I want to deal with the question of the indebtedness of some of the poorer — although not necessarily the poorest—countries and the problems of the investment strategies adopted by multinational companies. I refer to an interesting and recently published book, "World Debt —Who Is To Pay?" by Jacob Schatan, which analyses the problems of indebtedness especially in Latin American countries. It is interesting to note from it that in 1969 the balance of trade taken as a whole between Latin America and the rest of the world was a plus of $16 million. That figure has progressively worsened to the extent that by 1984 the overall trade deficit was $34 billion.
As a comparison besides that figure, the book produces the figures for payments of profits, interest and other remittances—that is to say, the net outflow of funds from Latin America either through debt repayments, which get worse and worse, or through the repatriation of profits from multinational companies. The outflow of money in that sense is greater than the net balance of payments during that period.
In other words, much of the balance of payments problems that many of the Latin American countries have got themselves into are largely the result of foreign investment in those countries and the investment policies adopted, and pressed on them, by the private sector and the World Bank.
It is important that people in the West should begin to understand that the British, European and north American banks are incredibly overstretched, especially in Latin America, but also in other parts of the world. At the moment they are in the process of writing off large amounts of those debts and if countries in Latin America go on debt default in the way in which Brazil has, as Argentina has threatened to do or as Peru is doing to a limited extent, the consequences will be serious. Those countries are crying out for help, and it could be given by
1126
improving commodity prices and the loan relationship that goes with that. We need to know the Government's attitude to that.
An article in The Times of 26 August gave the figures for the outstanding international loans of the largest Third world borrowers at the end of 1986. The figure for Brazil was $110 billion, for Mexico $102 billion and for Argentina $50 billion. It also gave the figures for the lenders— for example, British banks that had made special provisions this year for outstanding loans. At that time Barclays bank had made a provision of £570 million on loans of £3·1 billion. In other words, it did not expect to get back one sixth of its provision. The figures are similar for the other banks, Lloyds being the most stretched at present, with one quarter of its debt provisionally written off by that decision.
I have raised the next point in the House before because of its seriousness. It relates to the World Bank's attitude to the projects that it funds in the Third world or that it allows to be funded. The president of the World Bank has gone on record as saying that he is concerned about the environmental and social impacts of some of the projects. The Minister showed some recognition of that when he referred to more money being invested and spent in rural areas among the poorest people rather than in urban development schemes.
There has been some—I think greatly insufficient—reporting of the problems of environmental damage in Brazil through World Bank policies. On 27 August 1987, The Listener stated:
"in Brazil the World Bank and the government have funded the notorious Polonoroeste project in the state of Rondônia, building a 1,000-mile road through the Amazon region".
It continues by quoting the problems that have occurred as a result of that. The president of the World Bank, Barber Conable, has admitted mistakes on that and met a delegation of Amerindian people late in 1986, who had previously been in this country to drum up support for their good and moving cause.
With support from Friends of the Earth and other people, Survival International last year produced an excellent book entitled "Bound in Misery and Iron", which is a summary of the problems that the Indian community in Brazil has suffered because of the partly World Bank funded iron ore project that has been developed there. I shall quote from it briefly because it summarises well the horrors that that project has meant for many people in Brazil.
It states:
"Many thousands of the region's 8 million people once lived and worked on the land that has now been appropriated by the Brazilian Government for the main components of the Programme".
We are talking about a massive programme covering an area the size of Britain and France, the Grande Carajás programme. It includes
"the 900 km railway … the so-called Mineral Province of Carajás."
That province has now been set up as a major iron ore, producer. The European iron and steel producers have for a long time been searching for a cheap source of iron ore and they have been prepared to invest in Brazil to get it. They have been pressurised to do so by the World Bank, which is anxious that Brazil should pay off its foreign debt by an export-led boom through the export of ore.
The problems that that development has caused to the people of the region have been horrendous. Many

1127
thousands of people have been removed from their homes, land grabs have occurred all over the place — —[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Minister finds this so funny—and serious environmental problems have arisen as a result of the project. The area can sustain only a low-density population, but the development has tried to put a high-density population into the area.
As deforestation takes place, serious erosion occurs and therefore desertification is taking place in the Amazon rain forest area, with appalling ecological results locally. The rivers have become polluted because of the industrial development and that has led to the destruction of the livelihood of many people in the region.
Mr. Michael Jack: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the destruction of the tropical rain forests. In fairness, does he agree that the Minister, in answer to a parliamentary question earlier this week, referred to the efforts that have been made by the Government to support international efforts to try to minimise the destruction of those rain forests? I believe that a more generous reaction to the Minister's response to the problem is called for.
Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has not heard the last of what I intend to say on the subject.
We, as a member of the EEC and the World Bank, are party to the destruction of people's livelihoods and the environmental damage and the inappropriateness of the development that is taking place. Enormous damage has already been done, and many people have already lost their lives. It is not too late to change the nature of the development, to slow it down, and, as a result, slow down the rate of environmental damage.
I know that the Minister has replied to questions by saying that he is concerned about the environmental impact of the development scheme, and I hope that he will take the opportunity tonight to say that the Government are prepared to use their influence in the World Bank to halt the scheme and to try to stop the continuing destruction of the rain forests in that part of Brazil.
My plea is set within a much wider economic context. It is not as though anyone wants to destroy the Amazonian rain forests, but the Brazilian economy has been forced into such a position because that Government believe that the only way out is to proceed with that destruction. The amount of money involved in the Carajits programme is stupendous. In fact, the World Bank investment in it is £304 million, the EEC investment is considerable and the rest of the investment is made up of private capital.
We seldom discuss such matters as these in the House and when we do it is mostly, and unfortunately, at 2 o'clock in the morning. I believe that the problems of the world economy warrant a higher profile in the House. There should be a much greater understanding of the causal relationship between high interest rates, low commodity prices and the continual extraction of wealth from extremely poor countries to aggrandise the economic system of western Europe and north America.
It is not good enough for us to ignore these matters, and it is not good enough for us to pretend that we can solve these problems merely through agencies such as the Inter-American Development Bank. We require a global approach to the problems of the world economy and the need to eliminate poverty in the poorest parts of the world.
2.14 am
Mr. Chris Patten: By leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said, as she did the other day, that at some stage we should have a rather longer debate on this issue, perhaps slightly earlier in the day.
Mr. Corbyn: Or later in the day.
Mr. Patten: Or later in the day. I would always be happy to exchange views with the hon. Lady and such of her hon. Friends as arrive for a debate on these matters. I hope that it will be high on the list of priorities when the Opposition choose their Supply day debates in the coming months.
The hon. Lady referred, properly, to poverty targeting in aid programmes. There is often an unreal argument about economic growth and so-called trickle-down, and investment in human resources. As can be seen from developments in south Asia, it is not sensible to polarise the argument about economic growth and investment in human resources. Investment in people, whether through better health or education, helps to promote economic growth, and economic growth helps to provide the resources for investing in health and education services. Sometimes people talk as though the two were entirely separate and could be considered in different compartments.
The hon. Lady referred to the UNICEF proposals—the so-called structural adjustment with a human face agenda. I shall not trouble her with an extremely moving speech I made on the subject to the annual general meeting of UNICEF in London a few months ago.
Miss Lestor: I have read it.
Mr. Patten: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady; I think she must be the only hon. Member who has. [HON. MEMBERS: "So have we".] It is becoming ever more popular, but bearing in mind Christian humility I shall move on.
We have attempted to demonstrate, both in Ghana with what I was saying earlier and by refocussing our health programme on primary health care, our concern about the social impact of structural adjustment programmes, and we shall continue to do so. We sometimes forget that not engaging in these programmes also has a severe social impact.
The hon. Lady suggested that our IDA share should be increased to 10·1 per cent., as in the sixth replenishment. I understand that, when the previous Government accepted the 10·1 per cent. share in the sixth replenishment, they argued that Britain's share should be lower, on the grounds of relative economic strength. Arrangements were therefore made at Britain's special request to draw down our sixth replenishment committed at a disproportionately low level for the first five or six years—in other words, to backload the payments and to reduce the real cost of our burden. Our present 6·7 per cent. share is above our share in terms of donors' relative GNP and closely parallels our share in the donors' part of the IBRD's capital. That is 6·77 per cent.
The hon. Lady asked why we did not apply a retrospective terms adjustment to IDA's loans. The House should recognise that that would not help countries in most need. The beneficiaries would include some of the wealthier countries, such as Korea, which have graduated

1129
out of IDA and the losers would be current recipients who are, by definition, poor because repayments at present go back into the kitty to finance new credits. The immediate effect in any case would be small because repayments are only just beginning to build up.
The hon. Lady paid a wholly justified tribute to the president, Mr. Barber Conable, and his concern for environmental impact and for issues such as women in development. I am sure that when the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) gets to know more about this subject, he will share the view of most of the House about Mr. Conable's commitment to environmental issues.
In his interesting speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) referred to the position of smaller islands, particularly in respect of the normal GNP per capita criteria, which can be applied rather crudely. Perhaps I should remind him that it was agreed in 1985 that five small islands — Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Tonga — should continue to be eligible for IDA credits up to the end of IDA-8 in mid-1990 because of their lack of creditworthiness for commercial or IBRD lending. Their creditworthiness and the question of their continued access to IDA will be reviewed before mid-1990.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford also referred to India's share. He will probably recall that India and China together receive just over 30 per cent. of IDA-7 and the African facility combined. They will receive this same share, about 30 per cent. of IDA-8, subject to management flexibility. Both India and China receive large IBRD loans for their development. They receive loans from both IBRD and IDA.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the enormously difficult debt burden which a number of the poorest countries have to bear. In Africa and most of the countries which borrow money from IDA, we are talking principally about debts to Governments, Government agencies and export credit agencies, rather than to commercial banks.
It is important for us to continue to work for the implementation of the debt initiative launched by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. We have made considerable progress on parts of that initiative. We have made progress on writing off aid loans. We have written off about £260 million in aid loans to 14 African countries, and others have followed us. In all, we have written off about £1 billion in aid loans. We have made progress with the rescheduling of debts. Seven African countries have now been rescheduled over more generous periods through the Paris club.
We have not yet made the progress that we should have liked on the key element — a reduction in the interest rates which countries pursuing sensible policies have to pay. Provided that those interest rates remain at present levels, debt burdens will grow year after year for many of those countries. That is why the issue of interest rates is so important and why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pressed it at the spring and autumn meetings of the international financial institutions. That is why Commonwealth Finance Ministers and Heads of Government were right to endorse his efforts at their meetings last autumn.
We shall continue to press for action on interest rates for the most debt-distressed countries which are pursuing
1130
sensible policies. I hope that we shall have as much success with this element of the initiative as we have had with others.
I wish to deal finally with the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, North about environmental issues. I hope that he will not regard this as patronising, but to talk, as he did, in a way which confused IBRD and IDA, suggests that he is a little low on the learning curve, although I do not suggest that he is not passionately concerned about environmental issues.
Mr. Corbyn: I do not feel that I am being patronised by the Minister. I am well aware of the difference between the IDA and the other agencies that are associated with the World Bank. I was merely making the point about the environmental concerns emanating from the World Bank, because the Minister conceded that this debate had provided an opportunity to discuss the World Bank and its relationship with the poorest countries of the world.
Mr. Patten: I turn, then, to the environmental issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As a bilateral donor, we have done as much as anybody to build into our evaluation and assessment of projects an awareness of their impact on the environment. I am sure that he is also aware that in the European Community and in international financial institutions, we have led the way in making clear our concern about the impact on the environment. I am delighted that, with Mr. Conable, we are having not a dialogue with the deaf but a dialogue with somebody who is as concerned as we are, and rightly so, about the environment.
Mr. Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that, during Mr. Barber Conable's recent visit to this country, he told the all-party committee on overseas development that Britain has led the way in influencing the World Bank to adopt the very much stronger environmental policies that are now in place?
Mr. Patten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is easier for him to make it than for me. It is a fair assessment. However, we cannot be even remotely complacent about the progress that has been made. There are some horrific environmental problems that still have to be overcome. I returned recently from the Sudan, where I saw the desert marching forward at the rate of an inexorable 4 metres a year. That reminded me of how much still remains to be done.
We are aware of the importance of environmental issues. I hope that we are demonstrating both in Brussels and Washington and at home that we are conscious of the place that environmental items should have on the agenda.
The hon. Member for Islington, North referred in particular to Polonoroeste. Discussions are taking place between the World Bank and the Brazilian authorities, with a view to rectifying past mistakes and devoting more resources to environmental and Amerindian protection.
Mr. Corbyn: If the programme is not changed, great damage will be done in that part of Brazil. The original programme involves the displacement of large numbers of Amerindian people by the most brutal methods possible —an issue that was raised by the delegation that came here and that went to see Barber Conable about it. I know that he received the delegation with sympathy. What protection will there be for those unfortunate people and for the environment in which they live?
Mr. Patten: I should welcome the opportunity to deal with that question on another occasion, when we are discussing the environment and development. On this occasion, we are dealing with IDA, and I cannot think offhand of a Latin American country that is borrowiing money from IDA. The hon. Gentleman's question therefore ranges a little wide of the subject of this debate.
I repeat that discussions are taking place between the World Bank and the Brazilian authorities and that they relate to the objectives to which I referred earlier.
I hope that I have replied reasonably adequately to the points that have been made in this short, late but welcome debate. Once again I have pleasure in commending the order to the House and, on behalf of the British taxpayer, spending another £520 million on a very good cause.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft International Development Association (Eighth Replenishment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved.

Dartmoor National Park
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]
2.29 am
Mr. Anthony Steen: I do not complain about the lateness of the hour, because at any time of the day or night I should be happy to raise the subject of the Dartmoor national park, for which I have a very great affection and which I have enjoyed walking and riding over for nearly a quarter of a century.
The Dartmoor national park was established in 1951 and is one of only 10 in Britain. It is designated, because of its exceptional beauty, to provide open-air recreation and relaxation, especially for town dwellers. Some 7·5 million people visited Dartmoor last year, which is almost as many as the population of London.
The Dartmoor national park measures 365 sq miles, about 200 sq miles of which is open moorland. Some 78 per cent. of that, which is the wildest country, the high moorland in the northern part of the moor, is out of bounds to the public when live firing by the Army takes place. Over three quarters of the wilderness area of northern Dartmoor is under military occupation for much of the year.
Okehampton range is used throughout the year day and night. There is remission at weekends, public holidays, Easter week and from 15 July to 15 September. At the Willsworthy range there is firing on one weekend a month, which means that there are not any clear weekends throughout the year and, 11 months of firing — only August is excepted—which prevents excursions by the public to the Tavy Cleave, one of the finest gorge valleys in the world. At Merrivale, there is no weekend firing and no firing in August. Willsworthy fires eastwards, Merrivale northwards and Okehampton in a southerly direction. The result is an impact zone in the heart of Dartmoor around Great Nesset and Great Nesset Head on the 17 to 1,800 contour.
The area from the Two Bridges crossroads northwards to Okehampton is a danger area for almost all the year, except in August. The three military live firing ranges are pointing inwards; the centre of the moor is the impact area and the danger zone.
The issues raised in the debate are national, not local. Although not all of Dartmoor is in my constituency, much of the open moor is. The issues transcend parish and parliamentary boundaries. This is a national park and it concerns the nation.
Besides live firing by the military, the Royal Air Force flies down to 200 ft, swooping over the moor, and that is increasing. That is not the case in August, but it is for the other 11 months of the year.
In the south of my constituency, the Royal Navy carries out dry training, blank firing pyrotechnics and uses helicopters. On Ringmoor, the Navy has admitted that, when it is hard at it, it is not a suitable place for a picnic. When the Army fires, not only is it noisy but large areas of the moor are out of bounds to the public. The scenery is spoilt by the flying of red flags and there are an increasing number of huts on the skyline, on the tors, as visible look-out posts. The moor is almost a training ground for the Army, the Air Force and the Navy. It cannot be consistent with the aims and purposes of the national parks.

1133
There are those who suggest that I am anti the armed forces; they are mistaken. I have had close links with the Army, with which I worked undertaking courts martial when I was at the Bar, and I have a great admiration for the Navy. I have the Royal Naval college Dartmouth and HMS Cambridge in Wembury in my constituency, and my interests in aviation are well known, although limited to civil rather than military aviation. I wonder, however, how my hon. Friend the Minister equates the intention of the legislature, when setting up national parks, with the level of military activity in one of the 10 most beautiful and most protected areas of Britain.
Live firing is probably the principal culprit. It prevents the public from exercising their statutory right of access, decreed by Parliament through the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, which I had the privilege to pilot through the House. That gave every person the statutory right of access. No other national park has given the public such a right. How does my hon. Friend the Minister reconcile that statutory right of access with the fact that every weekday, except in the autumn, the public may be prevented from having access to half the moor?
The military wishes to build a new training centre in the national park at Willsworthy. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for arranging for me and other hon. Members to visit the Willsworthy camp in the most bitter of January weather, in dense fog and blinding rain. None the less, it gave us the opportunity to look at the problem of the Willsworthy camp. Fundamentally, I should like no live firing on the moor. If it is to continue, and bearing in mind that Willsworthy is owned by the Ministry of Defence, the proposed site of the new camp must be preferable to those dreadful Nissen huts, with the most appalling living conditions, currently on the skyline at Willsworthy.
Although that part of the moor is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), with whom I have discussed this matter, it seems to me that it would make better sense, if the military is to continue its activity on the moor, for the old camp to be demolished, the area regrassed and environmentally landscaped and the new camp built out of sight in the valley lower down from the high moor. That is not under discussion in this debate, but I felt that it was worth mentioning in passing.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that, if the moor continues to be used extensively by our armed forces for training purposes, the aims of the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949 and the Dartmoor Commons Act must be frustrated and, if so, the status of the park should be reviewed? I am not sure whether one can denationalise national parks and declare them national training areas for the military, but it seems to make better sense that another area should be selected which does not suffer from such bombardment of live ammunition and military training.
Alternatively, although I recognise the need for the military to train, perhaps the training should be restricted to dry training, with live firing being moved elsewhere. The Sharp inquiry looked at the military presence of the Army. Although some good things came of it, one regrets that some of the principal recommendations have not been vigorously pursued and some aims have not been achieved.
In 1991, the Duchy of Cornwall lease for the Okehampton and Merrivale ranges expires — the live firing range in the northern part of the moor and the range
1134
in the bottom half of the moor, just north of Princetown. Will this not be a wonderful opportunity for those two ranges to be transferred elsewhere? There are other moors in the south-west which are not national parks. Perhaps they should be looked at to determine whether some of the live firing and inconvenience can be moved outside the national park.
I hope also that the Duchy will enter practical arid meaningful discussions with the Government on that score and that they can come to some sensible and acceptable conclusions. Even if live firing cannot be moved lock, stock and barrel, it should be restricted, possibly to one range—the Willsworthy range is already owned by the Ministry of Defence—or to winter periods only, so that throughout the summer months, the public can enjoy what was established in the first place for their enjoyment and recreation.
Although this debate is not as well attended as one would like, and the Strangers Gallery is not as crowded as it was earlier, the future use of our national parks is of great importance. I am grateful that the Minister, in discussions I have had with him, has taken a more liberal and understanding line on the case that the environmentalists put forward, and realises that to discuss this matter at 2.40 am or over tea in the Tea Room is not an attack upon him or the Government or the work of the armed forces. It is part of a continuing discussion about the future role of the military in peacetime in areas of special beauty that have been decreed by Parliament as being for the enjoyment of the nation.
I believe that I have done some service by raising this issue tonight, and I ask the Minister to help, as far as he can, to reconcile the military's problems of finding adequate places in which to practise its work in the way that it should to equip it to defend the realm, with the needs of people in a mobile society—particularly town dwellers — who need and want to visit areas of great beauty in which to seek solitude and beauty for reviving their lives.
I am anxious that Dartmoor, one of the most beautiful parts of Britain, should not become a live firing range for the military for ever and I hope that the Minister will reassure the nation that the Government intend to reduce the amount of noise, live firing and military activity in an area prescribed by Parliament as being of special sanctity and beauty for the nation.
2.43 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on securing this important Adjournment debate on the military use of Dartmoor national park. He has been a consistent and courteous champion of the national parks —especially of Dartmoor—and I hope that, at the end of this short debate, he will be convinced that his interests are compatible with those of the Ministry of Defence.
The services have been training on Dartmoor for more than 100 years. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the Dartmoor national park did not come into being until 1951. As the House will recall, in the mid-1970s, Baroness Sharp conducted an inquiry, at the Government's request, into the use of Dartmoor for military training. In her report, published in 1977, Lady Sharp said:

1135
"I accept that military training and a national park are discordant, incongruous and inconsistent; but I cannot accept that they are incapable of living together."
Baroness Sharp had to recognise — as indeed successive Governments have done — that, important though the purposes of the national parks are, they are not paramount. They have to be balanced against other objectives of national policy. Defence is one such national requirement.
Why is Dartmoor in particular so important for military training? For historical and operational reasons, a large part of the Army is based in the south, and especially in the south-west, of England. That remains essential because of the requirement for forces to be near ports and airfields for their NATO role, and also as home defence. Nowadays, there are some 5,000 Royal Marines, 18,000 Regulars, 5,000 Territorial Army soldiers, and 12,000 cadets in that part of the south-western district who need facilities to train locally. The needs of the TA and cadets, whose training has to be done in the evenings, at weekends and at their annual camps, should not be overlooked. They must have a training area within easy reach, or their precious training time would be seriously eroded by the need to travel.
Apart from its location, Dartmoor offers ideal terrain for realistic and challenging training exercises, designed to make the soldier tough, fit and self-reliant, as we would all wish. It is isolated, has unpredictable weather, which can often be bad, and has few easily identifiable geographic features. They are essential features for good military training land.
Dartmoor is a large and sufficiently sparsely populated area to make live firing possible. The only other area in the south-west that offers comparable live firing facilities and is large enough to allow similar training is Salisbury plain. It is the Army's largest and most important area in the United Kingdom, but it is already used to full capacity.
As my hon. Friend said, we have three ranges on Dartmoor—Okehampton, Merrivale and Willsworthy—which together provide for live firing and "dry" training, that is, where no live ammunition is used. There is no use of tanks, tracked vehicles or heavy artillery on Dartmoor. Dry training is possible in at least one of the ranges on almost every day of the year. However, the amount of live firing conducted is kept within limits agreed between ourselves and the national park authority, but it tends to be affected by the vagaries of the weather.
Therefore, Dartmoor remains of the utmost importance as one of our principal training areas. That importance has, if anything, grown since the mid-1970s because of the larger numbers of Regular and TA forces now based in this country and because of the increased range requirements of modern weapons. Although it has been suggested over the years that training activities, particularly live firing, should be transferred elsewhere, I do not believe that there is any foreseeable prospect of this happening.
It is inconceivable that an area offering facilities comparable to Dartmoor would become available in south-west England, which is where such an area would be needed if the requirements for military training are to be met. A search was made before the decision was taken to modernise the Willsworthy ranges, but no suitable
1136
alternative could be found. Lady Sharp's report accepted that there was no alternative area capable of meeting military needs in the south-west.
This Government, like their predecessors, therefore believe that national parks and military training must continue to co-exist. However, a heavy responsibility is placed on my Department to ensure that any conflict of interest between military and other activities in the national park—inevitably, there will be some conflicts—are reconciled to the greatest possible extent.
Although my first concern must be to ensure that the services can train effectively, I am also much aware of the need to make every possible provision for public access and to support measures aimed at conservation of this important part of our national heritage.
Mr. Steen: The Minister mentioned public access. No doubt he will deal with the Dartmoor Commons Act, which gave the statutory right of access. I feel somewhat embarrassed, having piloted that Act through the House, to say to the public, "For five days a week throughout the year, other than in August, you do not have that right." Does the Minister have a view on that matter?
Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly deal with that.
It was with just such aims in mind that the Dartmoor steering group was set up in 1978, under independent chairmanship, with representatives from the bodies principally concerned—the national park committee, the Duchy of Cornwall, the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. The group meets regularly and provides a forum for discussion on all such important questions. I should like to take this opportunity, as I am sure my hon. Friend would, to commend the group for its most valuable work.
The issues that challenge us in seeking solutions to the many problems that my hon. Friend alluded to are well illustrated in the case of Willsworthy camp. The need to improve conditions at Willsworthy camp has been of concern for many years. The camp was last refurbished in 1985, to make it weatherproof for a few more years, but the timber and corrugated iron structure — all that remains of a much larger camp that was put up before the last war — is now in need of more substantial improvement. Rather than meet our long-term requirements there, however, we wished to see whether we could offer the national park an opportunity for the camp to be moved to a less environmentally sensitive position. We looked closely at a number of alternatives, but none proved suitable until the site at Higher Beardon farm, Lydford, became available.
I was disappointed that the Dartmoor national park authority objected to our proposals to replace the camp at the alternative site. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's preference for the Higher Beardon site, although I appreciate that that represents the more acceptable of two alternatives and my hon. Friend may not have wished to make a choice in other circumstances.
This is not the time or place to argue the rights or wrongs of the national park authority's decision, since the planning process is not yet complete. We shall, of course, be considering how to proceed in the light of that decision. There are, however, a few points that I need to make now to clear up some misconceptions that seem to have arisen about the effect of our proposals.
One of the objections to the proposed development is that it would be visually intrusive in the national park. Our

1137
proposal is, however, for a one-storey building, in local materials in keeping with its surroundings, set in a hollow off the high moor, where it can scarcely be seen. This would be far less visually intrusive than the existing camp, which is without doubt an eyesore. It can be seen for miles and its ugly appearance is a blot on the landscape.
We have, moreover, already made it clear that as part of our proposals the existing buildings would be demolished and the site restored to moorland. No matter what view one might take of the military use of Dartmoor, there can surely be no doubt that the environmental arguments are heavily in favour of replacement at Higher Beardon.
Concern has also been expressed that the proposals would amount to an entrenchment of the military presence on Dartmoor. From what I have already said, it should be clear that military use of Dartmoor will have to continue for the foreseeable future. The decision on Higher Beardon does not affect this one way or another, and if the camp is not replaced it will stay at Willsworthy. We would then need to carry out work to ensure that the camp was able to meet our future military requirements.
Another misapprehension is that we should withhold our proposals pending the outcome of the forthcoming review of licences for the use of the Duchy of Cornwall land. The use of Duchy land, however, has no bearing on the need for a training camp in the Willsworthy area; the firing ranges and proposed camp sites are on freehold land.
As I said earlier, we of course attach considerable importance to ensuring public access to the training areas. I must, however, put all this into perspective. In the first place, the MOD owns just 1·5 per cent. of the area covered by Dartmoor, farmed and unfarmed. We have on lease or licence a further 13 per cent. The ranges are closed to the public only when live firing is actually due to take place. No live firing, as my hon. Friend said, takes place on Dartmoor during the whole of August, on public holidays or, as far as possible, at weekends when visitors will most want to have access.
We try to ensure that information about open days is easily available to the general public. Nevertheless, we would of course be ready to consider any further ideas to improve the arrangements for public access. We would, for example, be ready to consider requests from organisations wanting to plan special events on Dartmoor and, if possible, to permit access by making adjustments to the firing programme.
My hon. Friend raised the possibility of realigning the range danger areas. That was considered in 1969. The national park committee concluded that the advantages of such a scheme were outweighed by the disadvantages of subjecting a common impact area to very intensive use. I would be prepared to reconsider the idea if the national park committee so wished. I should also like to renew the offer to grant increased public access to Tavy Cleave if the committee thought that that might be helpful. I am sure that national park committee members will read my hon. Friend's remarks and my reply with great care.
Mr. Steen: My point about Tavy Cleave is that the Ministry has been very helpful in stating that the public can have access to the cleave. However, it has said that there should be a little sentry box at each end to ensure that they do not wander down it when they should not. If we have little sentry boxes as well as flags flying on the tor, it will ruin Dartmoor.
Mr. Freeman: I will deal with that issue in the next few moments, because I had anticipated that my hon. Friend might raise the question of sentry huts.
My hon. Friend raised the matter of the safety of ranges indirectly when he referred to flags. The Government and the services take the matter most seriously, not only from the point of view of public safety, but also with regard to all those training on the ranges. Every reasonable precaution is taken to guard against accidents to the public.
Byelaws are in force which control public access arid actions. When live firing is taking place, red warning flags are flown. The danger areas are delineated by red and white posts, and warning notices are also displayed on the areas where live firing takes place. Under the byelaws, flags have to be raised first thing in the morning of the day firing is to take place. However, they are removed as soon as possible after it is resolved riot to conduct firing. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall ask the Army authorities to continue to make every endeavour to ensure that the flags are not flying unnecessarily.
I believe that our safety arrangements are effective and as good as they can be, but our arrangements for public safety depend inevitably on the common sense of the public not to put themselves at risk. In the case of accidents involving civilians — I am glad to say that there has been only one on Dartmoor in the past 10 years and only three since the creation of the national park—these are regrettably often due to foolhardy actions in direct contravention of the byelaws. I intend to consider how best to apprise local schools and schoolchildren of the need to observe range byelaws.
My hon. Friend referred to huts. I think he meant what we describe as lookout posts required for the Willsworthy ranges and, by implication, for the other ranges. Both their siting and design were approved by the national park committee. I assure my hon. Friend that they are a necessary part of our range safety arrangements.
To sum up, I cannot stress sufficiently the importance of the Dartmoor training areas to the fighting efficiency and effectiveness of our armed forces. I am always ready to consider any suggestions for ways in which military use and other national park interests can best be reconciled. In particular, we shall continue to ensure that essential military training is conducted in a way that takes full account of the needs of the national park. But this can be approached only in partnership. I am sure that all concerned recognise the importance of continuing close consultation and the need for some give and take on both sides.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Three o'clock.

THE ARTS

  Museums (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Martin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give details of the sums of money allocated to help(a) the national maritime museum and (b) other museums in Portsmouth, for both maintenance and purchase grants for the most recent convenient period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The national maritime museum has been allocated £205,000 for purchases for the collection and £2,510,000 for building and maintenance work in 1988–89.

  Central Government support for non-national museums in 1988–89 includes provision for £72 million within the rate support grant to English local authorities for museum capital and current expenditure, and some £4·5 million for the challenge grant schemes for, inter alia, purchases for collections and conservation and related capital work that are administered by the Museums and Galleries Commission and the English Area Museum councils.

  Portsmouth is rich in history and is endowed with some fine museums. I had the pleasure of visiting a number of them just over a year ago.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Food (VAT)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when value added tax on selected foods was first imposed; and for what stated purpose.

  Mr. Lilley
  Value added tax on selected foods was first imposed from 1 April 1974 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). The stated purpose was contained in his Budget statement, the relevant extract of which is in the Official Report for 26 March 1974 at columns 308–309.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which food products are subject to the standard rate of value added tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) on 1 February at column 463.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to his answer of 27 January on business expansion scheme investment, he will give the number of investors falling within each of the categories shown in the table.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 2 February 1988]: The table is derived from information collected in the
  614
  survey of personal incomes. As the notes in "Inland Revenue Statistics" indicate, at the time when the survey was conducted, it is likely that a substantial number of claims for business expansion scheme relief for investments in 1984–85 had yet to he submitted. No alternative source of information on numbers of investors is available centrally. I regret therefore that it is not possible to provide the information requested.

  Woodlands (Taxes)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many taxpayers were granted capital gains tax exemption of growing timber from commercial woodlands in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) how many taxpayers opted to have woodlands taxed under schedule B instead of schedule D in 1986–87; and if he will give for these taxpayers a breakdown showing the percentage paying tax at (i) 60 per cent., (ii) 55 per cent. and 50 per cent., (iii) 45 per cent. and 40 per cent. and (iv) 27 per cent.;

  (3) if he will estimate the value of woodland liable to tax under (a) schedule B and (b) schedule D in 1986–87.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 2 February 1988]: I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Nurses
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage change of tax and national insurance as a percentage of average gross earnings, including overtime and other payments, of National Health Service nurses between 1980 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 27 January 1988]: Between 1980–81 and 1987–88 the real take-home pay of nurses rose by 22 per cent. In the same period, the proportion of their earnings taken in income tax and NIC is estimated to have increased by 0·7 percentage points from 26·2 per cent. to 26·9 per cent. If the 1978–79 tax regime had been kept in place and simply adjusted for inflation the proportion of earnings taken in tax and NIC in 1987–88 would have been 28·3 per cent.

  Earnings figures are derived from the "New Earnings Survey" occupation category, "Registered and enrolled nurses, midwives" and are for those employed full-time on adult rates whose pay was not affected by absence. The nurse is assumed to be contracted out of SERPS.

SCOTLAND

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

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  About 66,000 acres with some 63,000 sheep on 69 farms are currently under restriction in Scotland as a result of radioactivity from the Chernobyl accident.

  Health Funds
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the present value of projected budget
  615
  allocation for each health fund for the years 1988–89 and 1989–90, if a National Health Service pay and prices deflator of 2 per cent. above gross domestic product is assumed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Individual allocations to health boards for recurrent expenditure are made annually and are not projected ahead to later years.

  Cheese Manufacturers (Milk Supplies)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action has been taken, following the meeting between the Minister of State responsible for Agriculture and the hon. Members for East Lothian, for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on 11 November 1987, to improve the supply of milk to cheese manufacturers in Scotland; and if he will make a further statement on the situation in that industry with particular reference to its ability to supply both existing and potential markets.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  While some commercial elements are still to be resolved, discussions between the Scottish Milk Marketing Board and its counterparts south of the border to secure a supply of milk for manufacturers in Scotland are now at an advanced stage. All recognised cheddar plants in the Scottish board's area are currently producing cheese. Their ability to meet market demand will depend to an extent on the outcome of the inter-board negotiations.

  Employment and Training (Accident Statistics)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1983 the number of fatalities and accidents involving participants in Government employment and training schemes in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Figures for fatalities and accidents to participants on employment and training schemes are not available, other than for YTS. For YTS the information is set out in the table.

  Accidents1

  Period

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  1983 (1 April to 31 December)

  1

  11

  73

  1984

  1

  33

  227

  1985

  1

  28

  263

  1986 (1 January to 31 March)

  —

  8

  68

  1986 (1 April to 31 December)2

  1

  38

  143

  19872

  —

  56

  265

  1 The figures are compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive on employed persons, but also include a number of accidents, in particular road traffic accidents during scheme time and accidents in educational establishments, which may not have been reportable to the HSE had the individuals been employed. The fatality in 1984 was a road traffic accident in scheme time.

  2 Up to 31 March 1986 major injuries were classified according to the criteria in the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980. From 1 April 1986 major injuries have been classified according to the criteria in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1986. This has had the effect of reclassifying some accidents from the minor to the major category and means that figures before and after 31 March 1986 are not directly comparable.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what hospitals offer respite care in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Detailed information is not held centrally. Respite care facilities are available in most psychiatric and geriatric hospitals and units and in units for the younger physically handicapped. Such facilities are also available in a number of general hospitals.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Lord Advocate proposes any changes to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service cash and running cost limits for 1987–88.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The cash limit on class XX, vote 21, will be reduced by £250,000 from £17,706,000 to £17,456,000 and the running costs limit by £250,000 from £16,892,000 to £16,642,000 subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate. Class XX, vote 22, will be increased by £250,000 from £3,586,000 to £3,836,000.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to make any further changes to the cash limits for 1987–88 within his responsibility.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I shall be making the following changes. As announced on 23 July 1987, at columns 434–36, the cash limit for class XVI, vote 2 (Agricultural Services and Fisheries, Scotland) was increased by £1·400 million, from £69·959 million to £71·359 million to reflect the carry forward of capital underspends allowed under the end year flexibility scheme. Following expected savings on a number of services this cash limit can be reduced by £800,000 to give a revised cash limit of £70·559 million.

  This reduction will partly offset an increase of £1·876 million on class XVI, vote 3 (Regional and General Industrial Support, Scotland) from £127·029 million to £128·905 million. The increase results from an expected shortfall in receipts from the European Community of £2·395 million. This is partly offset by decreases of £500,000 in the grant-in-aid to the Scottish Development Agency which expects to realise additional receipts of that amount and £19,000 net from miscellaneous subheads.

  The cash limit on class XVI, vote 11 (Administration of Justice, Scotland) will be reduced by £100,000 from £13·121 million to £13·021 million. This reduction, which arises from lower than anticipated expenditure on a computer project, is partly to offset increased expenditure of £550,000 on class XVI, Vote 13 (Legal Proceedings, Scotland) which is not cash limited.

  The cash limit for class XVI, vote 14 (Prisons, hospitals and community health service etc., Scotland) will be increased by £12·650 million from £1,721·125 million to £1,733·775 million. Of this increase £7·6 million was announced by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education on 18 December 1987 to allow extra funding for hospitals and community health services. The remainder reflects the net extra cost of implementation in Scotland of the fresh start initiative in the prison service, and is offset by extra receipts, £3·750 million, and from provision not now required on class XVI, vote 12 (Police Grant, Legal Aid and Criminal Injuries Compensation, Scotland) £1·3 million.
  617
  I shall also be seeking parliamentary approval to increase class XVI, vote 26 (Privatisation of the electricity supply industry, Scotland) by £310,000 to give a revised cash limit of £680,000. This allows for higher than anticipated advisers' fees in preparation for the privatisation of the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro Electricity Board. It will be fully met from a cash limit reduction on class XVI, vote 21 (Scottish Office Administration) which will reduce the cash limit from £114·584 million to £114·274 million.

  There is a related increase in the running costs limit for the Scottish Office of £6 million from £171·956 million to £177·956 million arising from the implementation of fresh start.

  These changes represent a net charge on the Reserve of £9·141 million and will not therefore increase the planned total of public expenditure.

  Parliamentary approval for the changes in voted expenditure will be sought through Supplementary Estimates.

ENERGY

  Coal Reserves
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on assessed coal reserves in(a) England as a whole and (b) Northumberland.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation, and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member. The Department does not undertake its own assessments of coal reserves vested in British Coal.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Suspension Statistics
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members have been suspended from the service of the House in each year since 1974; and if he will break these figures down by party affiliation of the hon. Members concerned.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Session

  Number of members suspended

  1974

  None

  1974–75

  None

  1975–76

  None

  1976–77

  None

  1977–78

  None

  1978–79

  None

  1979–80

  None

  1980–81

  1 Democratic Unionist 1 Labour (twice)

  1981–82

  3 Democratic Unionist

  1 Labour (twice)

  1982–83

  None

  1983–84

  3 Labour

  1984–85

  None

  1985–86

  1 Labour

  1 Plaid Cymru

  1986–87

  None

  1987–881

  3 Labour

  1 Plaid Cymru

  1 To date.

  Guidance to Ministers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether(a) the Cabinet Office, (b) the Cabinet Secretary or (c) the Prime Minister have ever issued guidance to departmental Ministers as to Government policy on the extent of detail given in ministerial replies to parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No such guidance has been issued to Ministers by (a) the Cabinet Office, (b) the Cabinet Secretary or (c) the Prime Minister. The extent of detail given in replies to parliamentary questions is a matter left to the judgment of individual departmental Ministers subject to parliamentary conventions and considerations such as cost.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Apartheid
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts he has made to provide increased assistance to the victims of apartheid in line with the Commonwealth Okanagan statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to my hon. Friends the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) on 1 December 1987, at column 483, and for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on 11 January, at column 12.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Property (Sussex)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the cost of the alterations to the former Foreign and Commonwealth Office radio station at Kings Standing, Sussex for uses as a nuclear shelter;

  (2) what use is to be made by the general public of the nuclear shelter currently under construction at Kings Standing in Sussex.

  Mr. John Patten
  Part of this site is being developed as an administrative centre for use in a possible emergency. It is not the practice to give detailed information about facilities of this kind. The building is not intended for use by the general public.

  Criminal Damage (Compensation)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will initiate a scheme to compensate, in a similar way to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, those who have suffered damage to property as the result of crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are no plans to initiate such a scheme.

  Juvenile Crime
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juvenile crimes have been dealt with in Seaham and Peterlee magistrates' courts in the last five years.
  619
  Mr. John Patten
  The readily available information relates only to indictable offences and is given in the following table:

  Defendants aged 10 and under 17 proceeded against for indictable offences in the Easington division1

  Year

  Total proceeded against

  1982

  303

  1983

  229

  1984

  245

  1985

  238

  1986

  167

  1 Includes Seaham and Peterlee magistrates' courts. Figures for 1986 are published in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales supplementary volumes" a copy of which is in the Library.

  BBC Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Controller of BBC Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend has not yet had the opportunity to meet the Controller of BBC Wales.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to make any changes to the 1987–88 cash limits within his responsibilities and to his Department's running cost limit.

  Mr. Hurd
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit on class XI, vote 2, Prisons, England and Wales, will be increased by £38,159,000 which, after the surrender of the increase of £3,233,000 for end year flexibility announced by my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 23 July 1987 at columns 434–8, will increase from £681,137,000 to £716,063,000.

  The Home Office running cost limit will also be increased by £22,387,000 from £758,815,000 to £781,202,000.

  This additional provision is necessary partly to cover the cost of accommodating prisoners in police cells and the measures taken to cater for the unforeseen surge in the prison population during the first half of the year, and partly to meet extra costs incurred as a result of the delayed and phased implementation of the Fresh Start package of reforms in working practices and management structures in penal establishments.

  This additional provision now required for class XI, vote 2, is found partly from money set aside to meet possible additional costs associated with Fresh Start when this cash limit for 1987–88 was agreed, partly from savings on the Central Administration, Miscellaneous and Community Services and Civil Defence, England and Wales, class XI, vote 3 and partly from the reserve. There is therefore no increase to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The cash limit for the Central Administration, Miscellaneous and Community Services and Civil Defence, England and Wales, is reduced by £10,500,000 from £408,320,000 to £397,820,000. This reduction includes the surrender of the increase of £2,000,000 for end year flexibility announced 23 July 1987.

  Chimpanzees, Baboons and Gorillas
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many chimpanzees, baboons and gorillas were imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years, showing for each year for what purposes and from which countries of origin.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The best available statistics are published by the Department and by the European Commission in annual reports for the years 1978 to 1985 under the convention on international trade in endangered species. These and statistics as yet unpublished for 1986 and 1987, indicate the following imports during the last 10 years:

  Year

  Number

  Purpose

  Country of origin

  Chimpanzees

  1978

  —

  —

  —

  1979

  —

  —

  —

  1980

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  1

  Trade

  Kenya

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  1

  Zoo

  Zaire

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  1

  Exhibition

  USA (captive bred)

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  4

  Breeding/Exhibition

  Kenya

  Baboons

  1978

  230

  Not stated

  Kenya

  116

  Not stated

  Senegal

  50

  Not stated

  Ethiopia

  1979

  —

  —

  —

  1980

  758

  Trade

  Ethiopia

  605

  Trade

  Kenya

  411

  Trade

  Senegal

  1981

  780

  Commercial

  Ethiopia

  160

  Commercial

  Senegal

  132

  Commercial

  Kenya

  1982

  1,121

  Trade

  Ethiopia

  300

  Trade

  Kenya

  50

  Trade

  Senegal

  6

  Research

  USA

  1983

  690

  Trade

  Ethiopia

  310

  Trade

  Kenya

  10

  Trade

  Senegal

  1984

  578

  Not stated

  Ethiopia

  212

  Not stated

  Kenya

  1985

  651

  Not stated

  Ethiopia

  10

  Not stated

  Senegal

  1986

  745

  Scientific

  Ethiopia

  129

  Scientific

  Kenya

  18

  Personal

  South Africa

  12

  Breeding/Exhibition

  Kenya

  8

  Scientific

  Senegal

  1987

  207

  Scientific

  Ethiopia

  80

  Scientific

  Kenya

  21

  Personal

  Zimbabwe

  3

  Scientific

  Senegal

  Gorillas

  1978

  —

  —

  —

  1979

  —

  —

  —

  1980

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  1

  Zoo

  Gabon

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  1

  Breeding/Exhibition

  Congo

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  3

  Breeding/Exhibition

  Congo

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service (Cash Limit)
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Attorney-General whether any changes will he made to the Crown Prosecution Service's cash limit and running costs limit for 1987–88.

  The Attorney-General
  Yes. The cash limit on class XX, vote 25 (Law Charges, England and Wales) will be reduced by £22,209,000 from £107,009,000 to £84,800,000 and the running costs limit by £21,209,000 from £103,209,000 to £82,000,000. This is because the Department has, so far, failed to recruit sufficient staff to carry out its statutory duties. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the non-cash limited class XX, vote 26 (Crown Prosecutions, England and Wales) will be increased by £8,100,000 gross. It will be offset by additional receipts of £4,500,000 increasing the net provision by £3,600,000 from £44,900,000 to £48,500,000. Most of this increase is needed to hire private agents to perform the functions of Crown prosecutors. The balance of £18,609,000 will be surrendered to the reserve.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicle Registration
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made with his Department's review of the vehicle registration numbering system: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  The consultative group which was asked to undertake the review has now submitted its report. The group examined a wide range of possible systems and conducted a major public consultation exercise. The majority of responses, from a wide variety of interested parties, showed a clear preference for the present system. After considering these responses, the group has unanimously recommended that the present registration numbering system, with the year prefix letter changing each August, should remain in place, having carefully considered the group's report, I have decided to accept its recommendation, and thus to retain the existing system unchanged.

  The report is today being published and I am placing copies in the Library of the House.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes are proposed to the 1987–88 cash limit on his Department's votes and to his Department's running costs limit.

  Mr. Channon
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class VIII vote 4 is to be increased by £1,477,000 from £116,179,000 to £117,656,000. The cash limit for class VIII vote 2 is to be reduced by £4,806,000 from £192,400,000 to £187,594,000 to take account of transfers of:—

  (a) £2,500,000 to the non-cash limited class VIII vote 3 as a partial offset to the increased cost of port severances in the spring Supplementary Estimate on that vote, which is also subject to parliamentary approval;

  (b) £ 1,477,000 to class VIII vote 4 as an offset to the spring Supplementary Estimate on that vote; and

  622

  (c) £829,000 to class VIII vote 5 as a partial offset to increased public expenditure on rural bus grants on that vote.

  The balance of the spring Supplementary Estimate on class VIII vote 3 will be charged to the reserve and the balance of the increased requirement for rural bus grants will be offset by savings on class VIII vote 5, in neither case adding to the planning total of public expenditure.

  The running costs limit of the Department of Transport has been reduced by £80,000 from £272,850,000 to £272,770,000. This £80,000 will be transferred to the running costs limit of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to cover the cost of additional work which it is undertaking as the agent of the Department of Transport on the licensing and registration of vehicles in Northern Ireland.

  Pension Schemes (Government Contributions)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to reduce the Government 's contribution under the Transport Act 1980 to the British Rail pension scheme or to the National Freight Corporation pension scheme.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have no immediate plans to reduce these pension contributions. But the amounts involved are substantial (some £90 million a year to railway pension schemes, and £6 million to NFC schemes), so that the necessity for them must be kept under review. I am in touch with the chairman of British Rail about this and would, of course, also consult the chairman of the NFC before deciding on any action which would affect the contribution to NFC schemes.

  Any changes in the existing arrangements for Exchequer funding of BR or NFC pensions would require primary legislation, and would not affect any pension rights already earned.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he plans to upgrade the equal opportunities officer post in his Department to grade 7, in line with civil service guidance.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The grading of the equal opportunity officer's post will be considered in the light of a regular staffing review of the Department's personnel division now taking place.

  Derbyshire (Capital Spending)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was capital spending on education in Derbyshire for each parliamentary constituency in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Dunn
  Data relating to individual constituencies are not available. Excluding expenditure on voluntary aided schools, gross capital expenditure on education in Derbyshire for the years in question was as follows:

  £

  1986–87

  9,647,731

  1985–86

  9,311,397

  623

  £

  1984–85

  11,109,215

  1983–84

  9,367,044

  1982–83

  10,442,459

  1981–82

  10,062,010

  1980–81

  9,069,225

  1979–80

  6,913,713

  1978–79

  6,686,695

  1977–78

  7,138,386

  Source: Department of Environment Form CO1.

  Expenditure on voluntary aided schools in 1986–87 and 1985–86 was £186,580 and £310,314 respectively. Data in relation to earlier years could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Degree Courses
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of children whose father's occupation is given as being in social class III, IV and V were university or polytechnic students undertaking degree courses in 1986; and what were the comparable figures in 1958, 1961, 1971 and 1981.

  Class

  Vote

  Description of expenditure

  Current cash limit

  Revision

  Revised cash limit

  XII

  3

  Universities etc.

  1,708,028

  -1,410

  1,706,618

  XII

  4

  Central administration

  58,309

  + 450

  58,759

  XII

  5

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  54,427

  + 512

  54,939

  XII

  7

  Natural Environment Research Council

  72,070

  + 1,250

  73,320

  XII

  8

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  357,752

  -290

  357,462

  The increase on vote 4 is needed to cover the running costs of extra staff required to implement the Government's education reforms. A reduction in expenditure on staff seconded to outside bodies means that the associated gross running costs limit is unchanged, but the consequent reduction in receipts for seconded out salaries results in the need for an increase in net provision.

  The increase on vote 5 is required to reimburse the Agricultural and Food Research Council for costs incurred by the council in 1987–88 as a result of the sale of the National Seed Development Organisation and the assets of the Plant Breeding Institute.

  The increase on vote 7 is to reinforce the work of the British Antarctic Survey.

  The increases on votes 4 and 7 are offset by reductions on votes 3 and 8. Of the increase in vote 5, £200,000 will be met from unallocated expenditure provision within the science budget with the remainder charged to the reserve. These changes will not therefore add to the planned total public expenditure.

  LINK Programme
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about progress on the LINK programme.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  In announcing the LINK initiative, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated the Government's intention to boost industrially relevant research and development, and to make scientists and the
  624
  Mr. Jackson
  It is estimated the number of university entrants from social classes Him, IV and V as a percentage of the relevant working class population was 3 per cent. in each of the years 1986, 1981 and 1971; 2 per cent. in 1961 and 1 per cent. in 1955. Information for 1958 is not available.

  Similar information is not collected by the polytechnic central admissions system, but a sample survey of young people attempting examinations qualifying them for HE entry in 1985 indicated that about 7 per cent. of the relevant working class population entered some form of HE including sub-degree courses. A sample survey of 21-year-olds in 1962 indicated the equivalent percentage then was 3 per cent.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give details of any revised cash limits for his Department's votes in 1987–88.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates where appropriate the following cash limit changes have been made:

  business community more aware of the potential of science and technology for commercial exploitation. LINK will eventually range over the whole spectrum of science based technology.

  Today, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I have announced the first five LINK programme areas. These are — molecular electronics, advanced semiconductor materials, industrial measurement systems, eukaryotic genetic engineering, and nanotechnology. Each of these programmes is in a key area of strategic research. The first five programmes will account for some £83 million. The total expenditure on LINK by Government and industry is expected to be at least £420 million over the next five years; Government will meet up to half of the cost of each programme.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  South Africa (Exports)
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the exportation of plastic film to South Africa, in the light of United Nations arms embargo.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The export of plastic film to South Africa is not in breach of the United Nations arms embargo or any of our international commitments.

  Apartheid
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the implications of Her Majesty's Government's support for the forthcoming United Kingdom South Africa Trade Association trade mission for his policy on apartheid; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Government policy towards South Africa remains unchanged. Within the limits of our international obligations, the full range of DTI services is available to the United Kingdom South Africa Trade Association trade mission to South Africa.

  Regional Development
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list by name and location the amount of regional development grant and regional selective assistance grant moneys made available for private nursing homes in Tyne and Wear, Northumberland, Durham and Cleveland in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Atkins
  Private nursing homes do not qualify for regional development grant. There were three offers of regional selective assistance in Tyne and Wear, Northumberland, Durham and Cleveland in the two years ended 31 December 1987. Details are as follows:

  Name and location

  Amount £

  Mr. and Mrs. P. Smith, Whitley Bay

  10,000

  Redezeus, Sunderland

  25,000

  John Lisle, Whitley Bay

  20,000

  British Steel
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairman of British Steel; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Atkins
  I last met Sir Robert Scholey on 16 December when we discussed a number of matters relating to the corporation and its prospects.

  Regional Development Grants
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all those companies which have received regional development grants for the years 1979 to 1987, inclusive; and(a) how much each company received and (b) for what purpose the grant was provided.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is only available at disproportionate cost. However, details of grant recipients above certain thresholds are published quarterly in "British Business". The relevant publication dates are given in the table.

  Date

  1979 Q1

  18 May 1979

  Q2

  19 October 1979

  Q3

  7 December 1979

  Q4

  22 February 1980

  1980 Q1

  6 June 1980

  Q2

  29 August 1980

  Q3

  28 November 1980

  Q4

  13 February 1981

  1981 Q1

  15 May 1981

  626

  Date

  Q2

  7 August 1981

  Q3

  6 November 1981

  Q4

  12 February 1982

  1982 Q1

  7 May 1982

  Q2

  13 August 1982

  Q3

  29 October 1982

  Q4

  4 February 1983

  1983 Q1

  6 May 1983

  Q2

  29 July 1983

  Q3

  4 November 1983

  Q4

  3 February 1984

  1984 Q1

  25 May 1984

  Q2

  31 August 1984

  Q3

  9 November 1984

  Q4

  15 February 1985

  1985 Q1

  10 May 1985

  Q2

  16 August 1985

  Q3

  17 January 1986

  Q4

  11 April 1986

  1986 Q1

  20 June 1986

  Q2

  19 September 1986

  Q3

  5 December 1986

  Q4

  10 April 1987

  1987 Q1

  10 July 1987

  Q2

  4 September 1987

  Q3

  18 December 1987

  Notes:

  Details published are:

  (i) original RDG scheme: individual payments which exceed £25,000;

  (ii) revised RDG scheme: payments to individual undertakings in a Travel-to-work-Area which cumulatively exceed £25,000 in any one quarter.

  Pest Control Services (Report)
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of pest control services is to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The commission found that a monopoly situation existed in favour of the Rentokil Group plc and its subsidiary operating company, Rentokil Ltd., which supplied over 60 per cent. of the United Kingdom market for pest control services. They concluded that Rentokil had established a dominant position in the market which enabled it to fix its prices largely unconstrained by competition. Many customers were charged higher prices than they would be in conditions of normal competition. There was an unduly limited choice of suppliers., particularly for customers who required a nationwide service.

  Where Rentokil does encounter competition, the commission noted that its high profitability — as illustrated by its 28 per cent. return on turnover and its 92 per cent. return on capital employed—had enabled it to cut its prices selectively, thus inhibiting the development of competition. The commission found that Rentokil's differential pricing practices operated against the public interest.

  As a remedy against the charging of high prices, the commission has proposed that Rentokil should provide more information in written statements to its customers about the way its charges have been calculated.

  The commission pointed out that some of Rentokil's past acquisitions of smaller pest control companies had been designed to reduce competition or frustrate the expansion of potentially larger companies. Rentokil's

  627
  stated policy was now to expand by organic growth of its existing business rather than through further acquisitions. Nevertheless, the commission referred to the Director General of Fair Trading's duty under the Fair Trading Act 1973 to keep himself informed about the creation of merger situations and suggested that this task would be facilitated if Rentokil gave an undertaking to notify him of any proposed acquisitions of other pest control companies.

  Where an MMC report finds that aspects of a monopoly operate against the public interest, the Fair Trading Act gives me powers to take appropriate action to remedy the adverse effects. These powers include a requirement to divest assets and prohibition of price distrimination. Although this report did not specifically canvass these possibilities, I thought it right to consider these and other options. However, I accept the MMC's view that in the circumstances of this case, the most appropriate remedy is that Rentokil should provide the customer with more information.

  I am consequently asking the Director General of Fair Trading to hold discussions with Rentokil with a view to obtaining appropriate undertakings; that Rentokil should provide more information about its charges to customers and that the company will notify him of any proposal to acquire further pest control companies.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limits and running cost limit for 1987–88.

  Mr. Butcher
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the cash limit for Class V, Vote 2 will be reduced by £7,498,000 to £456,751,000 to offset the increased provision on Class V, Vote I. The cash limit for Class V, Vote 3 will be reduced by £2,000,000 to £148,085,000 since £2,000,000 of the planned expenditure on accommodation works for the DTI has been met from PSA expenditure on Class XX, Vote 19. The Department's running cost limit has been reduced by £165,000 to £275,207,000 to reflect the reclassification of £139,000 of Industrial Research Establishment expenditure and to allow an increase of £26,000 in the Government Actuary's Department's running costs to cover additional work on behalf of my Department's insurance division. No net increase to public expenditure results from these changes.

  Chile (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, pursuant to his answer of 30 November 1987,Official Report, column 380, he will list the representatives of the Chilean opposition whom the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), met during his trip to Chile, indicating whether the meetings were separate or in a group, and giving the venue for each.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 2 February 1988]: I met the following in the British embassy residence. I had discussions with them individually and we then assembled for a private dinner hosted by His Excellency Mr. Alan White.

  Sr. Patricio Phillips, President, National Party.

  Sr. Juan Hamilton, Vice-President, Christian Democrat
  628
  Party.

  Sr. Heraldo Munoz, University of Chile.

  Sr. Rene Abeliuk, Former President, Social Democratic Party.

  Sr. German Molina, Chilean Human Rights Commission, Member, Izquierda Cristiana Party.

  Sr. Armando Jaramillo, President, Republican Party.

  Sr. Ricardo Claro, University of Chile.

  Sr. Jovino Novoa Vasquez, Member, Renovacion Nacional Party.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  AIDS
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further plans he has to contribute to the international effort to combat the spread of AIDS.

  Mr. Eggar
  We will continue to play a full and active part in international co-operative efforts.

  On 26–28 January, we hosted in London a world summit of Ministers of Health on programmes for AIDS prevention. This conference, jointly organised with the World Health Organisation, was attended by representatives of 149 countries of whom over three quarters were Ministers. A London declaration on AIDS prevention was adopted by consensus; this should help to give a significant impetus to the development of public education and information programmes as the single most important component — in the absence of vaccine or cure — of national AIDS programmes.

  As my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Social Services announced on 26 January, we will, subject to parliamentary approval, be contributing a further £4·5 million from the overseas aid programme to the World Health Organisation's global programme on AIDS in 1988.

  NATO-Warsaw Pact (Force Balances)
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress being made in talks on the present imbalance in conventional forces between NATO and the Warsaw pact.

  Mr. Mellor
  The MBFR talks, which deal with a limited area of central Europe, have made no real progress for the last 15 years. The main reason has been the Warsaw pact's failure to provide adequate data on its forces or to accept proper verification. Informal discussions are now under way in Vienna with a view to setting up a new negotiating forum within the framework of the CSCE process. This would deal with the whole of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. Progress has so far been encouraging. We hope that substantive talks can begin later this year.

  Drug Running
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department is doing to counter the international threat from drug runners.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are taking a leading role both bilaterally and in multilateral organisations. We have played an active part in United Nations activities in this field and within the Council of Europe. We make substantial
  629
  contributions to international assistance programmes and are working to conclude reciprocal agreements for the tracing, seizing and confiscation of traffickers' assets.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are receiving co-operation from the Government of Thailand in tackling the question of drug running.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are frequent exchanges between the drug enforcement bodies of the Royal Thai Government and their British counterparts. I will be visiting Thailand next week with a view to establishing areas for further cooperation on drugs matters.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government is receiving co-operation from the Government of Pakistan on tackling the question of drug running.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are regular exchanges between the Pakistan enforcement bodies and the corresponding British authorities. When I visit Pakistan later this week I will be looking to see if this valuable co-operation can be improved further.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Cyprus.

  Mrs. Chalker
  For the last few months, attention in Cyprus has been focused on the presidential election which is to take place on 14 February. Once the election is over, we believe the United Nations Secretary-General's new permanent special representative will begin fresh efforts to find a way forward.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to make an official visit to Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to visit Cyprus.

  Middle East
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has made to the statement made by the Palestine Liberation Organisation leader Yasser Arafat in January that the Palestine Liberation Organisation would recognise Israel in exchange for Israeli and United States' agreement to participate in an international peace conference on the middle east.

  Mr. Mellor
  None. The Palestine Liberation Organisation cannot expect to play a role at an international peace conference until it unambiguously renounces violence, accepts United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and acknowledges Israel's right to a secure existence.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to discuss middle east problems with his opposite number in the European Economic Community member states; and if he will make a statement.
  630
  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects to discuss middle eastern questions with his European colleagues at their next meeting on 8 February.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take steps to promote an international conference to promote peace in the middle east.

  Mr. Mellor
  We shall continue to work for an international conference under United Nations auspices as the framework for negotiations between the parties directly concerned.

  Sharpeville Six
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the South African Government to secure the grant of clemency in relation to the Sharpeville Six.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions he has given to the British embassy in South Africa with regard to securing a grant of clemency in relation to the Sharpeville Six; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government have taken towards securing a grant of clemency in relation to the Sharpeville Six.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In February 1986, Her Majesty's ambassador expressed to the South African Government our concern at the death sentences and at allegations that some of the accused had been tortured. After their appeals had been dismissed last December, the members of the European Community made a collective appeal for clemency. We also supported a statement issued on behalf of the United Nations Security Council. We have since reiterated our concern direct to the South African Government.

  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has contacted the South African ambassador over the issue of the granting of clemency in relation to the Sharpeville Six; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In February 1986, Her Majesty's ambassador expressed to the South African Government our concern at the death sentences and at allegations that some of the accused had been tortured. After their appeals had been dismissed last December, the German ambassador made an appeal for clemency on behalf of the European Community. We also supported a statement issued on behalf of the United Nations Security Council urging the South African Government to commute the death sentences on the six. We have since reiterated our concern direct to the South African Government.

  Chinese Foreign Minister
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Chinese Foreign Minister.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  As I said in the House on 20 January, I look forward to welcoming Mr. Wu Xuegian on an official visit to Britain in the spring.

  EC (Foreign Policy)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the progress being made towards achieving co-operation in foreign policy between European Community members.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Yes. The ability to speak and act together with the Twelve is a significant help in achieving British objectives. The Twelve have issued declarations on a wide range of major international issues as they have arisen. At the European Council in December 1987 they welcomed the INF agreement between the United States and Soviet Union; called on the Soviet Union to withdraw all its troops from Afghanistan by a date in 1988; reiterated their support for an international conference on the middle east; expressed their concern at the situation in the occupied territories; and called for an end to the Iran-Iraq conflict and a follow-up resolution to enforce implementation of Security Council resolution 598.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to have discussions with his European Community partners concerning the developments of common European foreign policies.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend will be meeting his colleagues from the Twelve to discuss European political co-operation matters on 8 February.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the Federal Government of Nigeria and Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the recent visit to Nigeria by the Prime Minister.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to Nigeria demonstrated the close and cordial relations we enjoy with a fellow Commonwealth member.

  Mr. Govan Mbeki
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the South African Government about the restrictions being placed upon Mr. Govan Mbeki by the South African police and the security services.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We regret the South African Government's decision to place restrictions on Mr. Mbeki and have made our views known to them.

  African National Congress
  Mr. Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last made official contact with representatives of the African National Congress.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the president of the African National Congress, Mr. Oliver Tambo, on 20 September 1986 when he was president of the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Community.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about Soviet intentions towards withdrawing from Afghanistan.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the Soviet Union's intentions with regard to a total withdrawal of their military forces from Afghanistan.

  Mr. Eggar
  We welcome the Soviet Union's publicity expressed wish to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. We look to it to do so this year.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet his counterpart in the Afghanistan Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  No.

  Austria
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Austria.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Relations between the United Kingdom and Austria are friendly and reflect the common interests of our Governments and peoples.

  Pakistan
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the extent of the Afghan refugee burden on Pakistan.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are some 3 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan. We admire Pakistan's generosity in giving them refuge. We have ourselves provided about £50 million in assistance to these refugees since 1980.

  Central America (Peace Plan)
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to congratulate the President of Nicaragua on his compliance with the Arias central American peace plan, and enjoin all parties to the conflict in Nicaragua, including the United States of America, similarly to comply.

  Mr. Eggar
  The central American Presidents decided on 15–16 January that they were not entirely satisfied that the peace agreement had been fully complied with. Statements issued by the Twelve members of the European Community on 15 and 26 January urged all the central American countries to fulfil their outstanding obligations without delay and requested all parties indirectly involved to contribute to the efforts to achieve peace.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in central America about the progress of the Arias peace plan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Her Majesty's ambassadors in the region maintain close contact with the Governments of Central America about the peace plan. We shall have the
  633
  opportunity to discuss it with central American Foreign Ministers during the European Community/Central America/Contadora meeting in Hamburg on 29 February to 1 March. The United Kingdom will take an active part in these discussions.

  Mr. MacDonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made any offer of assistance to President Arias of Costa Rica in his efforts to bring peace to central America.

  Mr. Eggar
  We and our European Community partners have strongly supported his efforts to bring peace and strengthen democracy in the region. As recently as 26 January a statement by the Twelve reaffirmed our readiness to assist the peace process to the best of our ability. The doubling of European Community aid commitments to the region underlines our support.

  Moscow
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to pay an official visit to Moscow.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend will be visiting the Soviet Union from 14 to 17 February at the invitation of the Soviet Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Eduard Shevardnadze. He expects to discuss a broad range of issues, including bilateral relations, arms control, regional questions and human rights.

  South Africa
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any ministerial visits are planned to South Africa over the coming year.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No ministerial visits to South Africa are at present planned.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name those black moderate leaders within South Africa, or their representatives, whom he has met since June 1983 and the places and dates of his meetings.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since June 1983 my right hon. and learned Friend has met many representatives of black opinion in South Africa including Chief Buthelezi, Archbishop Tutu, Chief Mabuza, members of the House of Delegates and members of the National African Federated Chamber of Commerce. In the last 18 months, I have met among others, Dr. Phatudi, Archbishop Tutu, Mr. Gumede and Dr. Boesak.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the South African Government about the recent curbs on legal trade union activity.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have welcomed the legalisation of black trades unions in South Africa. We continue to follow their development with interest. We have made repeated representations to the South African Government about the detention without charge of trades unionists and others.

  Gaza Strip
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to pay an official visit to the Gaza strip.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to visit the Gaza strip.

  EC (Political Development)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on political development on the EEC in 1988 to date.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Negotiations have concentrated on the future financing of the Community. We have made it clear that effective and binding control over Community spending is essential to any agreement.

  EC (Internal Market)
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will raise at the next Foreign Affairs Council the progress being made towards achieving an internal market in the European Community by 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I regularly discuss progress towards completing the single European market with EC Foreign Ministers. Detailed discussions on the single market are pursued in the internal market and other specialist councils. Over 100 measures towards that goal have been agreed in the past 18 months, 48 of them during the United Kingdom presidency.

  Gulf (Protection of Shipping)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the protection of shipping in the Gulf area.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are in close and frequent contact with a wide range of Governments, shipping organisations and unions about the protection of shipping in the Gulf. We remain committed to the principle of freedom of navigation, and will continue to do everything possible to assist British merchant shipping in the region.

  Falkland Islands Council
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet representatives of the Falklancl Islands Council; and what matters he intends to discuss.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no current plans to meet Falkland Islands councillors.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress being made towards achieving a verifiable worldwide ban on chemical weapons.

  Mr. Mellor
  Encouraging progress was made last year in the chemical weapons negotiations in Geneva. In July the United Kingdom tabled a paper on practical steps
  635
  needed to ensure the effective implementation of a ban. However, complex issues remain to be dealt with, particularly on verification and arrangements for an international inspectorate, if we are to achieve an effective convention.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from foreign Governments concerning the pollution of other European countries by acid rain, resulting from pollution emanating from Britain.

  Mr. Eggar
  We maintain close contact at all levels with a number of countries, mainly in Europe, on a range of pollution issues including acid rain.

  UNESCO
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will now reconsider British membership of UNESCO.

  Mr. Eggar
  As we made clear when we withdrew from UNESCO, we would need to see clear evidence that fundamental and far-reaching reform had been achieved in the organisation before we could reconsider our position on membership. We welcome the appointment of a new director-general; but our fundamental concerns remain UNESCO's programmes and administration. We shall follow developments in UNESCO closely, in order to see how the reform process proceeds and will keep an open mind.

  Sir Jim Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation he has received about the Government's policy towards contacts with UNESCO.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have received no formal representations.

  Angola
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will have discussions with the Angolan Government about how Britain could best assist the People's Republic of Angola, in the light of the South African Government's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 602; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are in regular contact with the Government of Angola through normal diplomatic channels.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make representations to the South African Government about the withdrawal of its troops from the territory of the People's Republic of Angola; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We support United Nations Security Council resolutions 602 of 25 November and 606 of 23 December, both of which called for the immediate withdrawal of South African troops from Angola. We continue to urge this upon the South African Government.

  Namibia
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to secure South Africa's compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 601 on Namibia, and the early implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 435; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have taken every opportunity, both publicly and in private, to urge on the South African Government the pressing need for them to withdraw from Namibia and allow the early implementation of Security Council resolution 435.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last conveyed to the South African Government Her Majesty's Government's demand for South African withdrawal from Namibia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We take every opportunity, both publicly and in private, to urge on the South African Government the pressing need for them to withdraw from Namibia and allow free and fair elections in accordance with the United Nations plan for Namibian independence.

  Anglo-Japanese Relations
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of Anglo-Japanese relations.

  Mr. Eggar
  Relations are good and friendly. During my right hon. and learned Friend's recent visit to Japan he and Foreign Minister Uno reaffirmed both Governments' commitment to building and strengthening our mutually beneficial partnership.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Governor of Hong Kong and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the Governor on 26 October last year. Their discussions reviewed the whole range of current issues involving Hong Kong. Such meetings play an important part in our close and regular consultations with Hong Kong.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the introduction of greater democracy in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations on this subject from a variety of sources in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom, covering a range of opinions. These have been carefully considered and will be taken fully into account in the decisions which will be announced in the Hong Kong Government's White Paper in February.

  British Citizens (Overseas Assistance)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are taking to ensure that adequate help is given to British citizens abroad in genuine distress.
  637
  Mr. Eggar
  Her Majesty's consular staff overseas make every effort to give prompt, sympathetic and effective advice and whatever help they properly can to distressed British nationals seeking assistance.

  Demand for consular services continues to rise sharply with nearly 27 million people travelling abroad from the United Kingdom in 1987 compared with only 5·5 million 20 years ago. Both procedures and staffing are kept under constant review to ensure the optimum use of available resources.

  The aim of our public education activities, including the wide distribution of the consular leaflet "Get It Right Before You Go", is to explain what consuls can and cannot do and to encourage self-help, wherever possible, so as to enable consular staff to concentrate on cases of genuine distress.

  European Parliament (Electoral System)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the progress which has been made towards the establishment of a uniform electoral system for the European Parliament in time for the 1989 elections.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Discussion has so far produced no agreement among the member states of the European Community on a uniform electoral procedure.

  PLO
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will hold an official meeting with the London representative of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to discuss the recent development of Palestine Liberation Organisation policy on the recognition of Israel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government will take steps to ensure that there is a thorough reform of the common agricultural policy before any further money is provided for the European Community.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday 8 December, at column 167, following the European Council.

  Ministerial Visits (Central America)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when was the last visit by a Minister of Her Majesty's Government to(a) Costa Rica, (b) E1 Salvador, (c) Guatemala, (d) Honduras and (e) Nicaragua.

  Mr. Eggar
  Baroness Young the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, visited Costa Rica in January 1986 and Guatemala in February 1987. There have been no ministerial visits to Honduras, El Salvador or Nicaragua in recent years.

  Gulf (UN Naval Command)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is yet in a position to report on progress towards a United Nations naval command in the Gulf

  Mr. Mellor
  The Soviet Union has put forward a number of proposals relating to the establishment of a United Nations naval force for the Gulf. We continue to believe that such a force would be impractical in current circumstances.

  Japan
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he discussed the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and Japan during his recent visit to Japan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend's talks with Foreign Minister Uno, with International Trade and Industry Minister Mr. Tamura, and with leading representatives of Japanese industry included discussion of trade. He called for Japanese efforts to increase domestic demand to open her markets. We note the United Kingdom exports to Japan rose 30 per cent. in the first 11 months of 1987 and are now worth over £1,500 million per annum.

  Nelson Mandela
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last made representations to the South African Government for the release of Mr. Nelson Mandela and other imprisoned leaders of the African National Congress.

  Mrs. Chalker
  With the Commonwealth and our European partners we have long called for the unconditional release of Mr. Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners. The issue was last raised with the South African Government in January.

  United States Ambassador
  Mr. Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the ambassador of the United States of America; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend regularly meets the United States ambassador to discuss a wide range of bilateral and international topics and values this frank and constructive dialogue. They last met on 19 January.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will meet the other Foreign Ministers of the EEC to discuss Third world debt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets his counterparts from the European Community and other leading industrialised countries regularly. Debt is often discussed.

  Kampuchea
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to review Her Majesty's Government's current policy on Kampuchea.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made during the Adjournment debate on Cambodia on 21 January, at column 1224.

  French Government (Visa Requirements)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made in response to the imposition of visa requirements by the French Government in the light of the problems which have arisen in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None.

  Spain and Portugal
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what ministerial contacts there have been recently with Spain and Portugal on European affairs.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I visited Madrid and Lisbon from 17 to 19 January for talks with Spanish and Portuguese Ministers.

  SADCC Countries
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of the policy he is pursuing with SADCC countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Britain has long been involved in working to strengthen the economies of SADCC states, to reduce their economic dependence on South Africa and, through the SADCC organisation, to restore the natural pattern of transport in the region by rehabilitation of regional routes through Mozambique. From 1980 to 1986 Britain gave £819 million in bilateral aid to SADCC states.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development visited Tanzania from 26 to 30 January to attend SADCC's annual meeting in Arusha (28–29 January) and for bilateral discussions. During his visits my hon. Friend announced a further £10 million of British aid for the SADCC organisation's projects, taking our total pledges to SADCC to £45 million. He also announced £20 million additional programme aid for Tanzania. Our aid is highly valued by SADCC states. Steady progress is now being made in the rehabilitation of the regional transport routes.

  Diplomats (Parking Fines)
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans to seek to reduce further the number of unpaid parking fines by diplomats in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We seek continually to reduce the number of unpaid parking fines by diplomats in London through the firm application of the policy described in its White 640
  Paper on diplomatic immunities and privileges (Cmnd. 9497). The figures for unpaid fines for the full year of 1987 are not yet available, but will be published as soon as possible. We expect that they will show a further decrease on those for 1986.

  Middle East (Killings)
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to instruct Her Majesty's consulate in Jerusalem to forward Her Majesty's Government's condolences to the families of those shot dead by the Israeli security services during the recent disturbances in the occupied territories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. We sympathise with all those—Palestinians and Israelis—who have suffered as a result of the recent violence.

  Chile
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Chilean ambassador to discuss relations with Chile.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the Chilean ambassador on 1 December 1987 to discuss bilateral relations, including the question of human rights.

  Syria (Nerve Gas)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for the middle east peace process of allegations by the Government of Israel that Syria is developing nerve gas production facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The development of chemical weapons by any state in the region cannot but further complicate an already difficult and dangerous situation. We are working for a global ban on chemical weapons as the only practical way to relieve mankind of this terrible threat overshadowing his future.

  Nicaragua
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to expand United Kingdom diplomatic representation in Nicaragua.

  Mr. Eggar
  Yes. A third United Kingdom-based diplomatic service officer is shortly to be posted to Managua as proconsul.

  African National Congress Office, Bulawayo (Attack)
  Miss Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the South African Government about the infringement of Zimbabwean sovereignty during the attack by the South African armed forces on the African National Congress office in Bulawayo in January.

  Mrs. Chalker
  So far as we know, the Zimbabwe Government have not claimed that the South African armed forces were involved in the attack. However, we are opposed to cross-border violations in either direction
  641
  however and wherever they occur. We have consistently urged the South African Government to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of their neighbours.

  South Lebanon (Bombing Raids)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he has made to the Israeli Government about the retaliatory bombing raids by the Israeli air force against civilian targets in South Lebanon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Israeli Government are well aware that we condemn such raids.

  Occupied Territories (Deportation)
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he proposes to make to the Israeli Government about the breach of international law involved in the deportation of Palestinians from the occupied territories to the Lebanon.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have already made representations to the Israelis bilaterally and together with our partners in the Twelve. We voted for United Nations Security Council resolutions 607 and 608 which called on Israel to refrain from deporting Palestinian civilians and to ensure the safe return of those already deported.

  Argentina
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens are currently resident in Argentina.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the period since 1982, 3,741 Argentine residents entitled to British nationality have registered with the British interests section in Buenos Aires. Of these, 647 males over 18 are recorded as holding exclusively British nationality. The remainder are not categorised as holding single or dual nationality.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom-Spanish agreement on Gibraltar, dated 2 December 1987, will come into operation.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The first step is for the Gibraltar House of Assembly to adopt the necessary amendments to current Gibraltar customs and immigration legislation. Once this has been done, the agreement will come into operation not later than one year after the United Kingdom notifies Spain of the House of Assembly's decision. During this period, the new Spanish terminal will be built.

  Bophuthatswana
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates since 1 January 1983, British Embassy staff in South Africa have visited Bophuthatswana; with whom discussions or consultations were held; and what was the purpose of these visits.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Staff at Her Majesty's embassy in South Africa pay regular visits to Bophuthatswana. Full details of the information requested are not available.

  Drug Trafficking (Caribbean)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to take any action to discourage drug trafficking on British dependent territories in the Caribbean.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are currently implementing a number of recommendations arising out of our 1986 survey to improve the defences of the dependent territories against drug-trafficking. These have included assistance with training and advice, and provision of detection and surveillance equipment, including an aircraft and police launch. It is part of our continuing programme to combat drug-trafficking in the Caribbean as a whole, in cooperation with regional Governments and the Government of the United States.

  British Council
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from British arts companies touring abroad concerning the effect on their activities of the levels of funding for the British Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. The British Council has maintained a suitable level of arts promotion activity overseas.

  Northern Ireland (Administration of Justice)
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth. Affairs if he has asked the Government of the Irish Republic to list the precise objections held by them to the administration of justice in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government of the Republic of Ireland have made known to us their concerns about the present arrangements for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. They have put forward a number of proposals for change which we have considered as part of our continuing commitment to enhancing public confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in the confectionery, cake and biscuit industries in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  In September 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 129,000 employees n employment in the bread, biscuits and flour confectionery industries in Great Britain. The figure is unadjusted for the effects of seasonal variations. Estimates for the United Kingdom are not available.

  Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Pembroke of 14 January,Official Report, columns 362–63, why the administrative costs of individual local dock labour scheme boards are not made public.
  643
  Mr. Nicholls
  I regret that the information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Restart Interviews
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library a copy of the specimem answers to be used as guidelines by his Departments staff when interviewing claimants for the restart interview.

  Mr. Lee
  No. Other than as a training aid, no such specimen answers have been issued. Staff are instructed to approach the interview on the basis that clients have individual needs and treat them accordingly.

WALES

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the expenditure per head in real terms in Wales on the National Health Service in 1980 and in 1986.

  Mr. Grist
  Expenditure per head at 1986–87 prices in 1980–81 was £299·52 and in 1986–87 £350·69.

  BBC Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the controller of BBC Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I met him on 2 February on the train from Swansea somewhere between Slough and Paddington.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of National Health Service beds in 1979 and in 1986, in Wales and in each Welsh county.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is given in the following table:

  District Health Authority

  Average daily available NHS beds during:

  1979

  1986

  Clwyd

  3,053

  2,769

  East Dyfed

  2,098

  1,758

  Gwent

  3,883

  3,509

  Gwynedd

  1,570

  1,630

  Mid Glamorgan

  4,943

  4,498

  Pembrokeshire

  466

  473

  Powys

  1,266

  1,014

  South Glamorgan

  3,584

  3,460

  West Glamorgan

  2,594

  2,574

  Wales

  23,457

  21,685

  But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to know the substantial increase in in-patients treated during the same period. These are as follows:

  Number of renovation grants applications outstanding at September 1987

  Welsh districts

  Improvement and Conversion

  Repairs

  Intermediate

  Special

  Total

  Aberconwy

  63

  33

  1

  0

  97

  Alyn and Deeside

  88

  226

  2

  0

  316

  Arfon

  59

  178

  1

  1

  239

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,143

  3,045

  747

  0

  4,935

  Brecknock

  46

  413

  12

  0

  471

  Cardiff

  1,164

  3,703

  385

  166

  5,418

  Carmarthen

  237

  412

  3

  1

  653

  Ceredigion

  119

  730

  12

  0

  861

  Colwyn

  203

  55

  0

  4

  262

  Cynon Valley

  145

  1,793

  1,236

  0

  3,174

  Delyn

  5

  21

  10

  0

  36

  Dinefwr

  49

  324

  7

  0

  380

  Dwyfor

  49

  368

  12

  0

  429

  Glyndwr

  110

  228

  52

  0

  390

  Islwyn

  86

  365

  13

  0

  464

  Llanelli

  32

  431

  0

  0

  463

  Lliw Valley

  33

  152

  24

  0

  209

  Meirionnydd

  5

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Merthyr Tydfil

  8

  1,017

  59

  1

  1,085

  Monmouth

  3

  9

  2

  0

  14

  Montgomeryshire

  41

  338

  53

  0

  432

  Neath

  208

  579

  11

  0

  798

  Newport

  452

  1,697

  91

  23

  2,263

  Ogwr

  321

  975

  50

  11

  1,357

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  105

  379

  29

  0

  513

  Preseli

  637

  793

  1

  1

  1,432

  Radnor

  94

  183

  18

  0

  295

  Rhondda

  1,196

  3,629

  837

  0

  5,662

  Rhuddlan

  43

  17

  0

  0

  60

  Rhymney Valley

  316

  2,298

  20

  0

  2,634

  South Pembrokeshire

  276

  147

  7

  0

  430

  Swansea

  772

  714

  111

  12

  1,609

  Taff Ely

  68

  242

  0

  4

  314

  Torfaen

  427

  950

  269

  0

  1,646

  Vale of Glamorgan

  20

  995

  0

  7

  1,022

  Wrexham Maelor

  58

  242

  19

  0

  319

  646

  District Health Authority

  1979

  1986

  Difference

  Per cent

  Clwyd

  47,741

  57,519

  + 9,778

  (20)

  East Dyfed

  27,725

  31,405

  + 3,680

  (13)

  Gwent

  49,843

  65,991

  +16,148

  (32)

  Gwynedd

  28,698

  34,867

  + 6,169

  (21)

  Mid Glamorgan

  64,182

  80,119

  +15,937

  (25)

  Pembrokeshire

  10,885

  13,186

  +2,301

  (21)

  Powys

  5,411

  6,842

  +1,431

  (26)

  South Glamorgan

  67,526

  81,891

  + 14,365

  (21)

  West Glamorgan

  47,684

  62,050

  + 14,366

  (30)

  Wales

  349,695

  433,870

  + 84,175

  (24)

  Housing Grants
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is of the number of outstanding applications for(a) general and repair grants, (b) standard grants and (c) improvement grants for each district authority; and how many of these grants in each category and district have been outstanding for (i) four years, (ii) three years, (iii) two years, (iv) one year and (v) under one year.

  Mr. Grist
  The numbers of renovation grant applications outstanding at September 1987 and the estimated numbers outstanding since April 1986 or earlier are shown in the following tables. Information is not collected regularly on the period for which grants have been outstanding.
  647

  Welsh districts

  Improvement and Conversion

  Repairs

  Intermediate

  Special

  Total

  Ynys Môn

  70

  328

  10

  0

  408

  WALES TOTAL

  8,751

  28,009

  4,104

  231

  41,095

  Number of pre-April 1986 renovation grant applications outstanding at September 1987

  Welsh districts

  Improvement and conversion

  Repairs

  Intermediate

  Special

  Total

  Aberconwy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Alyn and Deeside

  41

  179

  —

  —

  220

  Arfon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blaenau Gwent

  913

  2,801

  307

  —

  4,021

  Brecknock

  32

  340

  —

  —

  372

  Cardiff

  805

  1,841

  —

  —

  2,646

  Carmarthen

  35

  57

  —

  —

  92

  Ceredigion

  109

  684

  —

  —

  793

  Colwyn

  32

  55

  —

  2

  89

  Cynon Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Delyn

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Dinefwr

  38

  306

  —

  —

  344

  Dwyfor

  44

  267

  —

  —

  311

  Glyndwr

  85

  158

  24

  —

  267

  Islwyn

  71

  89

  —

  —

  160

  Llanelli

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lliw Valley

  1

  3

  —

  —

  4

  Meirionnydd

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  —

  978

  —

  —

  978

  Monmouth

  3

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Montgomeryshire

  38

  338

  31

  —

  407

  Neath

  180

  528

  —

  —

  708

  Newport

  298

  1,119

  67

  —

  1,484

  Ogwr

  17

  15

  3

  —

  35

  Port Talbot/Afan

  85

  341

  —

  —

  426

  Preseli

  316

  400

  —

  —

  716

  Radnor

  70

  150

  —

  —

  220

  Rhondda

  1,185

  2,701

  —

  —

  3,886

  Rhuddlan

  40

  16

  —

  —

  56

  Rhymney Valley

  273

  2,028

  —

  —

  2,301

  South Pembrokeshire

  24

  22

  2

  —

  48

  Swansea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Taff Ely

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Torfaen

  171

  596

  174

  —

  941

  Vale of Glamorgan

  14

  818

  —

  —

  832

  Wrexham Maelor

  35

  175

  —

  —

  210

  Ynys Win

  86

  301

  —

  —

  387

  Wales Total (LA)

  5,041

  17,307

  608

  2

  22,958

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households were recorded on local authority housing waiting lists at a convenient date in each of the last five years in(a) Vale Royal and (b) Chester.

  Mrs. Roe
  The numbers of households on waiting lists at April, and the changes in the previous 12 months, appear in columns B51 and B53, respectively, of the 1986 and 1987 Housing Investment Programme "All items prints", which are available in the Library. Information for earlier years is not available centrally.

  The figures reported by Chester district council in their 1986 return included transfer list cases; excluding these cases, the numbers on the waiting list in 1985 and 1986 were, respectively, 4,940 and 2,962.
  648
  Local authorities' criteria for inclusion of names on the waiting lists are not uniform and the frequency of reviewing the lists varies.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of pensioner couples who will(a) gain and (b) lose as a consequence of the replacement of domestic rates by a community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  On the basis of data contained in the family expenditure survey, I estimate that 0·8 million pensioner couple households would gain from the introduction of the community charge without safety nets and 1 million would lose. On the other hand 80 per cent. of single pensioner households 2 million would gain. On the basis of the 1988–89 rebate arrangements all pensioner couples reliant entirely on the state retirement pension will qualify for an 80 per cent. community charge rebate.
  649
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what additional regulations or advice his Department will produce to ensure that the collection of personal data for use in the community register complies with the terms of the first data protection principle; and whether he will make a statement;

  (2) what additional regulations or advice his Department will produce to ensure that the disclosure of personal data from the community charge register complies with the terms of the third data protection principle; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I am continuing to discuss the implications of the Data Protection Act for the operation of the community charge with the Data Protection Registrar. My right hon. Friend will consider the need for guidance to local authorities and community charge registration officers in due course.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reproduce the information in the tables in annex F to Cmnd. 9714, "Paying for Local Government"(a) for England only and (b) on the decile basis used in his reply of 16 December 1987 to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) Official Report, column 522, in the latter case together with information from the equivalent tables in his Department's note on the relationship between local taxes and income and the distributional impact of the community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  No. I have already given my latest estimates based on 1986–87 information. These replace the estimates based on 1984–85 data as published in Cmnd. 9714 and reflect decisions taken since that time.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated(a) over 18 years and (b) total population in the households and tax units referred to in figures six to 10 of his Department's note on the relationship between local taxes and income and the distributional impact of the community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  Figures 6 to 10 of the note on 13 January are based on a sample of 24,120 households in England and scaled to an adult population for England of 35·2 million. This is consistent with a total population of 47·2 million.

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the text of the letters sent by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in December 1987 to all local planning and waste authorities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Yes. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution sent one letter, in December 1987, to all the authorities referred to; which was on the subject of "Licensing and Control of Landfills Evolving Gas." Copies of the letter have been placed in the Library.

  Right-to-Buy Applications
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many outstanding right-to-buy applications there are at present in Lambeth, Ealing, Tower Hamlets and Westminster; and what proportion of these have been outstanding for more than one year.
  650
  Mrs. Roe
  At the end of November 1987, some 4,882 right-to-buy applications were being dealt with by Tower Hamlets borough council. It is not known how long each application had been outstanding. Regular statistics on the handling of applications by the other councils are not collected because their right-to-buy performance is not formally monitored by the Department.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish the initial results of his Department's English house condition survey 1986; and whether this will be before or after he brings forward legislation to reform the current system of grant aid for home improvements, as proposed in his Department's consultation paper of 5 November 1987.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We hope to publish the results of the 1986 English house condition survey before the summer recess. This will precede legislation to reform the current system of grant aid for home improvements.

  Home Improvements
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his Department's estimate of(a) the number of dwellings which are currently unfit and (b) the number of dwellings which are currently below, target under the standards proposed in his Department's consultation paper on home improvement policy, issued on 5 November 1987; and what is his Department's estimate of the proportion of these dwellings which are (i) publicly and (ii) privately owned;

  (2) what is his Department's estimate of the number of households who would currently qualify for (1) mandatory assistance (a) with the full cost and (b) with part of the cost of eligible work to bring their homes up to fitness and (2) discretionary assistance (a) with the full cost and (b) with part of the cost of eligible work to bring their home up to target, under the standards and the means test proposed in his Department's consultation paper on a new framework for home improvement grant aid, published on 5 November 1987;

  (3) what estimates his Department has prepared of (a) future levels of expenditure and (b) future levels of activity on (i) improvement assistance; (ii) slum clearance; and (iii) group repair of dwellings under the new framework for home improvement policy, proposed in his Department's consultation paper of 5 November 1987.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Firm estimates cannot be made before the results of the 1986 English house condition survey are available. Estimates of grant entitlement, and of future levels of expenditure and activity will also depend on other factors, including the eventual form of the test of applicants' resources, on which the consultation paper invited comments.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish the full results of his Department's distribution of grants inquiry of 1983; and whether this will be before or after he brings forward legislation to reform the current system of grant aid for home improvements, as proposed in his Department's consultation paper of 5 November 1987.
  651
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We plan to publish a further report on the Department's distribution of grant inquiry before legislation to reform the home improvement grant system is brought forward.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest estimate of(a) the rate of deterioration in the state of repair (i) of the publicly-owned housing stock and (ii) of the privately-owned housing stock and (b) the level of expenditure required to prevent any increase in the rate of deterioration in the state of repair (i) of the publicly-owned housing stock and (ii) of the privately-owned housing stock.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The latest estimates of change in the condition of the housing stock are those provided by the 1981 English house condition survey. They show that (i) Between 1976 and 1981 the condition of the publicly-owned housing stock did not change. (ii) Between 1976 and 1981 the proportion of the privately-owned housing stock estimated to require repairs costing more than £7,000 (at 1981 prices) increased from 6·2 per cent. to 7·1 per cent.

  Estimates of the expenditure required to maintain the stock in a steady state are not available.

  North Sea
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now able to issue advice on the action required to follow up the second international conference on the protection of the North sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department has today issued a guidance note to explain the implications of the agreements contained in the ministerial declaration of the second international conference on the protection of the North sea held in London last November. This demonstrates that the Government have moved more quickly than any other North sea country in following up that declaration with proposals for action. The guidance note is directed particularly at the water industry, other public utilities and industrial interests. Several aspects of the follow-up action will also be the subject of further detailed guidance following consultation with the bodies directly concerned.

  I am arranging for copies of the guidance note to be placed in the Library.

  Ordnance Survey (Cash Limit)
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if there are any proposals to change the 1987–88 cash limit and running costs limit for the Ordnance Survey.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class XX, vote 10 will be decreased by £227,000 from £21,420,000 to £21,193,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £1,035,000 from £52,299,000 to £53,334,000. The increase in running costs is required for payments on surveying contracts and for unavoidable VAT payments. There will be an increase in the VAT 652
  refund from Customs and Excise of £245,000. The decrease in the cash limit is due to Ordnance Survey not taking up the end-year flexibility provision of £1,017,000 as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the House on 23 July 1987, Official Report columns 434–38. The balance will be surrendered to the Reserve.

  Rate-capping
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further developments have taken place since his announcement in December 1987 of the proposed limits for rate-capped authorities in 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  Of the 17 rate-capped authorities, three—Manchester, Middlesbrough and Kingston upon Hull—accepted the proposed rate limit within the statutory period. I understand that a further authority, Tower Hamlets, also accepts the limit proposed in December.

  The remaining 13 authorities have not accepted the proposed limit. After considering the representations made by authorities, including proposals from some of them to agree with me an increase in the limit, and having taken into account any other relevant information, I am proposing

  (a) in the case of eight of these authorities—Basildon, Haringey, Lewisham, Waltham Forest, Thamesdown, Newcastle upon Tyne, Lambeth and Liverpool—no increase in the provisional limit;

  (b) in the five other cases a higher limit, on which I am seeking agreement, as follows:

  Hackney 136·00p (12·20p above the proposed limit)

  Southwark 101·00p (2·98p above the proposed limit)

  Camden 117·00p (1·59p above the proposed limit)

  Greenwich 136·00p (10·28p above the proposed limit)

  Ealing 167·00p (41·94p above the proposed limit)

  Where I am unable to reach agreement with an authority on a different limit from the one proposed in December, I am required under the Rates Act to specify the maximum by order.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Alternative Land Use
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to encourage farmers to plant trees as an alternative land use.

  Mr. Gummer
  We propose to introduce a farm woodland scheme later this year following the passage of the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill and the necessary subordinate legislation.

  In addition, the Community set-aside scheme, on which discussions are continuing in the Council of Ministers, is expected to include provision for land taken out of arable crop production to be used for woodland. The consultation document issued by the Agricultural Departments on 8 December 1987 contained suggestions as to how this option might be put into practice in the United Kingdom and linked with the new farm woodland scheme. I and my colleagues will wish to consider the matter further in the light of the Community's final decisions and of views expressed during our own consultation exercise.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he has made regularly to assess the financial state of the fishing industry.

  Mr. Gummer
  The financial state of the industry is kept under regular review through the collection of data on the value and volume of fish landings, imports and exports, vessel numbers, levels of investment and numbers of fishermen. The results of these surveys are published annually by Fisheries Departments in the form of sea fisheries statistical tables.

  "An Extensification Scheme"
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he considers will be the environmental consequences of his recent proposals contained in the consultation document, "An Extensification Scheme".

  Mr. Gummer
  The consultation document suggests that one of the objectives of the scheme should be to foster a changed pattern of land use in the countryside so as to improve conditions for wildlife and to enhance the landscape and the environment generally. My colleagues and I are considering the views expressed on this and other points.

  Farm Effluents
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received seeking the extension of the 60 per cent. grant for farm effluent control and disposal to lowland areas not in less-favoured areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I received some representations from the Farmers Unions, the County Landowners' Association and the Scottish Landowners' Federation during last year's annual review discussions about the need to increase grants for effluent facilities outside the less favoured areas.

  Grants for effluent facilities, which are kept under regular review, are now at the highest level available under the agriculture improvement scheme.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of grants and amounts paid under the agriculture improvement scheme for effluent disposal systems since 1985.

  Mr. Gummer
  Estimated expenditure on effluent handling facilities in the United Kingdom in 1986 was £7·7 million and 1987 £14·2 million. I regret that a detailed breakdown of this expenditure on the lines requested is not yet available.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current level of profitability in the pig industry in(a) England and (b) Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The pigmeat market is weak thoughout the European Community and the United Kingdom. The EC Pigmeat Management Committee,654
  responding to pressure from the United Kingdom and other member states, has recently decided to reintroduce a scheme of aids for private storage. I hope this decision will help to strengthen the market.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in the Official Report the changes that have occurred in United Kingdom pig prices since October 1987.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Monthly average all pigs prices in the United Kingdom since October 1987 have been as follows:

  p/kg deadweight

  October

  97·63

  November

  96·10

  December

  94·11

  January

  190·47

  1 To 23 January only.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider immediate introduction of a low cost private storage scheme for pig producers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Pigmeat Management Committee has decided to reintroduce aids for private storage as from 15 February. This decision was taken as a result of pressure from the United Kingdom and some other member states.

  Pork Processing Units
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list in the Official Report any port processing units in (a) England and (b) Wales which have been closed since 1979, indicating, the location of the unit and the date of closure in each case;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report every existing pork processing unit currently in operation in (a) England and (b) Wales.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  This information is not available.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Resources (Allocation)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to announce the results of his review of the resources allocation working party; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We expect the review's programme of analysis and research to be completed shortly. Any recommendations will then be carefully considered.

  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what measures have been taken by his Department to implement the recommendations of the joint Home Office-Department of Health and Social Security working group of officials chaired by the director of prison medical services on the problems presented by mentally disordered offenders in the prison system in England and Wales;
  655
  (2) what steps have been taken to implement the recommendation in the report of the director of prison medical services on the problems presented by mentally disordered offenders in the prison system in England and Wales that further encouragement should be given to regional health authorities to develop a comprehensive network of provisions to meet mental health care needs in their regions.

  Mr. Newton
  The report has been sent to regional general managers, asking them to bring it to the attention of those in charge of their regions' strategies for mental health. The report was also circulated to the royal colleges and other professional organisations.

  Whenever the opportunity arises, regional health authorities are reminded of the need to provide the comprehensive mental health service referred to in the report, including provision for both those chronically mentally ill people and those mentally handicapped people who may need longer-term secure facilities as described in the then Minister's letter of October 1986 to regional chairmen. This comprehensive service is also a topic which features often in the regional reviews held annually between Ministers and regional health authorities.

  The recommendations in the report aimed at increasing the extent to which mentally disordered offenders are detained other than in prison custody are being taken forward in discussion between Home Office and DHSS officials.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to encourage regular testing for HIV antibody status amongst laboratory workers handling the virus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department with the Health and Safety Executive has already issued guidance that local arrangements should be made to test, or store for future testing, serum from those laboratory staff who request this in connection with their work. The take-up of this facility is entirely voluntary.

  Regular testing would not play any part in further reducing the extremely remote risk of HIV infection by laboratory workers through occupational exposure.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much National Health Service waiting lists have changed in percentage terms between 1979 and the latest available year in(a) the Mersey regional health authority and (b) England.

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

  Number of cases on in-patient waiting list at 31 March

  1979

  1987

  Percentage change 1979–87

  Mersey Region

  41,103

  29,147

  -29·1

  England

  752,422

  687,945

  -8·6

  Dentists (AIDS)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance has been issued to dentists on the sterilisation of drills, brushes, mouth suctions and other equipment, in view of the AIDS epidemic.

  Mr. Newton
  The chief dental officer issued guidance to dentists in April 1986 on the precautions to be exercised when treating HIV positive patients. The guidance indicated simple procedures to ensure that exposure to the virus during the course of dental treatment would be minimised.

  The need for further guidance is kept under regular review.

  NHS Patients (Statistics)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people died as a result of operations in National Health Service hospitals in 1986; and how many of these deaths resulted from(a) surgical error and (b) unnecessary operations.

  Mrs. Currie
  This information is not held centrally. The recent report of the confidential inquiry into peri-operative deaths (CEPOD) looked at deaths in 1986 within 30 days operations. In three regions (Northern, South Western and North East Thames) it was found that the proportion of deaths which were attributable to avoidable surgical or anaesthetic factors was small. The overall death rate following half a million operations was found to be 0·7 per cent. Most of those who died were elderly and death was due to the progression of their illness or to other coexisting disease. One one in 25,000 operations resulted in death which was thought to be due solely to "avoidable surgical or anaesthetic factors", although there were "avoidable elements" in 0·14 per cent. which could have contributed to death. A copy of the CEPOD report has been placed in the Library.

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the average amount currently being paid by an average family of four by way of the annual subscription to private health care schemes; and what are the comparable figures in terms of taxes and charges payable in respect of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  In 1986, the latest year for which United Kingdom data are available, the annual average subscription to private health care schemes per family of four was £468. Gross NHS expenditure for the same year was £1,380 per family of four. However, these figures are not directly comparable. Health Service expenditure includes the family practitioner service as well as care for the mentally ill, mentally handicapped and frail elderly, services not generally covered by private health insurance.

  Macclesfield District Health Authority
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will tabulate the number of cases dealt with by the Macclesfield district health authority for the years 1981 to 1986, in(a) general medicine, (b) paediatrics, (c) geriatric medicine, (d) general surgery, (e) trauma and orthopaedics, (f) neurosurgery,

  657
  (h) gynaecology, (i) obstetrics, (j) special care baby unit, (k) mental handicap, (l) mental illness, (m) general practice other and (n) other specialties.

  Number of patients by selected specialty for Macclesfield District—District Health Authority

  Specialty

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  General medicine

  Discharges and deaths

  1,782

  1,820

  1,901

  2,072

  2,535

  2,400

  Day case attendances

  59

  38

  70

  127

  196

  283

  Out-patient attendances

  9,498

  9,620

  10,218

  9,914

  10,586

  10,488

  Regular day patients

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Paediatrics

  Discharges and deaths

  650

  687

  693

  797

  968

  950

  Day case attendances

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  40

  Out-patient attendances

  4,752

  4,679

  4,961

  4,694

  5,048

  4,398

  Regular day patients

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Geriatrics

  Discharges and deaths

  777

  799

  652

  604

  413

  603

  Day case attendances

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Out-patient attendances

  1,543

  1,595

  1,733

  1,886

  1,869

  1,957

  Regular day patients

  6,333

  6,829

  7,515

  7,999

  6,986

  7,151

  General surgery

  Discharges and deaths

  2,471

  2,230

  2,322

  2,484

  2,737

  3,026

  Day case attendances

  414

  166

  357

  1,256

  1,563

  1,635

  Out-patient attendances

  9,155

  9,041

  8,859

  10,521

  11,597

  11,144

  Regular day patients

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  Discharges and deaths

  1,134

  1,267

  1,448

  1,277

  1,287

  1,275

  Day case attendances

  408

  208

  397

  385

  518

  566

  Out-patient attendances

  14,018

  13,436

  12,052

  13,897

  14,491

  13,777

  Regular day patients

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Neurosurgery

  Discharges and deaths

  43

  40

  65

  98

  63

  53

  Day case attendances

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Out-patient attendances

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Regular day patients

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gynaecology

  Discharges and deaths

  924

  819

  1,027

  1,119

  1,265

  1,421

  Day case attendances

  791

  723

  656

  753

  777

  653

  Out-patient attendances

  5,092

  5,393

  5,413

  5,308

  5,819

  5,550

  Regular day patients

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Obstetrics and GP Mat

  Discharges and deaths

  1,882

  1,594

  1,602

  1,470

  1,548

  1,562

  Day case attendances

  91

  98

  77

  56

  83

  47

  Out-patient attendances

  7,899

  7,363

  7,393

  7,025

  6,831

  7,040

  Regular day patients

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  S.C.B.U.

  Discharges and deaths

  477

  250

  244

  215

  268

  221

  Day case attendances

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Out-patient attendances

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Regular day patients

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mental handicap

  Discharges and deaths

  0

  91

  76

  92

  94

  55

  Day case attendances

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Out-patient attendances

  18

  61

  61

  66

  89

  91

  Regular day patients

  0

  31

  116

  194

  233

  62

  All mental illness

  Discharges and deaths

  789

  736

  767

  773

  917

  1,048

  Day case attendances

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Out-patient attendances

  3,705

  3,876

  4,325

  5,328

  5,297

  6,225

  Regular day patients

  6,827

  13,070

  14,921

  17,078

  23,985

  55,101

  GP other

  Discharges and deaths

  535

  566

  584

  567

  527

  607

  Day case attendances

  4

  7

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Out-patient attendances

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  658
  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table.
  659

  Specialty

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Regular day patients

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All other specialties

  Discharges and deaths

  915

  809

  814

  716

  419

  793

  Day case attendances

  86

  75

  77

  107

  102

  231

  Out-patient attendances

  15,563

  15,995

  16,843

  16,671

  16,891

  18,241

  Regular day patients

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  Discharges and deaths

  12,379

  11,708

  12,195

  12,284

  13,041

  14,014

  Day case attendances

  1,853

  1,315

  1,637

  2,684

  3,245

  3,455

  Out-patient attendances

  71,243

  71,059

  71,858

  75,310

  78,518

  78,911

  Regular day patients

  13,160

  19,930

  22,552

  25,271

  36,204

  62,314

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of babies are born at home in each health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the lightest and lowest cost for deliveries of babies and what is the average cost of deliveries of babies for each health authority in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret the information requested is not available centrally. 1 expect information about the hospital costs of obstetric cases to become available in 1989.

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he next intends to meet the chairman of the North East Thames regional health authority; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mrs. Currie
  Ministers will next meet the chairman of North East Thames regional health authority, together with all regional chairmen, on 16 March. This is one of a series of regular meetings Ministers have with regional chairmen at which current topics affecting the NHS are discussed.

  Single Payments
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide a breakdown for each of the last four years for which figures are available of single payments made from his Department's Blyth and Cramlington office to(a) pensioners, (b) single parents, and (c) long-term unemployed.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested regarding single payments made to single parents and long-term unemployed during the last four years is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, information on the yearly totals of numbers and amounts of payments made to claimants of pension age, to claimants registered as unemployed and to those neither registered unemployed nor of pension age for the years April 1983 to April 1987 by the Department's Blyth local office is given in the table:
  660

  Year April to April

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  11986–87

  Claimants of pension age

  Number

  266

  369

  588

  572

  Amount (£)

  13,737

  20,979

  29,719

  30,333

  Claimants registered unemployed

  Number

  2,348

  3,645

  4,270

  3,232

  Amount (£)

  160,765

  210,233

  288,579

  215,666

  Claimants neither registered unemployed nor of pension age

  Number

  1,803

  2,473

  3,300

  2,675

  Amount (£)

  120,237

  170,575

  250,401

  185,882

  1 The figures for April 1986 to April 1987 are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what procedures are followed when a decision is made to transfer excess accident and emergency services from one district health authority to a neighbouring one.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Community Health Councils Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No. 304) require a district health authority to consult a community health council on proposals to make any substantial variation in the provision of the health service in the council's district. Provision is made for urgent temporary closures to be implemented without consultation. If the hon. Member has a particular instance in mind, perhaps she would like to write to the chairman of the health authority concerned.

  Cervical Cancer
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to improve the provision of cervical cancer screening in the Lewisham and North Southwark health district; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  As a response to our development of screening services, the existing recall system operated by Lewisham and North Southwark health authority will be improved from April 1988 by the implementation of a fully computerised call and recall system for all local women aged between 20 and 65. With a view to reducing waiting times, the health authority is now reviewing its colposcopy service and will consider if extra sessions at Guy's hospital and Lewisham hospital would be helpful.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total sum collected in national insurance contributions for the year 1986–87 and that anticipated for 1987–88; and if he will show it broken down with employees, employers and self-employed contributions.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is as follows:

  Estimated receipts from National Insurance Contributions

  £ million

  Great Britain

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Class 1

  Employees

  11,750

  12,550

  Employers1

  12,450

  13,500

  Self employed (classes 2 and 4)

  700

  750

  Total

  24,900

  26,800

  1 Net of SSP deductions of £750 million in 1986–87, and of SSP and SMP deductions of £950 million in 1987–88.

  The total excludes voluntary class 3 contributions, which yielded £30 million in 1986–87, and an estimated £25 million in 1987–88.

  Bassetlaw Area Health Authority
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether he will make extra money available to the Bassetlaw health authority for the underfunding of pay awards to staff, the additional cost of hiring junior medical locum staff from agencies, new and additional consultant staff posts, an increase of stock levels in certain areas and increased levels of activity in a number of services;

  (2) whether he will make an extra allocation of £700,000 to Bassetlaw area health authority to prevent the closure of wards in Retford and Worksop hospitals

  Average weekly earnings: Male manual workers

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

  Date

  Earnings rule

  Gross

  Net

  Column (2) as a percentage of column (3) Per cent.

  Column (2) as a percentage of column (4) Per cent.

  £

  £

  £

  November 1984

  70·00

  159·60

  108·90

  43·9

  64·3

  November 1985

  75·00

  168·70

  115·60

  44·5

  64·9

  July 1986

  75·00

  176·20

  122·30

  42·6

  61·3

  April 1987

  75·00

  185·50

  131·30

  40·4

  57·1

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to abolish the earnings rule for retirement pensions.

  Mr. Scott
  We do not feel able at present to give this issue priority over other claims on resources.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many couples of pensionable age share a pension book and are not eligible to receive £8 each as an adjustment to their pension following the miscalculation in the retail prices index.
  662
  Mrs. Currie
  Trent regional health authority is responsible for allocating funds to its districts, including Bassetlaw. In December, The Government made available a further £5·8 million to Trent RHA for this financial year. For 1988–89, Trent RHA's revenue allocation will be £1,050 million, an increase of 6·3 per cent. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the regional health authority for details of how these additional sums are to be allocated.

  Earnings Rule
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services at what level of income the earnings rule has operated in respect of retirement pensions in each year from 1984–85.

  Mr. Scott
  The retirement pension earnings rule applies for the first five years after minimum pension age (60 for women and 65 for men). In November 1984 the specified level of earnings net of certain expenses was £70, rising to £75 in November 1985. Pension is reduced on a sliding scale for earnings over the specified level. Entitlement to full basic retirement pension would generally be extinguished when the level of earnings net of expenses reached the amounts shown:

  £

  November 1984

  107·80

  November 1985

  115·30

  July 1986

  115·70

  April 1987

  116·50

  April 1988

  118·14

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the value of the earnings rule for retirement pensions as a percentage of(a) gross and (b) net average earnings for each year since 1984.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Mr. Scott
  It is not possible for a retired couple to have both of their pensions paid on the same order book. In all cases, therefore, each will receive an £8 payment. It is possible for a pensioner to receive an increase to his or her pension in respect of a spouse who has not retired. However, this increase was unaffected by the error in the retail prices index. Such a pensioner's single £8 payment will accordingly fully compensate him or her.

  Health Authorities (Fire Regulations)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for each district health authority the money spent over the previous five years on meeting fire regulations.

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

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice he gives to health authorities about fire regulations; and what information he has about the way in which decisions are made about the amount of money to be spent for this purpose.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department in November 1987 published new and updated guidance to health authorities in "FIRECODE", a comprehensive suite of documents which advise on fire precautions regulations, policy and management as well as giving technical guidance on various building, engineering and equipment fire precautions matters. Health authorities are expected to discuss fire precautions with local fire authorities and to meet the cost of compliance with statutory and other regulations and guidance from within their normal allocations.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps his Department has taken to test the electronic or mechanical efficiency of the telecommunications equipment at the headquarters of the London ambulance service; if he is satisfied with the arrangements made with British Telecom plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Arrangements for the testing of electronic and mechanical efficiency of the telecommunications equipment at the headquarters of the London ambulance service are the responsibility of the South West Thames regional health authority as managers of the service.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what specific allocation of funds he makes to the South West Thames regional health authority in respect of the London ambulance service.

  Mrs. Currie
  No specific figure is identified for the London ambulance service in the allocation of funds made by the Department to the South West Thames regional health authority. However, I understand that the regional health authority has set aside £45 million from its 1988–89 budget for this purpose.

  Postneonatal mortality numbers and rates (per 1,000 livebirths) for he United Kingdom, 1975–86 and also France, Holland, Federal Republic of Germany and Denmark, 1975–84.

  United Kingdom

  France

  Holland

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Denmark

  1975

  Number

  3,575

  3,462

  540

  3,559

  170

  Rate

  5·1

  4·6

  3·0

  5·9

  2·4

  1976

  Number

  3,097

  3,209

  536

  3,327

  190

  Rate

  4·6

  4·5

  3·0

  5·5

  2·9

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to receive the formal report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment into the incidence of leukaemia clusters.

  Mrs. Currie
  COMARE reports from time to time on individual topics within its terms of reference. Its next report will cover the incidence of childhood leukaemia in the vicinity of Dounreay, and is expected to be available before the summer.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of cases of meningitis recorded in the past 12 months(a) in the Wirral as a whole and (b) by individual hospitals in the Wirral; and if he will list the number of deaths from meningitis (i) in the Wirral and (ii) by individual hospitals in the Wirral.

  Mrs. Currie
  Mortality data for 1987 are still being processed: during 1986, meningococcal infection (ICD 9 036) was mentioned on the death certificates of four usual residents of Wirral county district. Of these one was meningococcal meningitis (ICD 036.0). Mortality data at hospital level are not released for reasons of confidentiality.

  In 1986, there were 30 notifications of acute meningitis from Wirral county district. Of these, 17 were meningococcal meningitis. The figures for 1987 were 28 and 21, respectively. Hospital data are not collected on the infectious disease notification form.

  Infant Mortality
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to investigate possible reasons for the rise in infant mortality in England and Wales in 1986.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) on 26 January 1988 at column 219.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many post neonatal deaths there have been in the United Kingdom; and what are the comparable figures for(a) France, (b) Holland, (c) the Federal Republic of Germany and (d) Denmark, in each year since 1975.

  Mrs. Currie
  The latest available data are shown in the table.
  665

  United Kingdom

  France

  Holland

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Denmark

  1977

  Number

  3,028

  3,039

  509

  3,034

  185

  Rate

  4·6

  4·1

  2·9

  5·2

  3·0

  1978

  Number

  3,102

  2,954

  528

  3,147

  180

  Rate

  4·5

  4·0

  3·0

  5·5

  2·9

  1979

  Number

  3,358

  3,211

  491

  2,840

  184

  Rate

  4·6

  4·2

  2·8

  4·9

  3·1

  1980

  Number

  3,325

  3,407

  532

  2,956

  166

  Rate

  4·4

  4·3

  2·9

  4·8

  2·9

  1981

  Number

  3,324

  3,398

  510

  2,899

  156

  Rate

  4·4

  4·2

  2·9

  4·6

  2·9

  1982

  Number

  3,290

  3,351

  543

  2,848

  180

  Rate

  4·6

  4·2

  3·2

  4·6

  3·4

  1983

  Number

  3,096

  3,091

  528

  2,612

  158

  Rate

  4·3

  4·1

  3·1

  4·4

  3·1

  1984

  Number

  2,854

  2,702

  559

  2,422

  156

  Rate

  3·9

  3·6

  3·2

  4·1

  3·0

  1985

  Number

  2,980

  2,856

  542

  2,337

  173

  Rate

  4·0

  3·7

  3·0

  4·0

  3·2

  1986

  Number

  3,179

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Rate

  4·2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Postneonatal mortality: deaths at ages 28 days and over but under one year.

  Sources:

  World Health Statistics, 1986.

  Annual Abstract of Statistics, 1987.

  Eurostat Demographic Statistics, 1987.

  n/a = Not available.

DEFENCE

  British Army Equipment Exhibition
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, to show his support for the work of the third United Nations special session on disarmament due to be held in June, he will cancel the British Army equipment exhibition planned for Aldershot from 27 June to 1 July.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. The British Army equipment exhibition has no relevance to the United Nations special session on disarmament. The United Kingdom remains firmly committed to seeking arms control agreements which are both balanced and verifiable.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the implementation of decisions or recommendations taken at Montebello in November 1983 or Luxembourg in March 1985 by the NATO planning group will lead to an increase in(a) the number of nuclear warheads available for use by NATO from western
  666
  Europe, (b) the total nuclear fire power of NATO available for use from locations in western Europe, (c) the number of air-launched or sea-launched or similar nuclear weapons available for use from western Europe, to a level in excess of that available (i) before and (ii) after implementation of the intermediate nuclear forces agreement 1987;

  (2) whether the implementations of improvements submitted by SACEUR and approved for implementation at th nuclear planning group meetings in 1985 will lead to any increase in the number of air or sea-launched missiles deployed in western Europe, including the United Kingdom, to a level greater than that which existed prior to the recent intermediate nuclear forces agreement;

  (3) whether he will make a statement as to the effect of the Montebello 1983 NATO planning group's recommendation and decisions on the modernisation of nuclear weapons on the present numbers of nuclear weapons deployed.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  At their meeting in Montebello in 1983, NATO Defence Ministers agreed both to a reduction by 1,400 warheads of the Alliance's land-based nuclear stockpile in Europe and on the need for possible
  667
  improvements to ensure the continuing effectiveness, responsiveness and survivability of remaining systems. SACEUR's detailed proposals for implementing the Montebello decision, which he submitted to the nuclear planning group in 1985, are confidential. The INF agreement, when implemented, will lead to a further reduction in the stockpile.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what reductions and increases in nuclear deployment in the report of the NATO high level group were approved by NATO Ministers prior to the publication of the 1984 Defence Estimates;

  (2) which proposals from the NATO high level group were endorsed at the Montebello NATO planning group conference in 1983.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the communiqué issued following the ministerial meeting of the nuclear planning group at Montebello in 1983, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all the decisions and recommendations taken at the 1983 Montebello NATO planning group conference, as they affect the United Kingdom, were known to all the parties during the course of the recent intermediate nuclear forces negotiations, which led to an agreement on a reduction in nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The proceedings of NATO's nuclear planning group are confidential. However, a very full official communiqué was issued at the end of the ministerial meeting of the group at Montebello in 1983. I assume the contents of this were known to the parties involved in the INF negotiations.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will name those British officials who are members of the NATO nuclear high level planning group.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) to the hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) on 8 May 1987 at column 556. It is not our practice to name individual officials involved in specific activities of this kind.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recommendations or decisions taken by the Montebello NATO planning group conference he does not intend to implement in relation to the modernisation of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  SACEUR's recommendations for implementing the agreement by NATO Defence Ministers at Montebello in 1983 to a reduction in the Alliance's land-based nuclear stockpile in Europe and on the need for improvements in its effectiveness were submitted to the meeting of the nuclear planning group in Luxembourg in 1985. As regards the modernisation recommendations addressed to the United Kingdom, no decisions have been taken.

  RAF Stornoway
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the calculation of the current noise contour maps around RAF Stornoway took into account run-and-break manoeuvres by incoming aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. However, run-and-break manoeuvres will be taken into account in the forthcoming noise survey at RAF Stornoway if this is practicable.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the calculation of the current noise contour maps around RAF Stornoway took into account the noise of aircraft on the ground.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes. The current noise contours for RAF Stornoway take into account all noise from aircraft operations, including noise emitted by aircraft prior to take-off and after landing. Noise from ground engine running is not included, but the forthcoming noise survey will take this into account if practicable.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications to the Airnoise I aircraft noise model were made in mapping the noise contours around RAF Stornoway.

  Mr. Freeman
  Two major modifications have been made to the original Airnoise I computer model which formed the basis of the predicted noise contour used for the 1981 public inquiry at Stornoway. The current contour based on the Airnoise II model incorporates a bend to the north-east of the airfield reflecting the fact that militry aircraft taking-off fly over the sea in order to avoid the villages of Tong and Coll. The current contour is also slightly narrower because more reliable source data, derived from actual measurements of the RAF Phantom and Tornado aircraft, and more sophisticated computation methods, incorporating allowances for sound transmission through the atmosphere and close to the ground surface, have been used. These modifications are in line with internationally agreed criteria.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the aircraft types whose source noise and operational flight profiles are held in the data bank for(a) the Airnoise I aircraft noise model and (b) the Airnoise II aircraft noise model.

  Mr. Freeman
  All the aircraft types used for the Airnoise computer models are listed in a report called "External noise of MOD military aircraft", a copy of which is in the Library. At RAF Stornoway, the noise source data and operational flight profiles for the Phantom and Tornado aircraft have been used to produce the predicted noise contours.

  Royal Artillery Range, Hebrides
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what is the purpose of the volumatic disintegrator to be installed on the royal artillery range, Hebrides.

  Mr. Freeman
  A "volumatic disintegrator" — a large paper shredding machine — has been installed on the Royal Artillery ranges Hebrides since 1981.

  Nimrod (Search and Rescue)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will consider the privatisation of Nimrod aircraft tasked in the SAR role.

  Mr. Freeman
  No.

  Pilots
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pilots left the Royal Air Force in 1987 without completing their engagements.

  Mr. Freeman
  The numbers of pilots who left the RAF in 1987 without completing their engagements are as follows:

  Number

  Through premature voluntary retirement

  74

  At a recognised optional exit point

  65

  Other exits (medical, death, disciplinary etc.)

  11

  Total

  150

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pilots left the Royal Air Force in 1987 or have expressed a desire to leave the service.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of pilots who left the RAF in 1987 was 224. The number of pilots who in 1987 expressed a desire to leave the service was 232.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pilots have expressed a desire to leave the Royal Air Force without completing their engagement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The numbers of pilots who in 1987 expressed a desire to leave the RAF without completing their engagements are as follows:

  Number

  Through premature voluntary retirement

  88

  At a recognised optional exit point

  119

  Total

  207

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current cost of training a fast jet pilot for the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Freeman
  The average cost to the Ministry of Defence of training a student pilot to the point when he joins an operational fast jet squadron is approximately £3 million at current prices.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many servicemen entered the Royal Air Force college Cranwell to train as pilots in 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  Two hundred and forty-eight.

  Navigators
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current cost of training a fast jet navigator for the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Freeman
  The average cost to the Ministry of Defence of training a student navigator to the point when he joins an operational fast jet squadron is approximately £1 million at current prices.
  670
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many servicemen entered the Royal Air Force college Cranwell to train as navigators in 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  Eighty-five.

  RAF Brawdy (Rescues)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by category the number of rescue sorties carried out by the search and rescue detachment at RAF Brawdy, Pembrokeshire, in 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1987, a total of 70 search and rescue sorties were carried out by helicopters based at RAF Brawdy, resulting in the following numbers of persons being recovered:

  Military

  Civilian

  Total

  3

  19

  262

  74

  1 Category includes merchant seamen and civilians on passenger vessels for example, ferries.

  2 Other civilians, including fishermen, pleasure craft and those rescued on land.

  Cash Limits
  Mrs. Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he proposes to make any changes to the defence cash limits for 1987–88.

  Mr. Younger
  Yes. The following changes are being made, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary spring Supplementary Estimates.

  £'000s

  Class and vote

  Current cash limit

  Increase/decrease

  Revised cash limit

  I, 1

  7,257,411

  +162,048

  transferred from I, 2

  7,419,459

  I, 2

  9,152,897

  -259,048

  transferred to I, 1 and to I, 4

  8,893,849

  I, 4

  1,478,330

  +97,000

  transferred from I, 2

  1,575,330

  These changes allow for transfers within the Ministry of Defence's block cash limit, to reflect the expected pattern of expenditure. The changes have no net effect on public expenditure.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Blood
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the proportion and number of adults in Northern Ireland that would be suitable for blood donation.

  Mr. Needham
  About 75 per cent. of adults eligible (only adults in the 18 to 64 age group are considered eligible for blood donation); some 670,500 people.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion and number of suitable adults give blood in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not available in the form requested. Approximately 65,000 donations are collected each year which represents roughly one in 10 from suitable adults.
  671
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion and number of suitable adults are needed to give blood to make Northern Ireland self-sufficient in blood-derived products.

  Mr. Needham
  Northern Ireland is self-sufficient apart from the blood product albumen. An increase in blood donations of about 10 per cent. — 6,500 — would be required to attain total self-sufficiency.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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 Northern Ireland self-sufficient; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The Northern Ireland blood transfusion service already collects blood at four-monthly intervals from male donors. The service is striving to achieve total self-sufficiency through its programmes to increase both the number of donations and the plasma yield from donations.

  Cervical Cancer
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance he has issued to health and social services boards to ensure that the current backlog of cervical cancer tests is cleared; whether he intends to issue to boards in Northern Ireland DHSS Health Circular HC (88)I on health services management of cervical cancer screening; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of Health and Social Services is in regular contact with the health and social services boards over ways of increasing the rate of processing cervical smear tests. The backlog of tests has been reduced by 30 per cent. over the past two months. A Northern Ireland circular comparable to HC (88)I is being prepared and will be issued shortly.

  Cash Limits
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the cash limits for the Northern Ireland Office and for Northern Ireland Departmental Services for 1987–88.

  Mr. Stanley
  Subject to parliamentary approval to the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for the Northern Ireland Office — class XVIII, vote 1 — for 1987–88 is being increased by £32,203,000 from £512,405,000 to £544,608,000 to cover increased requirements for expenditure on law, order, protective and miscellaneous services. The increase is mainly due to higher than anticipated police activity levels, prison officers' overtime costs, and rent allowance payments for police and prison officers, expansion of the police capital works programme and an increase in the level of criminal damage compensation claim settlements, partly offset by savings arising from slippage in various capital works programmes.

  This increase is partly covered by a decrease of £22·6 million in the cash limit for Northern Ireland departmental services, NIDI, from £2,447·8 million to £2,425·2 million: this reflects emerging savings in that
  672
  sector. The balance of £9·6 million is being met from the Reserve and there is therefore no increase in total public expenditure.

  In addition, the Northern Ireland public expenditure total for 1987–88 has been increased by £2·1 million for health and personal social services, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health on 16 December, at columns 1093–1106, and by £1·7 million in respect of the costs to Northern Ireland Departments of the weather damage in October. These are also being met from the Reserve and do not increase total public expenditure, I do not propose to increase NIDI correspondingly.

  Hospital Beds
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Belfast, South on 22 January,Official Report, column 875, whether he will instruct health boards to collect information about beds available at both 12 noon and 12 midnight; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  It is considered that the recording of bed availability by the midnight count is sufficient to meet all planning requirements. It is not proposed to introduce an additional daily bed count at noon.

  Glaucoma
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland in the last three years for which figures are available have been given free eyesight tests and free dental examinations; and how many cases of glaucoma have been diagnosed in Northern Ireland over that period.

  Mr. Needham
  Figures are not kept which identify the number of people who receive free sight tests and dental examinations but the number of tests carried out in Northern Ireland in each category over the last three years was:

  Sight tests

  Dental examinations

  1985

  219,259

  780,463

  1986

  226,080

  801,202

  1987

  240,660

  817,723

  The number of glaucoma cases diagnosed is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Cost Limits
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the 1987–88 running cost limit for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments.

  Mr. Stanley
  I have reviewed the running cost requirements for Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office for 1987–88 and I have agreed that the running cost limit should be increased by £4·187 million from £476·762 million, which I announced on 23 July 1987, to £480·949 million. This mainly reflects additional requirements for prisons and social security. It includes also provision for additional costs to Northern Ireland Departments of administering certain programmes on behalf of the International Fund for Ireland, and a
  673
  transfer of £80,000 from the Department of Transport to the Department of the Environment (NI) in respect of vehicle licensing. The necessary resources will be found from within existing public expenditure provision or, in the case of the international fund, receipts.

  Republic of Ireland (Extradition)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects further applications for extradition to be made in respect of persons believed living in the Irish Republic where the persons sought are wanted in respect of(a) terrorist offences and (b) other offences.

  Mr. Stanley
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary continues to give consideration to possible extradition cases involving both terrorist and non-terrorist offences. As I said in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 10 November, at column 166, it is not the practice to give details of possible individual extradition cases.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the applications for extradition from the Irish Republic made between 1 December 1987 and 14 December 1987 were for terrorist offences.

  Mr. Stanley
  All three.

  Dog-licensing Law
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to bring Northern Ireland dog-licensing law into line with the law in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  No. Requirement for dog control in Northern Ireland are separate from those which exist in Great Britain. The present dog-licensing arrangements in Northern Ireland are part of control measures introduced after extensive discussion with local interests to meet Northern Ireland requirements.

  Salmon (Tagging)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the proposals by the Government of the Irish Republic to introduce a system of tagging salmon will apply in any part of the area covered by the Foyle Fisheries Commission.
  674
  Mr. Viggers
  The Government of the Republic of Ireland have not made any proposals to introduce a salmon-tagging scheme and speculation on the application of a salmon-tagging scheme in any part of the Foyle area would be premature.

  Housing Executive (Contracts)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show what sums have been paid to date in respect of loss and expense claims by contractors made in respect of Housing Executive contracts let in the financial years 1978–79 to 1987–88, relating to (a) legal costs, (b) professional advisers costs, (c) Housing Executive staff time costs, (d) interest charges and (e) capital sums; and if he will show under each heading what sums relate to measurable and evaluated items, and which sums arose under contractual claims;

  (2) if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show the sums recovered from and the claims outstanding against contractors by the Housing Executive in respect of contracts having been let in the financial years from 1978–79 to 1987–88;

  (3) if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing what sums have been paid to date for loss and expense by contractors and how many claims and for what sums are still not settled, in respect of Housing Executive contracts let in each financial year 1978–79 to 1987–88, for (a) new build, (b) rehabilitation work and (c) other capital expenditure.

  Mr. Needham
  These are matters for the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive who has informed me that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing, for each district of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board, the number of people on waiting lists for each specialty for the last five years for which figures are available, giving a breakdown of the total waiting list by time spent on list.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 28 January 1988]: Since the answer is in lengthy tabular form, I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

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.
Viscount Weir—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Bank of England Note Issue
Lord Stodart of Leaston: 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 plans are being made to issue a new £5 note.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Bank of England is constantly reviewing its note issue in the light of developments in security printing and in note handling. A modified version of the £5 note, with a 1mm wide embedded thread, was first issued in July 1987. Any further changes will, as usual be preceded by adequate notice to all parties.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but does he agree that there has been in past years a tendency to reduce the size of bank notes? Is he aware that there is some anxiety, which has already been expressed in Scotland, that a reduction in the size of the £5 note might coincide with the Scottish £1 note, the size of which is extremely popular north of the Border? Can my noble friend persuade the Governor of the Bank of England to take note of this? As a token of the increased prosperity of the nation does he not consider that it would be an admirable move for us to return to those £5 and £10 white notes of blessed memory?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will understand when I say that I am more concerned that the value of a £5 note should not be reduced rather than its actual size. Not long ago I returned from the United States of America where I noticed that all hank notes were of the same size. That does not seem to have harmed that country over the past decades. However, I shall pass on my noble friend's comments to the Governor of the Bank of England.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while giving general consideration to all the currency in domestic circulation, will the noble Lord bear in mind the experiences of our American cousins, which indicate that they much prefer to carry wads of notes than pockets full of metal? Will he therefore consider favourably the reintroduction of notes of a denomination lower than £5?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe that the £1 coin has now received wide acceptance within the country and that it would perhaps not be too sensible to go back to producing £1 notes. The existing £5 note has a life of some nine months. It seems to me that if we were to return to the £1 note the cost would begin to outweigh any benefit.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the Secretary of State please tell me whether the Government are considering and studying the production of the kind of paper money which is now being produced in Australia? It is not exactly paper but rather a kind of plastic money.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I cannot tell your Lordships whether we have been studying the kind of notes produced in Australia, but we have been paying considerable attention to what other countries have been doing. Holland has been experimenting with plastic coated notes. There may well be something in the notion that changing the quality of the paper might prolong the life of the notes a little. However, the present feeling is that such a cost would be disproportionate to the benefits obtained.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that in paying a taxi driver by modern lamplight it is often difficult to distinguish between the colours of a £5 note and a £10 note? Would it not therefore be better to have different sized notes?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the last time I saw a £10 note it was a different size.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the Minister accept that in the experience of many of us a £5 note lasts five minutes?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is not for me to comment on the noble Lord's spending habits.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the £1 coin is not very common currency in Scotland, where people prefer the £1 note?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have long been aware that Scotland is indeed a different land.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the endeavour to match a static coinage to a dynamic currency is a quagmire in which much scar tissue will be generated, because whatever one does is wrong?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I can certainly tell the noble Earl that that is a quagmire into which I shall not descend.

Tank Accident, Berlin, 1983
2.40 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley: 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 the situation is with regard to compensation for the horrific injuries sustained by Major J. T. D. McCarthy-Morrogh and Lance-Corporal Johnston (J), Royal Irish Rangers, in the accident in Berlin on the night of May 16th 1983, bearing in mind that the French tank crew were found negligent by the judge.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, as my noble friend knows, there has been some welcome progress in this case recently. We greatly look forward to an early and satisfactory settlement.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for that Answer, which is much more satisfactory than it might have been a fortnight ago. Would it be possible for him to elaborate just a little more?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe my noble friend is aware of the progress to which I referred. There has been a development with regard to the Appeal Court in France, which has indicated that liability does indeed lie with the French personnel involved. That being so, I can only hope now for a satisfactory outcome, as I said in the original Answer.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are very grateful to the noble Earl for bringing the details of this horrendous case to the attention of the House and that we share his concern about the long delay? Is he also aware that the whole House would wish to see a satisfactory settlement to what has been a very sad and very long-lasting case?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I entirely agree that it has been a long and sad case. That is why it has attracted so much ministerial attention. Indeed, it was rather more than two years ago that my right honourable friend the then Minister of Foreign Affairs and I called the French ambassador to discuss the matter. Since then, it has been taken forward with ministerial support.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, can my noble friend report on any explanations given by the French authorities concerning the intolerable delay?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the delay to which my noble friend refers has been the result of the workings of the French legal system. Our own legal system is sometimes not above criticism as regards the time which is taken to reach conclusions. Therefore, I am not sure that it would be entirely appropriate for me to criticise another country's legal system.

Hole-in-Heart Operations: Statistics
2.45 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 how many hole-in-heart operations were carried out in the United Kingdom during the year 1960, and how many were carried out in the last year for which figures are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, I regret that information is not available centrally in precisely the form requested. Statistics on the number of open congenital heart operations (which include hole in the heart operations) have been collected for the United Kingdom by the Society of Cardiac Surgeons for the years 1977 to 1985. The total number of open congenital operations was 2,105 in 1977 of which 275 were on babies under one year old. In 1985 the total was 2,044 of which 469 involved patients less than one year old.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply indicating that only recent records are available. Advances in surgery and technology in such fields (which in this case require specially trained nurses) were not known in the early days of the National Health Service. Should there not be some restructuring of the service other than financial restructuring?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. I agree with my noble friend. So far as concerns the structure of the health service, we now have nine supra-regional centres for cardiac operations which are funded directly by the department. That means that we are able to put money directly where the care is needed.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the NHS is a victim of its own success? Should there not indeed be a restructuring of the health service of today, not necessarily in terms of money and manpower but rather in terms of a whole new outlook, particularly with regard to regional authorities?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in my position one can hardly fail to be aware that there is a great deal of discussion going on in this country at the moment as to the future organisation and funding of the NHS. An internal ministerial review is being conducted. Any opinions which your Lordships express will be most gratefully received.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, reverting to the original Answer given by my noble friend, has he any information relating to the success rate in the two age groups to which he referred in terms of survival for more than 12 months?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I regret that I do not have that information. If it is possible to obtain it, I shall write to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister agree that something must be done speedily to stop the situation where British babies die while they are in the queue waiting for hole in the heart operations? We read in our newspapers about this with a feeling of poignancy and sadness. That would not have occurred many years ago because of the efficiency of the NHS. The subject causes great concern not only to the parents of the children involved but also to many people all over the country. They read that in the country which created the National Health Service, babies are dying for the want of hole in the heart operations. The babies have to wait for such a long time in the queue for hole in the heart operations.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it has already been pointed out to the House this afternoon that we are conducting specialist operations on babies which could not have been conducted at all many years ago. As regards babies who have the operation or who are in the queue, as the noble Lord puts it, we have no evidence that delays are causing deaths.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the breakthrough in that life-saving surgery came in about 1964, and that, if carried out in time, that remarkable operation seems to have a success rate of between 90 and 95 per cent.? Can he also confirm that there is now evidence that resource considerations are causing some delays which are disturbing to those involved in that form of cardiac surgery?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, so far as concerns the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I can do no better than to send him a copy of the letter which I shall, if possible, be sending to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. Regarding the second part of his question, I accept—as I have on several occasions in your Lordships' House—that there is a lack of intensive care paediatric nurses in particular. The Government are seeking to deal with that matter in various ways.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the answer he gave me earlier will be totally unacceptable to the British Medical Association and to the specialist surgeons who claim that the delays have gravely threatened the lives of children waiting for hole in the heart operations? Is he prepared to accept the views of the British Medical Association and the specialist surgeons? Will he see if the situation can be improved?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, of course we all want the situation to be improved; but I do not think that that is the point. To pick an obvious recent example, in the case of David Barber, the coroner said that David died of natural causes and that a lack of nursing staff or the delay in his operation were not factors in his death.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, with reference to the first supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, perhaps I may ask this question. Does my noble friend agree regarding waiting lists that there were no waiting lists for these operations some years ago because these operations had not been invented? As regards hip operations (which was the subject of Monday's questions) sufferers simply had to go on suffering. We all expect everybody to be able to have such operations under the National Health Service; but that was not the position 30 years ago.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right and underlines the point that I tried to explain to the House in my first answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? In view of the fact that for some considerable time it has been known that there would be a shortage of paediatric intensive care nurses, did the noble Lord receive early last year any submissions from regional health authorities to increase funding so that nurses could be trained for that purpose?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, not to my knowledge; but I am aware that in the West Midlands Regional Health Authority there is a new course for paediatric nurses which is expected to start in the very near future.

Disabled People: Benefit Rates
2.52 p.m.
Lord Carter: 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 when they propose to announce details of the scheme to help people disabled after April 1988 who, in the absence of a scheme, will receive lower rates of benefit than those disabled before April 1988.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as the Government have consistently made clear, they are determined that this very small group of people who will become severely disabled after 11th April 1988 will not be disadvantaged as a result of the social security reforms. Work is continuing, with the help of the voluntary sector, on an interim scheme to assist them to live independently. Details will be announced at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree that the figure of 250 people that he has quoted previously at the Dispatch Box excludes the people who have to go to hospital, lose their transitional protection and effectively then become newly disabled at the lower rate and the disabled person whose partner leaves or dies so effectively becoming newly disabled and receiving the benefit at the lower rate? The number at risk of having their benefits reduced after April 1988 is

1075
therefore much greater and more than the 250 that he has quoted. Does the Minister also not agree that a number of voluntary organisations approached about the interim scheme have expressed some grave reservations about its operation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised two very different points. I can confirm that if there is a break in the benefit of longer than eight weeks, a new benefit rate will pertain. However, if it is shorter than that, the old benefit rate will be reinstated.
As to the figure, it derives from a sample of supplementary benefit cases taken in February 1986 and represents the number of people of all ages receiving domestic assistance additions of more than £20 a week. However, for this group the sample is very small, and the figure simply indicates we are talking of hundreds rather than thousands. I should also like to make the point that this figure will be cumulative from 11th April onwards.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, instead of passing legislation to disadvantage such disabled people and then setting up a voluntary scheme to try to put things right, would it not be simpler to amend the Social Security Bill which goes into Committee next week? There might be helpfulness in all parts of the House if this could be put right on a statutory basis and not by setting up some separate ad hoc organisation.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, clearly, there is need for a long-term solution. I would not disagree with the noble Baroness on that. We are determined to get a long-term solution, but this cannot be achieved until we have the results of the OPCS study on the nature and scale of severe disability and can couple it with Sir Roy Griffiths's report on his overview of care in the community. What we need now, of course, is a temporary scheme. I do not know when or whether your Lordships will pass the Social Security Bill, but I suspect that it will not happen speedily enough. Having said that, why do we not introduce legislation on this point? We have been advised that we have the existing powers and therefore that we do not need to do so.
Lord Peston: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to clarify his Answer? Is he saying that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that it is not their intention that those disabled after April 1988 will lose compared with those disabled before then, and that they will guarantee one way or another that no disadvantage will result? Does he mean that it is purely a matter or technique and that if one technique fails, the Government will find another one? Is that how we are to understand the Minister's remarks?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is absolutely right.
Lord Banks: My Lords, will the Government consider the possibility of adding a supplement to attendance allowance for the very severely disabled unable to live alone?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that has been considered in the past and rejected. There are already two premia for disabled persons and since one of the main aims of the new scheme is simplification, I do not think that adding another premium would be helpful.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that when he answered my supplementary question, by implication he admitted a larger number than 250 who stand to lose benefit in the categories that I mentioned? Does he also not agree that the department was told in April 1985, when the White Paper on social security was first produced, that this problem would arise? The risk starts on 11th April, which is only two months away. The Government are still talking about an interim scheme and are still in discussion with voluntary organisations which, as I said, have expressed very grave reservations on that scheme and have declined to take any part in its administration.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, so far as I am aware the disability organisations have not declined to take part in this scheme. As regards reactions to the White Paper, it was a little previous, I suggest, to react to the document when details of the scheme were not contained in it.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, when, according to the Government's estimate, so few people are affected, will the noble Lord explain why the Government have sought to neglect the very people who need our help most?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if we were seeking to neglect them we should not be endeavouring with great urgency to find a scheme to help them. I must point out that these people do not yet exist. We are talking about those newly disabled after 11th April.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, after the end of the short debate on the World Summit of Ministers of Health on AIDS and before the short debate on the case for more rapid progress towards the completion of the internal market of the EC by 1992, my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Crown Suppliers.
With the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two short debates which stand in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Ezra. It is customary in short debates that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 12 minutes and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to eight minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, it would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate.

Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

AIDS: World Health Summit
2.59 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock rose to call attention to the World Summit of Ministers of Health on AIDS and to the current situation in the United Kingdom with particular reference to Cmnd. 297, Problems Associated with AIDS; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, AIDS has penetrated into so many corners of our national life that inevitably in the time allowed for a short debate I shall have to omit some topics which I hope that other noble Lords will take up. Among them are some that are close to my heart, such as basic research; haemophiliacs and whether the Government's grant to them will be enough; and the London Lighthouse. I cannot let this occasion pass without paying my personal tribute to Ian McKellen, who, after a seven-week run of his one-man show "Acting Shakespeare", has contributed single-handed almost £½ million to the completion of that project. That is a fantastic achievement, as I am sure all your Lordships will agree. I am certain too that we are all looking forward with great expectation to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate.
Your Lordships will be aware of the International Conference of Ministers of Health on Aids Prevention which took place recently in London, jointly sponsored by the World Health Organisation and the British Government. The final statement declared that AIDS poses a global threat to humanity and that urgent action is needed by governments and people all over the world to prevent its spread. It warned, significantly, that public health would be undermined if discrimination against and stigmatisation of people with AIDS was not avoided, a point to which I shall return.
During the conference some of us in your Lordships' House, together with some Members of another place, had the opportunity to meet the Health Ministers, or their representatives, of France, Canada, Uganda and the Bahamas, all countries with a higher rate of AIDS cases per head of the population than ourselves. All those countries expressed considerable respect for the British handling of the disease to date. But there were some reservations and those sprang in part from their detection of a certain loss of impetus in our campaign, particularly on television.
This coincides with a slightly uneasy feeling I have had that we have not quite recovered the sense of urgency about AIDS which we had before the general election. This may be something to do with a new Secretary of State getting into his stride. I think Mr. Fowler gave real leadership on dealing with AIDS and I have no doubt that his successor will follow suit in due course. But the message from our foreign friends, which I endorse, is that what we have done
1078
we have done well but we have not yet done enough and certainly cannot afford even the briefest flirtation with complacency.
One feature of virtually all other countries' approach to AIDS is that they have a national coordinating committee. I suggested such a body in an article in The Times a little over a year ago but it did not find favour. The French call theirs a Committee of Reflection. Its job is to advise the leading Minister. Its members include scientists, specialists in ethics, education, communication and leisure, and also representatives from industry, insurance companies and the Churches. Perhaps it is not surprising that the French should want to have a national plan. That is the way they do things and by nature we are suspicious of grand national plans. But if one is fighting a war, as we are, it is sensible to have a strategy.
The Select Committee on Social Services of another place has recommended such a body, but this suggestion was rejected by the Government in their response on the grounds that the present arrangements are working adequately. I am not sure that that is wise and I think it smacks a little of complacency. I am not reflecting adversely on the AIDS unit of the DHSS, which does an excellent job with a tiny staff, or on the Chief Medical Officer, who deserves our gratitude for his cool head, wise advice and constant vigilance. What I am saying is that we need a strategic body, which we do not have.
Before the election there was a Cabinet Committee headed by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, but this was an extremely shadowy body to the general public and its very existence was sometimes denied. I see from the press that it is now to be headed by Mr. Moore, who seems the obvious choice. But would it not be better if we had something that was more out in the open with known and named members and a defined role? I believe that public confidence would be much increased in this way and I shall be interested in the noble Lord's comments on the proposal.
All the countries represented at the international conference were agreed that education and counselling are at present far the most powerful weapons we have against AIDS. But information, however efficiently disseminated, is not enough. Professor Alain Pompidou, the French national coordinator, warned that being informed does not mean knowing, that being aware does not mean taking steps and that deciding does not necessarily mean doing.
I turn again to Cmnd. 297, Problems Associated With AIDS, which is also mentioned in my Motion. As it is a response to the Third Report of the Social Services Committee of the House of Commons of the last Session of Parliament, it will no doubt be debated in detail in the other place. I just want to refer to one or two of its paragraphs.
In the part devoted to education and prevention, there are a number of references to the Health Education Authority. I have not the time to discuss the authority's remit in any detail, but can the noble Lord say how far it extends into schools? The Government appear to be committed to providing educational material on AIDS and sexual behaviour

1079
for young people through collaboration between the Department of Education and Science and the Health Education Authority. But paragraph 3.35 tells us:
"Under the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 it is now the responsibility of individual governing bodies in England and Wales to decide whether and, if so, how sex education is provided in schools. The Government trusts that, in determining their policy in this area, governors will take note of the Committee's recommendations".
I seriously doubt whether this very mild exhortation is sufficient. If we also take into account the tight curricular framework proposed in the Education Reform Bill, it seems to me that anything like the French video campaign to all secondary schools might well be impossible under English law. Can the noble Lord offer me any encouragement here? If not, I shall certainly feel obliged to raise the matter again when the Education Reform Bill comes before the House.
It is impossible to speak about education without referring to counselling. You can produce all the material in the world—written, visual or audiovisual—but it is useless if awareness campaigns are not backed up by trained personnel in advice centres, information outlets and so on. In Britain we have only just begun to wake up to the need for trained counsellors. Without the voluntary sector we would virtually have none at all. We are a long way behind comparable countries in this respect.
In paragraph 4.2 of the Government's response to the House of Commons report, we read that the Government:
"has funded regional workshops for senior community nurses and has awarded 13 AIDS fellowships worth £3,000 each".
This is peanuts compared with the French initiative under which more than 20 programmes are in operation with almost 2,000 trainees, consisting of paramedics, other health workers and social workers. Incidentally we learn from M. Pompidou that France has 150,000 social workers, a figure that will, I think, bring envy to the otherwise blameless heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. A sizeable contingent of them is participating in the training programmes I have indicated. Can the noble Lord say anything on the training of British social workers in the field of AIDS?
Apart from lack of funds, I still suspect that a threat to AIDS counselling lurks in the heart of Clause 28 of the Local Government Bill. I raised this point yesterday in the debate on clause stand part. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, gave some rather generalised assurances in his reply which I want to study further. So this is something I shall probably want to pursue at the next stage of that Bill.
I turn to the scale of the threat. Approximately 75,000 people have AIDS at present and that number is expected to double to 150,000 this year world-wide. By the year 2000, it is suggested in a recent book, there could be a cumulative total of 25 million cases world-wide. On another projection the peak will be reached in 1998, with 65,000 sick from AIDS in the United Kingdom and another 48,000 dying. But even if we are chary of catastrophic predictions, current
1080
totals, if projected forward only two or three years, are quite sufficiently alarming.
Canada, with less than half our population, had 1,334 cases at the end of September 1987 and expects this to rise to 7,000 by 1991. France, with a population almost equal to ours, had 3,073 recorded cases by the end of last year, a number which will inevitably double this year. Our numbers are lower. At the end of last year, there was a cumulative total in the United Kingdom of 1,227 cases of whom 697 had died. But this was a 2·4-fold increase on the previous year's end.
If this rate of increase were maintained we might, according to the Office of Health Economics, expect about 5,500 deaths in 1990. This in turn would imply that there would be some 5,000 live patients requiring treatment in our hospitals. I am not citing those admittedly imprecise figures simply as a scaremonger. The point of them is that even the projections at the very lowest end of the scale will place vastly increased strains on our already overstrained National Health Service.
This brings me to a very important area in the report of the Select Committee dealing with medical manpower. Time and again in their evidence leading figures in the hospital world, including Mr. Miller, senior clinical psychologist at Middlesex Hospital, Dr. Antony Pinching, senior lecturer in clinical immunology at St. Mary's, and Professor Adler, head of the Department of Genito-Urinary Medicine at the Middlesex, drew attention to manpower constraints, due basically to financial constraints, which are not only pushing existing staff to the point of burn-out but making the recruitment of new staff impossible. Even the present case load could not be handled at all if academic clincial doctors were not devoting a far higher proportion of their time to patient care than is consistent with their research responsibilities.
In view of these eloquent appeals, which your Lordships will find in paragraphs 117 to 123 of the Select Committee's report, the committee said in its recommendation 52:
"We believe that, with large numbers of people developing an illness which requires intensive levels of care and a high level of expertise for its proper management and which affects a sector of the population who would not otherwise have placed any demands on the health services, additional manpower provision is urgently needed in both training and consultant grades in traditional specialties and in the specifically relevant specialties of clinical immunology and infectious diseases".
The Government's reply to this is one of the weakest in their whole response. In paragraph 4.28 they say that they take the point about the additional workload, but at consultant level the responsibility for this lies with regional health authorities and with the Royal colleges. The joint planning advisory committee will then ensure that there are enough training posts to balance consultant vacancies. No indication is given whatsoever of how any of this expansion is to be paid for. This is a totally inadequate response to the telling points made by Dr. Pinching and his colleagues. I must ask the Government to look at this again.
Thus, I come to the central question of the funding of hospital services. One of the most important of the

1081
Select Committee's recommendations is paragraph 94, which reads:
"If the current estimates of the likely spread of the disease are in any way accurate, then the demand on resources will increase substantially and rapidly. In our view the rising demand must be met from new resources and not by diverting resources from other parts of the health and social services".
The Government's reply at paragraph 4.35 is again inadequate in my view. After coming out against separate resource allocations for AIDS, they say:
"Nor is it realistic to assume that AIDS-related services or research can, or should be given absolute priority over all other health and Government spending; nor protected from the pressures and constraints that other health and personal social services experience. In short, there can be no blank cheque".
But it is not a question of a blank cheque. The Social Services Committee specifically said so. It is a question of meeting particular pressures at particular points in the service.
Perhaps I can best illustrate the problem if I refer to a debate before London University students in which I participated with Mr. Tony Newton. I was arguing that there should be a centrally earmarked AIDS fund to which health authorities should be able to make bids to meet additional costs imposed by AIDS, by-passing the normal lengthy process from central government to region then to district. Mr. Newton argued that it was wrong to treat AIDS in a different category from other diseases. We did not after all have separate AIDS hospitals and frequently AIDS patients are treated in the same wards as patients with other diseases. He argued that AIDS should be handled within the mainstream of the NHS; therefore funding should flow through the normal channels with occasional top-ups for emergencies.
I have great respect for Mr. Newton. I regard him as an able and committed Minister. I have sympathy with his argument that AIDS should not be marginalised and relegated to a ghetto-type service. That is morally correct. The difficulty is that this tends to mask the underfunding that leads to the terrific pressure on medical manpower that Dr. Pinching and others have referred to. Also it adds to the genuine fears of trade-off and backlash as other areas become threatened by the necessity of funding clinical research and care of AIDS out of the same general budget.
I now believe that the best course is for the normal channels to be used, as Mr. Newton suggests, but for the Government to recognise more readily the additional pressures. They will point to the £58·6 million that they have pledged for 1988–89, over which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and I got into a tangle on Wednesday, 16th December, and which he will no doubt unravel today. But this is well short of the £80 million or so which the Office of Health Economics has calculated as being the likely real additional cost. The Social Services Committee recommends that injections of money should be made at specific points, each request being judged on its own merits and if justified given the funding it requires. Therefore I hope that there will be some flexibility. I frankly think that the only way ahead is fully to fund additional AIDS costs where they can reasonably be substantiated by health authorities. I hope that the Government will come round to this view.
I come finally to the ethical questions which underlie our attitude to AIDS and will ultimately dictate our response. I believe that the Government deserve to be commended on the way in which they have so far avoided scapegoating. They have treated the disease first and foremost as a huge public health hazard requiring the collaboration of all sectors of the community. They have funded and do fund homosexual organisations as frontline troops in the battle, and I hope they will continue to do so. There is obviously a moral dimension. But immorality attaches less to one group or another than to those of any group who continue to behave in ways that threaten others. After all, the virus pre-existed any particular act of sexual intercourse. Sex is a principal means of transmission; it is not the cause.
In what Professor Clayton of Canada called a plague mentality, there is an obvious but regrettable tendency to seek scapegoats among certain social or ethnic groups. The danger of focusing disapproval on particular groups is that it distracts attention from the real risk of spread among the "normal" population. There is quite a volume of evidence to suggest that the heterosexual community is not putting its house in order as fast as the homosexuals.
In the United Kingdom only 322 out of 7,557 antibody positive persons reported to the end of September last year could be attributed exclusively to heterosexual contact. But this was an 80 per cent. increase on the count taken only six months earlier, so the composition of future AIDS case loads is likely to reflect a slow but nonetheless steady expansion into the heterosexual population. Professor Clayton told us that in his view those who had least progressed from awareness to action were multiple sexually active heterosexual males and females. This goes to show that one cannot simply put a ring fence or a cordon sanitaire round a supposedly "normal" morally and physically healthy population. In this sense we are all willy-nilly very much members one of another.
In her speech to the international conference the Princess Royal was perfectly right to draw attention to the dreadful scourge unleashed on haemophiliacs and to the awful tragedy of children born to AIDS-infected mothers. But with respect to Her Royal Highness, there is virtually no evidence in this country of "revenge sex", and the Social Services Committee's report refers specifically to that in paragraph 172. It would indeed be an "own goal" if we drove AIDS sufferers or sero-positive people into such desperate action against their fellow creatures.
Dr. Okware, the eloquent and expert delegate to the conference from Uganda, said something memorable that I noted down:
"If you mishandle AIDS patients they can be more dangerous than the virus itself."
We are fortunate in having far greater preventive, clinical and financial resources than Uganda. With a much larger population we have only half the number of cases. But I am convinced that we shall waste these advantages if we allow the current climate of intolerance to spread into the field of AIDS. Our Government have so far resisted any such tendency. I hope they will stand firm. I beg to move for Papers.
3.17 p.m.
Lord Quinton: My Lords, for anyone like myself at a very remote distance from the professional frontline on this subject, there is a more than usual danger that one will be saying things that are already totally out of date. It is for this reason, as part of my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for introducing the subject, that I welcomed the emphasis in the early part of his remarks on the need for both a continuous flow of up-to-date information about what is going on—in view of the horrific statistical gradients that the dotted lines of prediction place before us and which to some extent in Africa seem to be being realised—and his recommendation of some central body to be a pool of information. After all, this problem has only been clearly identified for less than a decade, even if the virus was already present in people for some considerable time before that.
One very depressing belief that has altered with the passage of time concerns the incubation period. It seems constantly to turn out to be longer and longer. People can carry the HI virus around in themselves for years and years before contracting, or showing symptoms of, the disease. The average incubation period goes up year by year as the history of close observation of the disease prolongs itself.
There is, however, a kind of compensating consideration. Here again I put forward a reasonably well established truth that itself may be questionable, although I think it is fair to say that all the evidence at present seems to support it. This is that the disease is rather hard to catch. It requires that some bodily secretion of an infected person enters a lesion in the skin surface of the receiver of the infection. The two most familiar ways in which this has occurred are in a certain form of homosexual activity and by intravenous drug use. These define the two main groups who are at risk as a result, one might say, of positive actions of their own. There remain over and above them sufferers who are haemophiliacs, or other receivers of transfusions where the blood involved is infected, and the children of AIDS-infected mothers.
This fact about the difficulty of contraction of the disease is an important one in a social problem which has manifested itself in a conspicuous and rather repulsive way in the United States, where the parents of children in schools have resisted the presence of children with AIDS. Various forms of offensive, violent and aggressive pressure have been exerted on the parents of such children, who are normally haemophiliacs or the receivers of transfusion.
I suggested earlier that it seemed to be reasonably clear that, as a physical transaction, AIDS is quite hard to contract. It is important that that information should be widely spread—that is in so far as it is well founded, and at the moment all the evidence we have suggests that it is—in order to prevent some kind of ugly mob behaviour against those sufferers from AIDS who make the most obvious and immediate appeal to human sympathy: the children who have acquired it by blood transfusion or by inheritance.
I believe that information should be spread in an authoritative way with such caution as there must
1084
always be in matters of this kind. Parents should be told that there is no evidence that ordinary social presence with an AIDS sufferer constitutes any danger. It has been suggested by some people that there are perhaps two classes of child where a measure of sequestration must be appropriate. The first group includes those who are given to violent behaviour so that they are likely to collide in a skin-splitting way with other children. Secondly, there are children with limited control of their own bodily movements. However, they will constitute a minimal fraction of the involved population although this is one of the dangers.
I believe that the problem relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in quoting from the Minister in Uganda who said that AIDS patients, if wrongly treated, can turn out to be more dangerous than the disease itself. A society can be gravely torn and upset within by unthinking mob reaction to what is described as a plague, applying to it ideas derived from bubonic plague which are totally inappropriate.
The need for the central body is to act in a responsible way; to co-ordinate existing information from the experience of this country and others; and to provide the kind of authority that cannot be aspired to in the terrific confusion of witness in newspaper articles and television programmes. They are no doubt written with the best possible intentions but in them authoritative knowledge has been very considerably diluted.
I should like to disagree with the noble Lord in his comments about heterosexuals. I do not know whether the 300 or 400 cases out of the 7,000 to which he alluded include any intravenous drug users or any sufferers from venereal disease. There is good evidence that certain features of some of the symptoms of venereal disease constitute the kind of lesion though which the virus can enter the system of the recipient. It would be a significant fact if a disproportionate number of the 350-plus cases he mentioned as regards the population as a whole were cases also of venereal disease. Normal, straightforward human interactions do not seem to involve the transfer. Quite a large number of female prostitutes appear to have contracted the disease, but, in the developed world, they do not appear greatly to pass it on to their male clients.
It is argued by many people that if one looks at the statistics in Africa one finds that there is not the extraordinary disproportion between the numbers of males and females infected by the disease. In Africa there is a rough equality between the sexes in the proportion of infection. I think that there are good explanations for that: possibly three main ones, although two are fairly closely connected. First, most of the blood used in transfusions in Africa is not screened, for the obvious reason of the poverty of the medical services. Much of the disease is communicated through ordinary transfusion where in a developed, well-off society, steps can be taken to throw away any blood likely to carry the infection. Secondly, needle use in Africa is equally insanitary. The same old needle is used again and again. If just once in its history it enters into the secretions of an infected person that needle can pass the infection on

1085
to any others who use it. It is a fact about Africa that the success of inoculation in banishing some diseases has had a disastrous social effect in that it has created a profession of totally unqualified injection-givers. They inject goodness knows what and practise as medical auxiliaries of some kind. Patients who are not drug users have been seen in African clinics pitted with needle marks from the receipt of this highly informal and, as it now turns out, exceedingly dangerous form of treatment. Thirdly, there is a great deal of venereal disease in Africa.
I have not raised those points in order to demolish the thesis put forward by the noble Lord opposite that we should not suppose that a ring can be drawn around some infectable minority of the community while the rest of us can look over the wall quite happily. I think it suggests that we do not have to suppose the likelihood of some universal involvement in this disease. There is time to do something. It is important to spread information and educate because there is no cure. That situation is somewhat exacerbated by the fact that there is no such thing as spontaneous remission in the disease; it seems that everyone who contracts it dies. Another melancholy fact is that the proportion of those who carry the virus and then contract the disease seems to be constantly increasing. That ties up with what I said earlier about the length of the incubation period. I do not want to reinstate the argument which the noble Lord was opposing.
On the other hand, it is desirable to emphasise that certain clearly identifiable behaviours enormously enhance the risk of the disease because that will allow steps to be taken to prevent its spread at the point where it has most intensely congregated and has become congested at the present time. One must also balance my comments about the relative likelihood of the risk of the relative groups against what I urged to be an important and well-founded belief that there is little danger in ordinary social transaction of people contracting the disease from those who have it. There is no need to introduce leprosaria or the horrors of sequestration for people with the disease. They are people who are found to be HIV positive and at considerable statistical risk of ultimately contracting the disease.
The danger of which I am conscious is that of a cruel and unsympathetic reaction to all those who have the disease. That would be greatly enhanced by the belief that the disease could be easily transmitted from one person to another and that all the infected are Typhoid Marys. I believe that it is important to resist that danger, and part of the resistance is the fact that it appears to be hard to contract the disease by relatively moderate heterosexual activity—that is to say, by not having resort to prostitutes who have many other contacts which may involve infected people. This means that the disease is not therefore likely to sweep through the entire population. We must, however, be aware of the fact that the disease is so awful, and has such an indestructible hold on people when they contract it, that we have to do everything possible to contain it. On the other hand, we do not want to stop it at the cost of cruel treatment of those who have already contracted it.
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, all Members of the House will understand that one could have wished to make one's maiden speech on a subject less doleful than this, especially when required to be uncontroversial. One dreams of a maiden speech in which one propounds pleasantries on the development of English campanology in northern Italy. One can be fairly sure that only a few Members of the House would become contentious on that issue. But no; there is this very important debate, and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for bringing it before us.
One difficulty about this subject is the length of time of incubation which is always liable to catch us off our guard so that we become complacent. I believe we should be grateful that the international conference was hosted in this country and that Her Majesty's Government are foremost among nations in the way they have tried to respond to the crisis. For that we should be grateful, though of course there is much more to be done.
I want to limit my remarks to offering your Lordships information about what the Churches are trying to do in responding to the crisis and to say something on the other part of this issue; namely, how lifestyles could be changed in order to prevent the spread of this disease.
First, let me say that the Churches are determined to have a high profile in caring, arousing public awareness and promoting education in this field and in combating those demons of ignorance, prejudice and fear which are such terrible enemies in the matter of AIDS. I can say that the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility was consulted by, and gave evidence to, the Social Services Committee of the other place. It promoted, with a very carefully assembled report, one of the more responsible debates in the General Synod, and it has published guidelines for pastoral care of which 20,000 copies have been sold. The Churches are particularly able to help because of their ubiquity. In all parts of society, there are Christian communities and congregations on the ground which can be aware of the disease when it comes their way and which can care not only for the victims but also for their families and friends.
Furthermore, the 43 dioceses of this country have programmes of education such as the one in the diocese of Gloucester, organised with the local social services and health authority, which seeks to be ready to respond to need where it arises. I received only last week a considerable paper for the Industrial Mission Association entitled AIDS in the Workplace so that industrial chaplains may be informed, educated and prepared for that eventuality at work.
Hospital chaplains are receiving, as part of their in-service training, education and preparation for the care of AIDS victims and their families. I have heard a most moving address on this subject indicating the ways in which those who have the disease desperately need to be affirmed as people, desperately need not to be rejected and shunned, even to the point of being held and having their hands shaken so that they are not treated as lepers. The YWCA has recently published guidelines showing that in their hostels

1087
people who have the virus will not be refused entry and people who know them will be informed and educated as to how to make friends with them.
I have been able to question those who represent the mainstream Churches. I find that they are determined to be a sign and symbol in our land of compassion and not condemnation and judgment. We believe that this comes before propounding any of the moral principles which might be right in looking at the way in which we can improve our lifestyle. Where people are ill, they must receive care; that is the principle on which we work.
Incidentally, I hope that the international conference will help us in England to keep matters in perspective, bearing in mind that countries with a gross national product sometimes of less than one-twentieth of a multinational company like ICI are going to find their health services under enormous strain. It will be second only to the problem of famine in the third world to meet the needs of the health services where the country is terribly poor. This will not be forgotten, I hope, when we are quite rightly spending multi-millions in this country on our own efforts to combat the disease.
Furthermore, the Churches are determined to support efforts to promote the right kind of debate. I have in my own house people concerned with the hospice movement. The whole question was argued and discussed as to whether hospices are places where people should go if they have AIDS or how they can be cared for in their home and continue a normal life for as long as possible. As I have said, we want to prevent scapegoating. A minority of people who are gifted and good to know should not become the object of persecution in our land. What happens to them now might happen to another minority tomorrow. We must be on our guard.
Equally, we can say to them, "If we are to protect you or defend you, we ask you to curb your proselytising and promotional activities which, if they were in the heterosexual field, would be equally unacceptable". This is not only because they will do their own case a great deal of harm but because young people who do not yet have their sexual orientations balanced or decided may have it balanced or decided for them under pressure from proselytisers.
I want to look at the question of life styles. It is not enough merely to talk about safe sex. It is not enough to have a condom campaign. Surely, after the last 25 years of enormous and rapid social change, we have come to the point where we need to look carefully at the place of sexuality in our lives and in all our relationships. In that, I believe, the Churches must say their piece. However, we cannot imagine that the Churches any longer have any social control and that merely to inveigh from the pulpit will cause people to alter their life styles.
A society which has been reared on the maxim, "It does not matter what you believe as long as you believe it does not matter" is not overnight going to be able to exercise a self-denying ordinance in these matters. A massive and corporate counselling and consultation process is required in which I hope the
1088
Church, with its traditional belief and teaching about monogamous marriage, celibacy before and faithfulness within marriage, will say its piece. The Church is no use to society which does not state its case.
However, we are in a very different world from the world in which many of your Lordships were brought up. We should be ready to listen to those who in every other way are highly moral but who do not buy our Christian sexual morality. In listening, we shall together be able to discover ways in which relationships between friends, between man and wife and between parents and children can be built up, improved and stabilised in such a way that we shall forefend the spread of this disease by the changing of our life style.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure for me today to have the opportunity to follow the right reverend Prelate and to be able to congratulate him on a most notable maiden speech. It was a speech which not only told us of the constructive work which the Church is performing in the very important area we are discussing today, but it was a speech which was uttered with great sincerity and conviction and it leads me and, I am sure, many other noble Lords, to look forward greatly to more speeches from him.
I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the Government on the vigour with which their campaign for informing the public of the dangers of AIDS has been conducted. It has been radical, bold and doubtless to some shocking—as it should be. However, promoting a campaign against AIDS is one thing; taking action to prevent the spread of AIDS is another. The action programme which they have to undertake needs to be equally open, equally radical and equally bold.
That having been said, together with my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock I should like to emphasise that the position in this country could well be worse. The dangers which we face are in fact to be witnessed not in England but in the east of Scotland and, above all, in Edinburgh. The McClelland Report states:
"The east of Scotland faces a problem which is at present unique in the United Kingdom but which threatens the rest of the country".
That was written in 1986. As far as I can discover it is still true in 1988. Perhaps I may indicate with some figures why I have come to this conclusion.
In England less than 10 per cent. of injecting drug misusers are infected with the virus. In Scotland more than 50 per cent. of IDMs are infected. This alarming figure compares with New York or, to take another example, with Milan where 70 per cent. of IDMs are sero-positive. The difference between the United Kingdom, excluding Edinburgh, and, for example, Italy is that in Italy 64 per cent. of those with AIDS are injecting drug misusers and about 21 per cent. are homosexuals. In England the figures are almost exactly the reverse. Of those infected, 80 per cent. are homosexuals and 20 per cent. are IDMs. In this situation we have an opportunity in this country because there is substantial evidence that the education of homosexuals in practising safe sex

1089
produces positive results but to change the behaviour of injecting drug misusers is extremely difficult. That must be our target because it is among IDMs that infection can increase most rapidly.
Edinburgh is useful as an example because we can ask why it has happened there and why it has not happened elsewhere. The McClelland Report provides some answers of a tentative variety. First, in Edinburgh the police discouraged the sale of syringes and needles and confiscated syringes and needles from individuals on whom they found them. Hence drug misusers, drug dependents, resorted to what are called "shooting galleries"—that is, single rooms where people share needles. That is the classic way in which the infection is propagated.
Secondly, the medical profession in that part of the world was in general rather opposed to maintenance prescribing. Thirdly, there was low expenditure on the provision of services dealing with drug dependents and, consequently, individual drug users either never made contact with agencies or severed contact with those that existed. As far as I can discover, the present position in Edinburgh is not much better than it was then. The recommendations of the McClelland Report were not carried out with the vigour that they deserved.
I will be told in response to that rather severe judgment that Edinburgh has set up three AIDS units. However, AIDS units deal with people who are already infected. They are necessary and they are desirable, but what we must concentrate upon, and our first priority, must be prevention. It is a campaign to prevent the spread of AIDS which is the most important priority in society.
One facile answer sometimes given to those who advocate or who are arguing about prevention, is mandatory testing. I am glad to say that both the Select Committee and the Government in their response rejected mandatory testing, first, on technical grounds, in that it cannot be relied upon to identify all those at risk and, secondly, on the broader ground that mandatory testing has such,
"profound, ethical and legal consequences as to rule it out".
In addition to those two compelling reasons, I would add that it is the wrong strategy.
The problem that we face and the strategy that we have to pursue is one that will allow us to identify those who are at risk. Having identified them we must obtain their co-operation. We can probably best do that by providing them with the advice, help, support and assistance they require. Having identified them, secured their co-operation and provided them with advice, we have the most difficult task of all, to which the right reverend Prelate referred, of changing their behaviour. That is a difficult task to achieve at any time and in any area. It means continuing the programme of public education on which the Government have embarked, not least in the schools.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the report of the Select Committee on this matter, which is not irrelevant to the debate we had yesterday. Recommendation 43 reads:
"Whatever policy governing bodies adopt towards sex education, we recommend that DES issue forceful guidance to schools on the risk of AIDS associated with drug abuse and on necessary immediate amendments to education about drug abuse".
1090
In fact we have to pursue almost exactly the opposite policy to that followed in Edinburgh. We must engage the co-operation of the police with the social services. We must co-ordinate the activities of the medical profession with other measures and we must consider, as the Government are considering, the wider distribution of free needles, as is done in Amsterdam. I shall be interested to know whether the Minister, in his reply, can give your Lordships information about this. It may be that it is too early to give the results of the experiments which the Government are conducting.
There is one particular danger to which I should like to draw attention, and that danger is in prisons. We know that in prisons drugs are prevalent; we know that homosexuality is practised; and therefore it is a dangerous area. On the other hand, it provides another opportunity in that we have a genuinely captive population who we can take the opportunity to educate, to counsel and to teach how to avoid the dangers and the practices which lead to AIDS. The opportunity is an obvious one; and the danger of failure to take that opportunity is that the prisons will become a breeding ground for AIDS.
Once again, I should like to quote your Lordships Recommendation 41 of the. Select Committee:
"If the Departments responsible for the prisons of this country have grasped the full implications that AIDS and HIV will have for the prison system, they have yet to show it. They must develop a much more responsive and responsible attitude if they are to meet this problem".
I hope that is rapidly happening.
I would not only draw that recommendation to the attention of this House, but to a further recommendation which they make: that we might have to consider the prescription of methadone to drug users in prisons. I should also like to draw the attention of your Lordships to one of the conclusions of the World Health Organisation which was published in their report:
"Careful consideration should be given to making condoms available in prisons in the interests of the reduction of the spread of this disease".
Finally, I should like to ask the Minister when the report of the Advisory Committee on Drugs Abuse called AIDS and Drug Abuse (which I believe has been with the Minister for some weeks now) will be published? It is potentially an exceedingly important report, and it is a pity that it was not available to us in time for this debate.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for enabling us to discuss a problem which is depressing but which is of much urgency.
As the first of your Lordships to speak from these Benches, I should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester on an outstandingly sensitive maiden speech. The Lords Spiritual and the Church as a whole have a very vital role to play in this particular matter because the relatives and dependants of those who die from this dreadful disease need sympathy and condolence. In a maiden speech of great distinction the right reverend Prelate has revealed how the Church can help.

1091
Some months ago there was a picture in some of the newspapers of my right honourable friend Mr. Norman Fowler, who was then the Secretary of State for Health. In the course of a visit to San Francisco (where AIDS is alleged to have originated) Mr. Fowler was seen holding hands with a young man who was terminally ill with the condition. Anyone who saw that picture would have felt a shudder down his or her spine—whatever views one might have about AIDS and about those who contract it. I mention this because I believe that any Health Minister—and this applied to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, during his distinguished career in office—visiting San Francisco would probably have done the same thing. More than anything else, I believe that picture made those who were unaware of AIDS and who saw the picture very much aware of the horrific implications of the condition.
The really sad aspect of all this is that the symptoms of AIDS—pneumonia, lung congestion leading to dementia—are, at least in the first two conditions, curable in themselves. It is a very sad situation that at the end of the 20th century, or nearing the end of it, with medical research making such huge progress, there is, as yet, no cure for AIDS.
I believe the real solution here lies in medical research. The work of the Medical Research Council has already been most distinguished. We must all hope and pray that they will come forward with a solution. I was not present at the international conference; but on the day of the conference I went to a luncheon given by my long-standing friend, the Ambassador of the Republic of Finland. It was a lunch given for Mrs. Pesola who was their Health Minister. The lunch took place at the Ambassador's residence.
Although there was not time during the course of the luncheon (which was attended by about 40 people) to discuss the specific problem of AIDS, it was quite apparent that she, a young person, was very visibly moved by what she had heard during the conference. Those who have visited Finland and other Scandinavian countries, will know of the enormous contributions that they have made to medicine as a whole. I have visited several hospitals in Finland, and I know what they are contributing towards medical research in various spheres. I am quite sure that AIDS is included in that research. I believe that the international conference, with more than 100 Ministers in attendance from all over the world, will do more to make one aware of this problem than almost anything else.
The main aspect of the problem is in research. Schools have a large role to play. Sex education, given properly in the course of biology classes (which I believe are handled far more sensitively and sensibly than in the days when many of my noble friends and others were of that age) is most important. Regarding the Government, I believe that there is a very big problem. The Government have been assailed for their own contribution. But we all know, looking at the health service generally—and there are many taking part in this debate who have had far more clinical experience of health matters than I—of the
1092
enormous pressures upon the National Health Service.
This is not in any way a party matter. One looks at the dreadful cancers now, and the amount of money which we all want to be spent on overcoming that disease. However, when we are looking at the finances of central government in relation to AIDS, we have to be a little more temperate. AIDS is not—as it was when it was first adumbrated—entirely caused by homosexual activity. In this country it was not until 1981 that we became aware of this illness. In 1981 everyone asked: "What on earth is AIDS?" The symptoms were there before; namely, pneumonia congestion of the lungs, brain disease, and so on.
We have now moved on seven years, and I should like to conclude by saying this. We can only hope and pray that a cure will come. The pharmaceutical companies are often criticized—and at times rightly—on a number of matters. But I believe they are playing their part. Medical research is also playing its part.
I return to that picture of Mr. Fowler in San Francisco. It would be no bad thing if that picture was circulated around the whole country even now; not because it was Mr. Fowler, but because it was the Secretary of State for Health who was visiting a country from where this tragedy emanated. I conclude by saying that I hope the Government will do all they can in relation to the whole problem—not only concerning AIDS but with other conditions—in the matter of medical research.
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I also add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate. On Thursday, 14th July 1983, three noble Baronesses in your Lordships' House asked the Government pressing questions on the AIDS virus. They were the noble Baronesses, Lady Dudley, Lady Gardner of Parkes and myself. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, answering for the Government, said:
"Although there is no conclusive evidence that AIDS is transmitted by blood or blood products, the Department is considering the publication of a leaflet indicating the circumstances in which blood donations should be avoided."
Since 1983 we have seen the alarming spread of this terrible affliction which is causing so much human devastation and fear throughout the world. Last week 148 states plus the Vatican, declared:
"AIDS is a global problem that poses a serious threat to humanity."
I was worried about AIDS in 1983. I am even more worried about it now. I quote from the Sunday Times:
"While heterosexual men who don't inject drugs, and others who avoid high risk acts, are likely to remain more or less safe from AIDS, women will not be so lucky.".
As the conference heard, although AIDS is not easily spread from females to males, the unprejudiced behaviour of the virus is already revealing a huge incidence of male bisexuality causing some women to be infected by their men.
In Edinburgh it is said that they are no longer talking about a wild bunch of drug addicts: it is ordinary young people. AIDS has spread so much

1093
into the community that people do not know who has it. A young person I know aged 22 was infatuated with a young man from abroad. I suggested that she took care because of the risk of AIDS. Her reply was: "How can you say a friend of mine might have AIDS?". My reply was: "If you don't know much about him, whoever he is, you just don't know.".
There are many people who seem to want to shut out the thought of the risk of AIDS. The Government have done a great deal to try to advertise the problems. It is sometimes not until a close friend is affected that a person will take notice. The Government have put a great deal of extra money into the AIDS dilemma. But on reading Cmnd. 297 "Problems Associated with AIDS", I feel they are not making a positive enough approach over testing. The problem is far too serious to duck the issue of testing.
Recommendation 2 states:
"We are unable to recommend the general use of anonymised screening at this stage."
I see little use of that sort of screening at any stage. If we want to prevent AIDS, I think the Government will have to make screening much more readily available. One Minister said to me: "What do we do when we find people positive'?" They should be carefully counselled and the greatest persuasion used so that they do not sleep around and spread the virus. If they are injecting drug users, they should stop sharing needles.
Many people who visit certain countries now have to be tested; and that is the policy of several countries. I have not heard of anyone who has refused. If it is the policy that hospital patients when admitted have a routine test along with the other usual blood tests, it would not single out any one group. Perhaps recruits to the armed forces should be tested when they have their entrance medical. Also, social testing should be made more available. Perhaps people could pay for the cost of the test for their own peace of mind or that of their partners. Should the tests prove positive, then counselling should be freely available. The report says that there should be more trained educators, and I totally agree with that. When news is bad, people should always be supported.
I totally agree with Recommendation No. 31 which says:
"We conclude that the wisest approach is to advocate celibacy before marriage and fidelity within it as the ideal, but to accept that people may find this hard to achieve."
The sad situation is that so many young people come from divorced parents, and that many of them seem frightened these days to get married. Two weeks ago I visited the Mildmay Mission Hospital in Hackney. This is a small independent Christian hospital which was started when cholera was a serious problem in London. It has just created a hospice for AIDS patients and has a day ward. Great thought and care is going into this, and patients will he looked after with understanding and dignity.
One of the most interesting parts is a conservatory. Therefore, dying patients can be among living plants. Before this hospice was opened several people telephoned trying to make self-referrals. They knew that they had AIDS, but they had not been to a doctor. Many people in London—and, I am sure, in
1094
many big cities throughout the country—do not have a general practitioner. Out in the community at large, there are most likely many sero-positive people who are known to no one.
I am chairman of Phoenix House. That is an organisation running several houses, and re-entrance houses, dealing with drug rehabilitation. There are main houses in London, Sheffield, North Shields and the Wirral. If funds allow, we hope there will be a house on the south coast and one in Glasgow. Drug takers are generally alienated and therefore difficult to reach with a preventive educational campaign. As a consequence, it is unlikely that the majority of drug takers will present themselves at clinics for sexually transmitted diseases for assessment, counselling and testing unless they are encouraged by the drug treatment agencies. That implies that the numbers of sero-positive drug users is much higher than is known from test results.
Statistics indicate that injecting drug abusers are the fastest growing group of people who have been tested as sero-positive. Sero-positive drug abusers are more likely to develop AIDS and have a worse prognosis than other groups because the effect of drugs further suppresses their immune systems.
For some time there has been heightened concern at drug treatment agencies by the rapid increase of late-in sero-positives among clients who are seeking help. To give your Lordships an example of test take-up, of 106 residents counselled in the northern region, 94 per cent. elected to have the test. Seven were found to be positive. In London it is now 12 per cent. in Phoenix House. Blood testing should always be preceded by a discussion of the advantages of having the test. Whether the test is chosen or not, it is always an opportunity to provide health education in order to try to initiate a change in life style.
A positive result is "bad news", and it needs careful handling. Last Friday there was a television programme, following the world summit of ministers, about AIDS. A picture was shown of a large, grim building in the Bronx where poor people went, many of whom were dying of AIDS. The television crew had not been allowed to film inside. It was easy to imagine what it was like. It sent shivers down my spine. We must avoid that kind of degradation at all costs. A few weeks ago at lunch I sat next to an American from Houston. He told me that a hospital for AIDS patients had had to close down because of the lack of funds. The expense of caring for AIDS patients can be very high. We must go all out for prevention whenever possible.
Phoenix House proposes to develop a 35-bed special project for their AIDS and ARC (AIDS-related complex) clients who need supported accommodation to provide a home for those rendered homeless because of ARC and AIDS. The development is also to provide accommodation for people living in conditions which are unsuitable and who have ARC and AIDS. Support will also be provided for these people who are unable to cope, and Phoenix House sees this provision as urgent. It is a new venture, and it will need new resources.
Up and down the country there are new problems emerging. In two of the health districts, a problem

1095
has presented itself. Drug addicts who are sero-positive, and have been treated in their home district, have gone for further treatment in another district. They have been given methadone which they are selling on the street of their home district. The doctors from the second district will not communicate with the first district. There is frustration. This is just an example of the need for people at all levels to communicate. Too much confidentiality due to AIDS might be made use of by the drug addict who wants to satisfy his craving for drugs.
At a recent meeting of the all-party Drug Misuse Committee we were told that drug taking was still on the increase. Drug treatment agencies need support. The drug addict with AIDS is far less of a risk if he or she is being cared for by people who understand the problems. All voluntary agencies have the task of raising funds. That takes time and energy. I hope the Government will help to keep up morale and keep up the funds. I certainly have found some remarkably dedicated and motivated people working in this difficult field.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I believe the whole House will join me in congratulating my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock on the unfailingly well informed, constructive and good-humoured way in which he brings this dreadful subject to the attention of the House year by year.
I emphasise to the Government the amount that can be learned as we find out what it is best to do in the present predicament from the experience of other countries. I mention in particular the work being done by the School of Development Studies at the University of East Anglia which is investigating how African countries will be able to cope with the reduction in food production in future years due to the deaths of a large number of able-bodied men. It is projecting that far ahead; and that is wise. I hope that if it needs further money to carry on with its work it will receive it. I hope also that all other agencies will be looking bravely, and pessimistically, that far ahead.
I wish to make one other general point. I expect most of your Lordships have read the report of the House of Commons committee and the Government's response to it, the Office of Health Economics report, the British Medical Association's report, and so forth. It is interesting that none of them—not even the Government's response—makes any reference to the private sector of our medical structure in this country. It is obvious to everybody that this is a matter for the health service. That is taken for granted, so much so that the alternative does not even figure in discourse and conjecture. We may learn something from that fact; especially the Government. There may be a danger of chipping holes in what some people may think of as an ideological yacht or something, which is actually going to be the lifeboat for the whole of mankind. I mean our public health service.
1096
The noble Lord, Lord Quinton emphasised the possibility that the virus did not travel through unbroken skin, unbroken membranes. I am not sure how up to date that view is. In any case, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the spread of the virus among heterosexuals. I cannot refer to a heterosexual community or a homosexual community, because I do not think there is such a thing in either case. They are just people. But the virus is spreading among heterosexual people.
We are often told in the press that only 4 per cent. of AIDS sufferers in this country are heterosexual. We have that figure in our minds. It is not the right figure. The right figure is that only something over half of the HIV positive people in this country have received the virus by sexual transmission. So, although heterosexuals constitute only 4 or 5 per cent. of all cases, they account for about 9 per cent. of sexually transmitted cases. That figure puts a different view upon the matter. I do not know whether other people feel this way; but I do. Four per cent. is an almost negligible minority but if it increases to one in 10, then one has something that one can no longer "peer over the wall at", to use the vivid phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Quinton.
In the main I want to speak about testing and various other matters in the House of Commons committee report, which I did not fully understand the morality of. I dare say other people did not understand either. I believe that the area of anonymised testing, or even what I should like to call responsible testing—that is when one tells people the result and where one knows whose blood one is testing—is likely to be one of growing confusion and concern as the condition spreads. It has been quoted with approval by some people, including the House of Commons committee, that it is bad ethics and bad science to carry out anonymised testing for HIV on certain categories of people who have their blood tested for some other reason. I do not understand why it is either bad science or bad ethics.
I was surprised to see the opinion attributed to the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health and Social Security that the mass of results, which would be available to medical science if general anonymised testing were adopted, would be so great as to be useless. I cannot understand that statement. I thought that when doing statistics the more one received the more certain one could be of whatever conclusion one was debating. But there may have been a misattribution of that opinion.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, who will be speaking next, will be able to tell the House whether anonymised testing is routinely done for other conditions—I take measles as an example—to form some opinion about its incidence without bothering about who has or who has not got the disease individually. If such testing is carried out, why would it be less ethically desirable to do so in the case of HIV than in the case of any other disease? I do not see that point. I may have it wrong. That may not be the case. Would the noble Lord like to tell us now whether it is. I can see that he does not wish to do so.
I shall turn now to what I think may turn out in time to be the solution to all these matters, although

1097
a great deal of opinion must develop before changes can be made. It is what I would call responsible testing, in the sense of identifiable tests the results of which can be communicated to the sufferer to enable the sufferer to behave responsibly. I was struck by something that the head of the French programme, Professor Alain Pompidou, said, which was quoted by my noble friend. I should like to rewrite the observation to make it even clearer in English.
"To he informed is not to know; to know is not to understand; to understand is not to decide; and to decide is not to act".
The purpose of all public bodies, government, Parliament and all good people, is to encourage and to enable action to be taken by some people. At the moment, people who wonder about having an AIDS test or who have one offered to them for some other reason, are counselled before they take it. I understand that it is common for the counsellor to say: "You do realise, don't you, that if you take this test and it turns out positive, you may have difficulty in obtaining life insurance cover. You may even have difficulty with a mortgage." I have heard of that. That constitutes negative counselling. The people who give such advice are putting a life and death matter in second place to an economic matter. That practice is questionable; it is one that should be thought about and inquired into.
On the same subject, recommendation 88 of the House of Commons committee states:
"There are no grounds for disclosing a patient's antibody status, without their consent, except to safeguard another from infection".
How should that recommendation be interpreted? Does it include the patient's spouse or regular sexual partner? The context in which the committee considered that point was that of unborn children. That is not the whole issue by any means. If society could move gradually towards the, perhaps, more painful and more risky course of what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, called better communication, it would have the effect of reducing or slowing down the increase of the incidence of the condition.
People, including AIDS patients, must always be given the chance to do right. Some present practices do not give them a fair chance to do right. Full cost-benefit analysis with full projections of future alternative scenarios is bound to show that the amount of money which will have to be spent on the disease is likely to be colossal. Any underspend beneath what later turns out to be the right level will be paid for tenfold in human suffering and economic setbacks. I say "tenfold". I could just as well say a hundredfold. The doubling time for the incidence of the condition has increased to 13 months or so in this country, but the doubling time for heterosexuals obtaining HIV-positive results is eight months. On an eight-months' doubling period, it is not long before we are talking about a one-hundredfold increase.
I say to the Government that if they are in doubt they should spend, spend and spend again now. And all the governments of the world, if they are in any doubt as to where the money should come from, might try to come to their senses about the arms race.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, for a moment I should like to stand back a little from our
1098
immediate problem, consider the old public health and then say something about the new public health, public-responsibility and AIDS. It is appropriate to do so now, because it is about 10 years ago almost to the day when the last case of smallpox in the world occurred in Birmingham. It was a laboratory infection. There has been no further case, so the old public health scored well.
Last week the report of Sir Donald Acheson, the Chief Medical Officer, on the New Public Health was published. It is a document well worthy of study. When we think of the old public health in the old days, we think of housing, nutrition, tuberculosis and immunisation against infectious diseases. Tuberculosis was a tough problem. It required preventive measures—screening and specific therapy—to eliminate it. Apart from preventive inoculations, the individual contribution to the old public health was modest. With regard to inoculations, it was variable. For example, we have never managed to achieve the 90 per cent. inoculation rate required to prevent measles epidemics. Other countries have. In that respect we have not been the best in the world.
In contrast to the old, the new public health depends heavily on the individual for success. It often involves his or her lifestyle. Smoking, for example, promotes heart disease and cancer of the lungs. The approach has been twofold—propaganda and reducing the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes, which we recommeded when I was chairman of the Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health in the 1970s. Heart disease and the importance of diet and exercise are part of the new picture. But behind today's problem what is the individual's responsibility for his health?
Then we come to AIDS, the subject of the debate. There is no protection and no morning-after pill. There is no serological evidence of infection for four weeks or even up to four months. To those who would ask, "What is the fuss? After all there have only been 1,200 or so deaths so far", we must point to the experience in the United States and tell them that if no further infection took place, the burden of cases would go on increasing in this country for six or seven years.
In the United States, where to begin with a somewhat relaxed view was taken, AIDS is already the commonest cause of death in young women. It is as well to remember that the increase in the number of cases does not necessarily mean failure because of the long delay that I have mentioned.
There is no doubt that homosexuals here and in the United States have drastically altered their behaviour. As a result, there has been a dramatic drop in the number of people attending venereal disease clinics. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and others have said, the same improvement has unfortunately not been recorded among drug users. They continue to be a danger to themselves and to their friends and relations. Under present circumstances, the new public health depends upon personal behaviour for improvement. There is no early diagnosis and no treatment. We are back to individual responsibility to protect the family and future generations.

1099
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, sought my opinion about testing for AIDS. There is a great deal of conflict about this at the moment. However, I would guarantee that if a therapy was available tomorrow everyone would want it. The nation would desire to have it in order to be cleared of this evil. However, until that therapy is available the conflict will continue.
We in this country are concerned about the National Health Service in relation to the needs of the aged and the new technology. Many of us believe that it has been sorely neglected over the last 10 years. We are now faced with a new aspect, that of overwhelming demands from a section of the population that otherwise makes hardly any demands. This has to be built into the strategy. We have heard a great many statistics this afternoon. I am sure that the Minister will be telling us about them. However, I ask him this question. Could the strategy consume all the new new money for NHS development over the next decade? That is the question to which we should like a reply.
In the new public health issue in relation to AIDS we are back to public responsibility and individual, personal responsibility. In this country we have the public health laboratory service and the Medical Research Council, with its outstanding record in basic research and with no fewer than 28 projects on research, which ensure that we are playing our full part to try to advance knowledge and to discover a cure for the disease. I would encourage the Medical Research Council to continue to work in the Gambia where a new and particularly nasty virus related to the better known one has appeared.
Another ray of sunshine and perhaps hope is this. I understand that there was a remarkable atmosphere at the final session of the AIDS Summit to which many speakers have referred. The people of the world are coming together. They are uniting to defeat this threat. They will in the end defeat it, and perhaps through that there will be a greater understanding of one another across the world.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, over recent years your Lordships' House has debated this subject on many occasions. I am sure I am right in saying that every one of those debates has shown a degree of understanding of a very difficult problem, a grasp of complex figures and facts that one would not find in any other forum anywhere. That is to be expected in your Lordships' House, where we show a degree of understanding and an awareness of issues which is not common elsewhere.
Of all those debates, I have no doubt that this is the best. From every speaker we have heard we have seen a grasp and understanding of the problem, although different aspects have been emphasised by different noble Lords. However, each and every one has contributed to what has been an admirable debate. In that context I most certainly include the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, with his admirable maiden speech. Having said that they have all been excellent speeches, I have not yet heard the Minister. However, I am absolutely certain that by
1100
the time I have heard him I shall not wish to depart from that judgment on the nature of the debate.
Therefore our thanks are due to my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock for initiating this debate. We should also thank my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock for his initiative and enterprise in setting up the all-party group on AIDS from both Houses of Parliament and for chairing it. That has enabled noble Lords and Members of another place to have regular meetings with experts in this field and to keep themselves fully informed. These all-party groups on different subjects do invaluable work. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has mentioned the all-party committee on drug addiction. That also has enabled many of us to hear speeches on this subject. Those organisations do a great deal to improve the level and standard of understanding in your Lordships' House.
In winding up a short debate which is time-limited, one cannot possibly elaborate on all the points which have already been made, I shall merely try at this late stage to fill one or two gaps which have arisen. However, in general terms I concur with what has been said. My noble friend Lord Kilmarnock initially said that the Government have made a splendid start. I have no hesitation in saying that the Government deserve all possible congratulations for starting the initial campaign. I also congratulate the chief medical officer of the Department of Health, Sir Donald Acheson, for his understanding and extremely mature attitude to a very difficult subject.
I believe that the Government's initial campaign has brought about a public awareness of this situation very rapidly in a way which could not altogether have been foreseen. Our congratulations are due to the Government for that. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, implied that in discussions with our European friends, the Ministers from other countries who were present at the conference, there was some feeling that we had perhaps gone off the boil in this country and had begun to become a little complacent. I do not agree with that verdict for a moment. I accept that we appear to have stopped for a while. But it was wise to do so because there were extremely difficult decisions to take.
We have reached an area in which we have a tightrope to walk in deciding to what lengths to go. Do we frighten people unnecessarily? Do we reassure them inadvisedly; or what do we do? It is very important that the Government think extremely carefully about the next steps that they take in their publicity campaign. One must agree with Mr. Tony Newton, who said at the international conference—and I entirely agree with him—that here we have a disease for which we have no available protective vaccine. Nor do we have any therapeutic substance. We have one which delays the progress of the disease, but we do not have a cure. Therefore we must rely wholly on prevention. The Minister for Health was entirely right in saying that, and therefore the Government must think about it.
In the first debate on this subject, I asked a number of questions. We needed to know the nature of the organism. We know that in great detail; we know a great deal about it. We needed to know the mode of spread of the organism. We now know that. We

1101
needed to know with some kind of precision the incubation period. We do not know that with any precision and I doubt whether we shall ever know it with any precision. What we know is that it is an extremely long period, and that adds to some of the difficulties.
The noble Lord, Lord Quinton, referred to this. We also know that this is a very difficult disease to catch. When the Minister replies he may say that there are many cases of one spouse of a married couple who has contracted full-blown AIDS. The couple have continued to live together and to cohabit in the fullest sense of that word, and yet the other, uninfected, spouse has remained uninfected. The Minister will confirm that. It shows it is not a very easy disease to catch. That is a useful message to give to the general public since it allays anxieties and perhaps stops panic. But of course there is a danger that if one says that too often people will say, "What are we bothered about?"
When this matter first came to public consciousness, there was this general view: "What is this AIDS?" It was described as a disease that kills homosexuals and intravenous drug addicts. People said, "That's all right, isn't it?" That was an extremely dangerous judgment and an unwise one. We have rapidly learnt that a disease is a disease, and once an infectious disease is present in a community all that community is at risk and all that community must regard itself as at risk. We have progressed, and we now understand the position. We have now to take very difficult decisions. We have to advise people who are at risk and who are not.
Frequently the word "carrier" is used. The BMA sent me guidance today. I wish that it had sent it earlier; the morning of the debate is a little late. It refers to the AIDS foundation which has been set up. It is admirable. It is charged with the duty of providing ethical guidelines to medical practitioners involved in treating patients carrying the AIDS virus. What does "carrying" mean? The term "carrier" in medical science is a quite specific and exact term. Usually it is applied to a person who carries a pathogenic organism but does not manifest the pathology that that organism can cause. We had carriers of diphtheria and typhoid fever.
What is the present situation in relation to AIDS? We know that a person with full-blown AIDS is infectious. But do we know that everybody who has a positive antibody reaction is necessarily a carrier? I do not know. I hope that when the noble Lord replies he can give us a more accurate definition of a carrier. Are we to assume that all those people who have positive antibody reactions on a blood test are carriers? I do not know. We need to know that.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Kennet raised the difficult question of blood tests. It was commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, who is an expert in the field. His advice should be listened to carefully. I rather share the views implied by my noble friend Lord Kennet that if one is taking a blood test one wants to know what, if anything, is wrong with the blood that one is testing.
1102
Were Ito become a pathologist—I am not likely to now, it is getting a little late in the day for me to do that—and take a sample of blood from a patient to examine it for one purpose or another, I do not think that it would necessarily be my duty to explain to the patient, "All I am going to do is to work out the haemoglobin percentage, count the red cells and count the white cells". If I take a blood sample I think that I have a duty to look at it overall and find what if anything is the matter with it, including whether antibodies are present. I hope that eventually when blood samples are taken we may move to a situation in which that information is obtained. Beyond that, we have the problem of what is to be done with the information. That of course is a delicate problem, as Lord Hunter of Newington implied. It needs a great deal more consideration.
There is another difficulty in regard to the future course. I remember an admirably conducted campaign during the war—a very expensive one—with regard to the increase in venereal disease, both gonorrhea and syphilis. Working as a doctor in Her Majesty's Forces and among the civilian population at that time I had more difficulty dealing with young patients who thought they had contracted venereal disease than with people who had in fact contracted it. I saw many suicides take place of people who had become obsessed with the idea that, through some kind of misbehaviour, they had contracted venereal disease when they had not done so. We have to face the problem when we walk along this tightrope: how do we advise people to modify their lifestyles without at the same time making them think that they have contracted a disease that they may not have contracted?
We should also remember this. Doctors throughout the country are dealing with patients who even at this late stage of the twentieth century continue to suffer from early Victorian teaching about sex. It has left a legacy in terms of psychoneurotic disease of one kind or another which is prevalent in certain sections of the population. It is clear that we have to tell people that promiscuous behaviour, whether homosexual or heterosexual, renders them liable to contract infections. That is perfectly proper information to give people. It must be given in such a way that it does not bring back the kind of fears of sex that were engendered by the Victorian campaigns or other campaigns in days past.
I wish to put one or two specific points to the Minister. One that should be in his mind, as he dealt with it in the last Question today, is the matter of benefits. As the Minister knows, certain benefits are available long term for the chronically disabled, particularly those who have been chronically disabled for a continuous period of six months. The Haemophilia Society is extremely worried about this, and it should know because some of its members have contracted AIDS in tragic circumstances. However, once AIDS has developed, it does not necessarily exist continuously for six months; it tends to be up and down in short periods.
As the Haemophilia Society has pointed out, it is both a fatal and a very expensive condition to have. It is very costly to live with AIDS. The Haemophilia

1103
Society hopes—and rightly so—that the Government will be prepared to regard the diagnosis of AIDS as ipso facto proof of the existence of a condition for a continuing period rather than having to monitor it and say, "This person has been continuously ill for six months". Perhaps the Minister could answer that.
I was interested that my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter raised the question of prisons. This is an important subject. A specific question was raised at the all-party mental health committee in both Houses: what would be the Government's attitude and how would they assess their degree of liability were a prisoner in the custody of the Home Office prison service in one of Her Majesty's prisons to contract AIDS as a result of homosexual rape? What would be the legal liability in that case? I do not say that it has happened, but I say that it is likely to happen. I say nothing about the practice of homosexuality in prisons, but I say that prisoners must be protected from homosexual rape. I should like to have the Minister's reply about the legal liability if such a case arose.
In general terms, as part of the information that we want on a continuing basis from the Government, we should like some information about how we are doing. An excellent campaign has greatly increased public awareness of the disease. As some noble Lords have said, it has probably modified the behaviour of certain groups already. I hope that the Government will give us figures at regular intervals so that we can know precisely how we are going on in relation to certain special risk groups and in relation to the population as a whole. We shall then have a proper opportunity to assess and monitor progress on the disease and to monitor the effects of the money being spent—and rightly so—by Her Majesty's Government.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am sure that I express the view of all noble Lords in offering thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for introducing what has been a very thoughtful debate. Part of that thoughtful debate was an outstanding maiden speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. We should not have had that if the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, had not introduced the debate on this important subject.
I express appreciation also to Her Majesty's Government for facilitating last week's World Health Organisation conference in London. I spoke to several of the Ministers, not only those who attended the all-party meeting. They clearly found it a very valuable conference. I welcome the decision taken by the conference to share information not just during the conference but subsequently, to develop a total strategy and to have a year of communication and co-operation about AIDS. I thought that it was useful at that conference to be able to see Britain's problems in a world context. As several noble Lords have said, we now know so much more about the disease than we did a few years ago.
Evidence to the conference showed that 5 million or even 10 million people world-wide are already
1104
infected with the AIDS virus. While I agree that we do not know to what extent they are or are not carriers, that is potentially the situation. In his opening speech to the conference, Dr. Jonathan Mann, director of the WHO special programme on AIDS, said that while AIDS had stolen a march upon us there had been a rapid global response with an unprecedented move to prevent and control the disease. I have no doubt that the WHO conference in Britain will have stimulated that process.
The epidemic has different patterns in different parts of the world. The first pattern occurred in Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and some parts of South America. In those areas most AIDS infections have occurred among men. Sexual transmission in those countries is predominantly homosexual. Over 50 per cent. of homosexual men in some urban areas are HIV infected. While heterosexual transmission is increasing in those areas, it currently accounts for a much smaller proportion of sexually acquired HIV infections than homosexual transmission.
The second pattern of transmission occurs in Africa and the Caribbean. In those areas sexual transmission is predominately heterosexual, so that the ratio of males to females suffering from the disease is approximately equal. It is a totally different pattern from that in our own country. In some urban areas, one-quarter of the 20 to 40 age group is infected with the disease, and up to 90 per cent. of prostitutes.
In the United Kingdom there has been an unprecedented move to understand and absorb the educational material put out by the Government and by voluntary organisations to stop or discourage the spread of the disease. It is too early to assess the effect on personal conduct. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I would not now say to the Government, "Please start it all over again". There is a great awareness on the part of the public and we have to pause to think again, so I am not critical of the Government on that score.
The Office of Health Economics has recently published an important study on HIV and AIDS in the United Kingdom, to which reference was made on a previous occasion. That is a very disturbing study. It shows that mortality from AIDS is still steadily increasing. Nearly 60 per cent. of all deaths from AIDS recorded in the United Kingdom so far occurred in 1987 alone. Furthermore, during last year more than one death from the disease was recorded every day. If the latest annual rate of increase in AIDS deaths is maintained, 5,500 deaths from the disease may be anticipated during 1990.
As several noble Lords have said during the course of this debate, the make-up of AIDS case loads seems likely to change over time. Homosexual or bisexual males currently account for about 85 per cent. of AIDS cases in the United Kingdom, but they contribute less than half of the known HIV infections, and future cases of AIDS could therefore increasingly come from other high-risk groups. In particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, more cases can be expected from intravenous drug abusers. In turn, this development will mean

1105
growing numbers of AIDS cases among women as well as a shift in the geographical distribution of the disease. Of the current total of known HIV infections among intravenous drug abusers, about one-third involved women, and two-thirds of the total have been reported from Scotland, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
I think it is appropriate for your Lordships to pay tribute to all those professionals who have been involved in the treatment and care of this very difficult and disturbing disease. We should pay tribute not only to the professions but to the voluntary organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, the Care Trust, CRUSAID, and especially to the hospice movement, whose task is going to grow greater as the years go by, as well as to all those who are involved in counselling and social work; and also in that connection to the Church, as was quite rightly pointed out by the right reverend Prelate.
I should also like to pay my tribute to the Association of London Authorities, which has shown the way in which London local authorities can work together with housing, social services and environmental health services to create a pattern of service at local authority level.
A good friend of mine over many years, Dr. Patrick Dixon, has just published what I believe to be an outstanding book, The Truth about AIDS, which some noble Lords may already have seen. If I may quote a few paragraphs, he said:
"Gay people have felt totally ostracised and rejected by society. Beaten up in alleyways, labelled as perverts and victims of relentless low-grade discrimination, they have often felt misfits. Rejected by family and former close friends, many have found tremendous security and self-acceptance among those who have been through an identical experience. The feeling of togetherness is very strong. At least they can be themselves without fear of rejection".
He refers later to the false "gay plague" label which has been stuck to them.
This is an extremely important question to tackle because if we are going to pay tribute to those who have helped in dealing with this disease we must also pay tribute to the homosexual community, who, if evidence is right, as it seems to be from figures that have been published, have made a very significant change in their own lifestyle in a way which for them must be a considerable sacrifice. That must be said because these are people who are to be sympathised with in the sense of their own sexuality and especially in the light of the fears which they must all have at this time.
This almost inevitably brings me to Clause 28 of the Local Government Bill, which has been debated but which will again arise at a further stage in the process of that Bill. I share the views of those who expressed great concern about the divisive effect of the clause. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will be replying to the debate today. I do not want to put him in a difficult position and I am not asking him to comment, but it is true that little more than 12 months ago he recognised that the words in Clause 28 and those in the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, which was then before the House, were capable of harmful misinterpretation and were moreover unnecessary. I hope that the Minister, who voted as he properly did yesterday, will
1106
consider the effect that this clause could have—I do not say will have—upon a community whose cooperation we desperately need in fighting this sad disease of AIDS.
This is not a party view. I am not trying to score party points. In fact, some of my noble friends may disagree with me, but the point that I am making is the view of the Royal College of Nursing. Some of your Lordships may have seen the comments on our debates on Clause 28 by the Royal College of Nursing, although it put it in the context of the debate on the prevention of AIDS. It said:
"The Royal College of Nursing is fully committed to the programme of health education to prevent the spread of HIV and has been actively involved in this area of the problem since 1984. One of the prime functions of a nurse is to be a health educator, and many health education AIDS adviser posts are held by nurses".
It was the college which gave one interesting statistic about the changes in the behaviour of male homosexuals. It drew attention to figures from the San Francisco health department and reported that in 1982, 21 per cent. of male homosexuals became infected with HIV. "Stop AIDS" a specially targeted educational campaign, saw this figure fall to 2 per cent; that is, from 21 per cent. in 1983; and to 0.8 per cent. in 1986. That must be the result of a substantial change in behaviour.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to comment on the rather more grim interpretation of that figure; namely, that the yearly new cases are dropping so dramatically because there are so few left to get it?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I have no doubt that that has had its effect, and that if that is so these percentages would not have been the same. However, I do not think one can argue that that totally explains the remarkable fall in percentages.
To pursue the point that I was making, the Royal College of Nursing went on to say that the Health Education Authority will need to ensure that all sections of society will be reached by future educational interventions. Voluntary agencies dedicated to education about AIDS and supporting people with AIDS have performed a useful and worthwhile role, but the RCN is concerned that their future activities may well he daunted or, indeed, curtailed by Clause 28 of the Local Government Bill now before your Lordships' House.
In my concluding remarks I contend that in considering the issues before your Lordships' House today we cannot totally dissociate ourselves from the issues that we debated yesterday. Since there are other processes through which the Bill will go, there is time for this House and the Government, and indeed the Minister himself—his influnce in this matter is considerable—to think again. I want the Minister to convey to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services the view expressed by some of your Lordships that resource considerations must not stand in the way of whatever action the Government need to take to deal with what Her Royal Highness Princess Anne calls the AIDS pandemic.

1107
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said that the response to the Social Services Committee in the context of resources was inadequate. I thought that that was taking it a little-too far, but it would be a tragedy if in facing up to an absolutely unique disease a lack of resources were in any way to stand in the way of taking steps that need to be taken.
Finally, I want the Minister to ensure that the considered views of the British Medical Association—as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, they have suddenly been brought to our attention, if we did not see them two years ago—on health education, prevention of the spread of infection, research, antibody testing, medical and dental treatment, the importance of avoiding the need to import blood products and strategic planning within the National Health Service are all carefully considered.
I believe, as I said at the beginning, that this has been a thoughtful debate, and I hope that the results of that thoughtfulness will lead to further reflection by the Government, who have come in for very little criticism in the course of this debate.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on behalf of the Government I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for initiating this debate. Not only is the subject of AIDS an immensely important one, as borne out by the speeches of noble Lords, but the debate is also timely coming as it does only a few days after the world summit of Ministers of Health on programmes for AIDS prevention. The noble Lord has drawn particular attention to this historic summit, and I shall return to it later in my remarks. But first I would like to turn to the other aspect of the Motion before us which is the Government's response to the report on AIDS of the Social Services Committee in another place.
I must emphasise straightaway that the Government greatly appreciate the work that the Select Committee put into its report. The committee has addressed a wide range of questions and has brought to bear a valuable and constructive focus on the major issues to which AIDS gives rise.
In our response we have made abundantly clear how seriously we take the problem of' AIDS. As yet there have been relatively few cases in this country—1,227 had been reported by the end of 1987—but that number looks set to rise inexorably over the coming years. That was a point made by several noble Lords. Indeed the number has so far been more than doubling every year since 1981 when the first case was seen here. We must also remember that for every case of AIDS there may be two or three cases of other HIV-related illness which puts further demands on NHS resources. To meet this growing challenge we have devised a comprehensive strategy. This is set out in some detail in the report, and in the time available in this debate I can attempt to do no more than briefly outline the main elements of the strategy.
First, there is public education which plays the central part in our efforts to prevent the spread of the disease. A sum of £20 million was committed to the
1108
national public education campaign in November 1986. The Health Education Authority, which assumed responsibility for the campaign last October, is now well advanced in its work on planning the next stages. The national campaign is complemented locally by work carried out by individual health authorities and NHS staff to reinforce the education messages.
Secondly, a great deal of research is being carried out into the medical, biological, economic, social and service aspects of AIDS. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Auckland for the comments he made on government action in relation to research. A particularly notable example is the Medical Research Council's directed programme of research on vaccines and anti-viral drugs for which we are giving it £14·5 million over the next three years. This money is on top of the £3 million for the general AIDS research it supports. My department has also recently agreed to provide a further £700,000 so that the council can develop its epidemiological research on AIDS.
Thirdly, a number of measures are being taken in the field of infection control and surveillance. We are continuing to take all the steps necessary to make blood and blood products as safe as is humanly possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will remember, the new Blood Products Laboratory opened last April and this should enable us to be totally self-sufficient in blood products by next year. We have put in place a confidential, voluntary reporting system to monitor the spread of infection and we are currently considering the recommendations of an expert group on how we can further improve surveillance. The effectiveness of the existing reporting system will be strengthened by the duties placed on health authorities under the AIDS (Control) Act 1987. Under this Act authorities have to produce annual reports on their estimates of cases and the measures they are taking. The first such reports are due by the end of July.
Fourthly, we are developing health and other services for people with HIV infection and AIDS. Over £58 million is being made available to health authorities in the coming financial year to meet the growing need for care and treatment services. And we have set out in the response to the Select Committee the policy aims that health authorities should work to achieve in providing these services.
I agree with the noble Lord who said that as far as possible people with AIDS should be assisted to live in their own homes, making use of hospital only when it is really necessary. One of our central aims to achieve this is to ensure that an effective partnership is established between statutory and voluntary bodies.
The voluntary sector has a most important part to play in the overall response to AIDS. To provide further support for voluntary bodies, we have just announced a grant of £500,000 to the National AIDS Trust for distribution to the voluntary sector and an additional capital grant of £750,000 to London Lighthouse.
I turn now to answering specific points that have been raised. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord

1109
Winstanley, that the action taken by government, which I have outlined, does not indicate a government who have gone off the boil.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked about a national co-ordinating committee. In the Government's response to the Select Committee, we agreed on the need for a long-term strategically planned response to AIDS. However, we pointed out that extensive co-ordination arrangements already exist at ministerial level and also between the Government and the statutory agencies and voluntary bodies. I should like to consider the noble Lord's suggestion that the ministerial committee at a very senior level does not have the reaction with, and to, the public that perhaps it might. However, I also bear in mind that perhaps that is a role better given to the Health Education Authority.
Nonetheless, we inevitably need, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, pointed out, information on how we are doing. I draw the attention of the House again to the AIDS (Control) Act which would give that information. We shall have to see from the first reports in July how that is working.
Neither HIV infection nor AIDS are notifiable diseases in the United Kingdom. We have established a national system of voluntary confidential reporting systems which work well. A statutory system could be counter-productive, as some people may be discouraged from coming forward for medical help.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Quinton and I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that HIV is not highly infectious. It is not transmitted through normal social contact. However, there are practical difficulties which we have to face. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I am not sure whether to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in attracting the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester to this subject or the right reverend Prelate for being attracted. In any event, we were all delighted by, and grateful for, the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate and we hope to hear from him again, soon and often.
The United Kingdom Government consider that voluntary bodies, including, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, the Churches, have a key role to play in complementing the work of statutory agencies. The United Kingdom voluntary bodies are making a valuable contribution in this country and elsewhere. The Government are providing substantial and increasing support for voluntary sector activities.
The voluntary sector activity is particularly important for those who need counselling and training. The Social Services Committee made six recommendations about the two linked subjects. We must distinguish between the need for personal counselling and support for people with HIV infections and AIDS, and the more general need for NHS staff and social workers to give accurate health education information about AIDS. We have already put in hand a number of counselling training initiatives. The three centrally funded courses referred to in Paragraph 4.11 have been attended by 2,000 health, social and voluntary workers.
1110
The Government's reply in Paragraph 4.15 makes clear that we are considering seriously the future planning and funding of courses of counsellors and in particular the need for support of carers. We look to the relevant professional bodies to ensure that proper basic training in AIDS exists and to recommend to their members, such as doctors, nurses and social workers, that they should be receptive to such training.
The right reverend Prelate, together with several other noble Lords, mentioned hospices. I welcome the helpful comments which have been made regarding the response of the hospice movement to the AIDS problem. There is a debate going on within the movement and we have been greatly encouraged by the sympathetic attitude which has been shown. The Government believe that it is vital for health authorities to work closely with the voluntary sector hospices in planning the appropriate response to the need for terminal care of people with AIDS.
Turning to the Mildmay Mission, I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that the Government approved a capital grant of £150,000 in May of last year towards the cost of converting a ward in Mildmay Mission hospital to provide hospice care for people with AIDS. We have now received a further request for financial assistance in converting another ward for the same purpose. We hope to respond shortly to the request.
I welcome the emphasis placed by my noble friend Lord Auckland on treating AIDS patients no differently than other patients are treated. Within the terminally ill sector whose care is provided for by the hospice movement, that is exactly what is happening. I am also grateful for the references he made to the action of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment in shaking the hand of an AIDS patient in San Francisco. Moving a little way ahead of my theme of the moment, the London Declaration of the World Summit of Ministers of Health on AIDS stated that the stigmatisation of people with AIDS must be avoided. Anything that we can do to achieve that must be praised.
That leads me to consider the education of schoolchildren regarding AIDS. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, raised an important point about such education. The Government consider that schools and the education service generally have a clear role to play in ensuring that young people are fully and accurately informed about AIDS. A video and resource package about AIDS entitled "Your Choice for Life" is being distributed to all secondary schools in England and Wales and to education authorities in Scotland. We anticipate that that will be very widely used as part of the schools' overall programme of health and sex education.
I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, on his suggestion that AIDS is too serious a subject to be left to the decisions of school governors. I do not believe that any school governor worth his salt would vote against AIDS education. I wish to point out that school governors are, in their own turn, elected.
Comment was made in passing to my attitude to Clause 28 of the Local Government Bill, on which

1111
your Lordships have been dividing fairly regularly in the last two days. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, sought to tweak my tail. I point out to him that the clause stand part debate was a different matter from that on the Halsbury Bill. I shall say no more than that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It was amended.
Lord Skelmersdale: It was amended by a Government amendment. Irrespective of the argument about whether local authorities are suitable bodies to carry out health education—I am well aware that discussion on that matter is going on up and down the country—I gently suggest to the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Kilmarnock, that they take another look at Clause 28(2) of the Bill which says, firmly, clearly and shortly, that:
"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".
That would of course include AIDS.
The noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Bonham-Carter, raised the matter of prisons and AIDS resulting from homosexual or drug activity in them. I have noted the first point and particularly the point made concerning the possibility of homosexual rape. I shall ensure that that matter is brought to the urgent attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, concerning the great importance of drug misuse practices in the spread of infection. Indeed, I should put that near the top of the list in terms of likelihood of transmission of the disease. Both the reports which the noble Lord mentioned have been received recently and are being considered. They are the first report from independent researchers on the pilot syringe exchange schemes and the first report from the working party of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on measures needed to inhibit the spread of infection in drug misusers. Where we go from there, I am not quite sure. I shall keep the noble Lord informed on the dissemination of the reports.
Even before the reports were received, the Government funded a major expansion of drug misuse services. The aim has been to establish a multi-disciplinary community-based service involving primary health care teams and generic youth and social workers, as well as specialist facilities. A high proportion of central funding has gone to the voluntary sector, which provides a range of advice and counselling services, together with longer-term rehabilitation facilities. Fifteen pilot syringe exchange schemes have been established. It is with those that one of the reports which I have mentioned deals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned Phoenix House in connection with drug misusers and the particular problems faced by people with HIV infections or AIDS who are injecting drugs. The working party of the Advisory Council is now looking at that issue, perhaps with a view to making a second report. We know of and welcome the interest of Phoenix House in the field. We shall be
1112
looking for advice to the working group on the role that drug rehabilitation can play and how we can ensure that adequate funds are made available.
The noble Baroness devoted the major part of her speech to the question of screening, which I would accept is one of the most important issues arising from AIDS. However, I must say to her and to the House that the Government have no intention of emulating those countries which have introduced compulsory screening for immigrants or other groups. Quite apart from the grave problems of principle that would arise, our expert advice indicates that it would be of little value in controlling the spread of AIDS. Instead of compulsory screening we have established an effective system whereby anyone who wishes can voluntarily be tested and tested with complete confidentiality. In our view, that approach is likely to prove far more effective as well as being less socially disruptive. As the noble Baroness pointed out, it is essential that such testing is accompanied by counselling.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked why anonymised testing was bad science and bad ethics. I can tell him that an expert group under Dr. Smith of the Public Health Laboratory Services has been considering surveillance of the AIDS epidemic and we have recently received its report, and are now studying it. The group discussed the scientific pros and cons of anonymised testing for HIV antibodies and it would be inappropriate for me to comment now on its conclusions. I confirm that anonymised screening is indeed undertaken for other surveillance, for example for influenza strains, but, as was pointed out a few months ago in legal advice to the British Medical Association, testing for AIDS has such consequences that it cannot be considered like other routine tests.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question on that point. Are we to take it that, in the view of the Government and their advisers, the desirability of widespread routine screening for a disease is in inverse proportion to its gravity—that is to say, the more serious the disease the less we need to know about it by widespread screening?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, I do not think that one can draw that conclusion from what I have said. However, I shall look again at what I have said and perhaps I may write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, continued the theme of testing and therapy. I share the hope expressed by him that there will soon be an effective therapy and eventually a cure. As the noble Lord said, the Medical Research Council is supporting excellent research work and we all hope that it will produce results shortly. As he remarked, when there is a cure everyone will come forward for testing; but that is not the present position. Therefore we must ensure that, in the absence of a cure, people are not discouraged from asking for advice, counselling and testing, where appropriate, by the fear that they will suffer discrimination or be made scapegoats as a result of those tests.

1113
I realise that other points require a response but I observe that I am running very rapidly out of time. Therefore I shall write to noble Lords who have raised those points.
I was especially glad that in his Motion today the noble Lord drew attention to the summit, at which I was privileged to be present, since I consider that it marks a historic step forward in the global fight against AIDS. As the House is aware, the summit was jointly organised by the World Health Organisation and the Government, and we were extremely indebted to Her Royal Highness, the Princess Royal, who graciously consented to open the proceedings. It brought together an unprecedented number of Health Ministers from all over the world. Almost 150 countries were represented, over 74 per cent. at ministerial level, together with major international agencies, voluntary bodies and distinguished individuals. I believe that it was a unique gathering.
Not only did the summit establish a general consensus on the urgent need for co-operative international action on AIDS, but it demonstrated a universal commitment to take that action; and a recognition of the crucial role of public education. The London declaration adopted at the summit makes several important statements about what preventive programmes should contain and the principles that should underpin them. Copies of this important declaration have been placed in the Library. In view of the time I shall not read out the declaration as I had intended.
In my speech I have set out a substantial record of action and achievement, both nationally and internationally. But I do not wish to give the impression that we are in any way complacent. Far from it. As the London declaration states, AIDS poses a serious threat to humanity and urgent action is necessary to defeat the disease. We do not have the luxury of time to spare. That is why we must and we shall redouble our efforts to contain its spread and ultimately to eliminate it altogether. In the concluding words of the declaration:
"We can and will begin now to slow the spread of HIV infection."
That is why I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, on this most timely, important and interesting debate.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, fortunately, I have two minutes left in which to thank speakers, on my own Benches and on all sides of the House who have participated in what I believe has been an extremely constructive and varied debate. Practically all the main topics associated with AIDS have been touched upon.
I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, that I was not trying to draw any false conclusions from the figure of 322 cases contracted through heterosexual contact that I mentioned. They had been separated out from intravenous drug users, but obviously one cannot tell whether or not they were suffering from venereal disease.
It was interesting that the topic of anonymised blood testing came up in the debate. It was mentioned by a number of speakers, including the noble Lords,
1114
Lord Hunter, Lord Kennet and Lord Winstanley, and I think that it offers legitimate ground for debate. There are two points of view and I think that we must take this debate further. One can simply say that some interesting points have been made today.
I shall read what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has said on the question of education. I was very glad to hear the importance that he attached to it. I think that there is a legitimate question to be asked about the Education Reform Bill. We may have to write something into it to ensure that there is room for AIDS education to take place. He chided me for doubting the wisdom of elected governors. I accept the rebuke, but there must be time for it to happen if they are to choose that it should. The noble Lord did not have time to reply to my point relating to the pressure on medical manpower, which I thought was an important aspect of my speech. I hope very much that when he writes to us on one or two of the other topics he will include that one. With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Crown Suppliers
5.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State about the future of the Crown Suppliers. The Statement is as follows:
"The Crown Suppliers is a self-financing business within the Department of the Environment. It sells furniture and other equipment and services to the public sector. It has operated as a government trading fund since 1976 and under the title of The Crown Suppliers since 1984.
"As direct suppliers to government departments, the Crown Suppliers has achieved considerable success in the design and procurement of its own-brand furniture, the procurement and supply of a wide range of equipment and the provision of fuel and transport. I have, however, considered the role and status of the Crown Suppliers in the light of the untying of departments from the compulsory use of purchasing agencies.
"I have had the benefit of two recent reports by consultants, and have discussed a summary of those reports with staff representatives. It is clear that the Crown Suppliers must reduce their overheads substantially to reflect new working practices and purchasing policies in government departments.
"Many of the activities of the Crown Suppliers are, however, of a commercial nature, and there is little doubt that they could be carried out more efficiently in the private sector. The question therefore is whether the Crown Suppliers should be given full freedom to compete in both public and

1115
private sectors, which would entail transfer to the private sector.
"I am convinced that privatisation provides the brightest future for the Crown Suppliers, as well as a continued source of competitive supplies for the public sector. It will also allow the Crown Suppliers to have access to a wider market. It is the Government's view that the private sector should be invited to bid for those of the Crown Suppliers' businesses which can be undertaken on a normal commercial basis. Some activities will have to remain in the public sector for security and other reasons.
"The Government intend therefore to seek further advice from a financial institution on the best method of effecting the sale of the Crown Suppliers. The business available for sale will include the provision of furniture, furnishings and other equipment on an untied basis for the public sector and the transport hire business. In evaluating offers received, I shall pay particular attention to proposals for the involvement of the staff in the success of the enterprise.
"I also intend to bring forward legislation to effect the transfer at any early opportunity".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I should also like to advise the House that my noble friend Lord McIntosh is not dealing with the matter as in his professional consultancy business he acts for the Crown Suppliers.
The Statement is very disappointing. Even in his new manifestation, the noble Earl will be aware that noble Lords on this side of the House have for many months sought to find the answers to questions concerning the future of the Crown supply service. Perhaps I may remind the Minister of one or two of the statements he has made.
In the fourth paragraph of the Statement he said that he has had the benefit of two recent reports by consultants. He must know that in the past three years the Government have commissioned four reviews to look into the operation of the Crown Suppliers. There was the Turton Report of 1985 and the Central Unit of Purchasing Review of 1986. They acknowledged that privatisation of the Crown Suppliers, though feasible, would not be in the public interest. The Minister and his colleagues then commissioned further reports. Was it not a case of seeking a second opinion, then a third opinion, and in this case a fourth opinion, until finally they had the opinion they wanted?
Where is the public interest aspect in these matters? The Minister must be aware that the earlier reports said that the public interest ought to be taken more fully into account. Even if privatisation was on, it was not on in the public interest. The Minister told us in the Statement that he had discussed these matters with staff representatives. Is it not a fact that the Crown Suppliers employs 1,486 non-industrial staff? Can he tell us what assurances he has given the staff,
1116
particularly those who are employed in sheltered workshops and those who are the employees of small organisations? What care or concern have the Minister and his colleagues taken to ensure that not only those who can look after themselves but the very many who cannot will be taken care of?
Will the Minister also confirm that the CBI has applauded the Crown Suppliers for its priority sourcing scheme, guaranteeing business and encouraging investment in plant and machinery throughout the country in designated development areas? Can he also confirm that under the present aegis the successful Crown Suppliers not only makes a profit but exceeds the targets that are set? Will he confirm that British Telecom, British Gas, British Rail and most recently British Aerospace all choose to use the Crown Suppliers because they judge it to offer best value in terms of cost, quality and reliability of service? Does not the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers amount to nothing more than its abolition? Is it not a case of political dogma replacing a successful public enterprise?
Why does the Minister say in one of his statements that there is little doubt that these activities can be carried out more efficiently in the private sector? Is not the Government's policy that if it is inefficient it can best be done privately and if it is efficient it can be done more efficiently privately? That is a kick in the face and an insult and is resented deeply by those who carry on the Crown service.
The Statement has done nothing to prove that a public service can be profitable, innovative and successful. This service has been cannibalised and flogged off to the highest bidder, with the friends of the Government making money out of the sacrifice of the public interest. The Statement is a cynical betrayal of the employees, the taxpayer and, above all, the public interest. The Minister should feel ashamed to bring this Statement to the House. He should even now keep the Crown Suppliers in the public sector.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we agree entirely with what has been said from the Opposition Front Bench to the extent that we welcome the Statement repeated by the noble Earl. I should also like to say that we welcome the arrangements made through the usual channels which permit this discussion to be taken at a very convenient moment. I hope that this will be a useful precedent for the future.
The House knows the stance of noble Lords on these Benches on privatisation. In this instance it is obviously a borderline case where certain activities are of a purely commercial nature and others are certainly not. The Minister has said nothing in the Statement to persuade, as he has the responsibility to persuade, those who have doubts about the issue that this is the right way of dealing with it. If you want to change from a public corporation to a private corporation it is the duty of those who put forward the change to justify it. There is nothing in the Statement which goes anywhere near doing that. All there is is the usual assertion that, whatever is before the Government, it can be carried out more efficiently in the private sector. That is an assertion. It is not a persuasive, logical argument. At all events we hope

1117
that when the legislation comes before the House the Government will be far better prepared to justify this move.
In the meantime, perhaps I may ask the Minister one or two questions. I too am very concerned about the two recent reports. Have they been published or are they going to be published, because they seem to go against the general tenor of what we previously understood was the best opinion with regard to a transfer of this kind? Secondly, what is the view of the Crown Suppliers? Has it been consulted? In particular, have the staff and employees been consulted? What is their view? Are they completely, totally and fully protected in any proposed transfer as to their terms of service and pension rights? The House knows that a transfer of this kind always produces difficult problems of reliability concerning future pension rights and there is nothing in the Statement about this.
Have the management employees been consulted about a possible management takeover? Is that what is meant in the Statement by,
"particular attention … to proposals for the involvement of the staff in the success of the enterprise"?
Finally, can we be told more about the application in this case of the Government's philosophy of divide and damage towards which they are leaning more and more when it comes to the privatisation of businesses which are best run as one complete entity and which are now being divided purely because certain parts of them can be sold in the market? The part that cannot and should not be sold is the part dealing with security, military supply and so on. Can the Minister say a little more about that aspect and how it is to he protected?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am pleased that both noble Lords were able to welcome the Statement as such but not necessarily all its contents.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, reminded the House that four reviews have taken place. They looked at various different aspects of the Crown Suppliers. They were not all concerned with privatisation, or the feasibility of privatisation, as he knows full well. As I said in the Statement, the summaries of the last two reports have been put in the Library. We believe that the activities of a commercial nature can be provided more efficiently in the private sector. That is entirely logical. That is what quite a lot of the Local Government Bill is all about and in which the noble Lord has taken a very active part. If it is right for local authorities, so it is right for central government.
Moreover some change to the Crown Suppliers is absolutely inevitable. What neither noble Lord seems to have grasped is that since April 1987 government departments have been untied and they are free to shop around for their suppliers. That is correct. It locates the buying decision with the source of funds. But that has affected the Crown Supplier's performance. Direct sales to departments in 1987 were 6 per cent. lower than in 1986. That is only a nine-month period, so the Crown Suppliers would have to reduce overheads, sharpen its competitive edge and widen its spread of markets to survive. The
1118
Government believe that its best chance of increasing sales in new markets lies within the greater freedom of operating in the private sector.
Any of your Lordships who have read the summary of the Dewi Jones report will realise what an emotional upheaval it would be for the Crown Suppliers if it remained in the public sector. For that reason we believe that privatisation is the best solution. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, did not mention anything to do with the staff. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, did. Surely we must consider the future of the staff—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, when he reads Hansard will the Minister reflect that I challenged him directly on the statement that consultation with the staff had taken place? I asked him what the reactions of the staff had been.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord talked about consultation with the staff. I shall come on to consultation with the staff, but we are concerned with the future of the staff. Where one has a declining market where departments are going out to look at suppliers other than the Crown Suppliers and the Crown Suppliers is facing a narrowing market, surely the right approach is to encourage the Crown Suppliers, which has about 8 per cent. of the global market, to go into the private sector, to compete and to get a wider market. That is the right way for the future of the staff.
Of course we have consulted the staff. There was a delay in that unfortunately one of the main negotiators on the trade union side was ill for a large part of the latter end of last year when the negotiations were due to take place. But my honourable friend the Minister concerned met the staff in December last year.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked about sheltered workshops. To a large extent firms will have to compete on merit for the Crown Suppliers' business as they do now. The Government's purchasing policy, which assists sheltered workshops, small firms and firms in designated areas, now applies to all departments carrying out their own buying following the untying provisions. These conditions may be made by Government as a requirement for supply to the Government whether a company is in the private or the public sector.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, but will the Minister—
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, let me just deal with all the other points. I think that is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, raised the very important matter of pensions. Pensions and redundancy provisions would have to be comparable under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. The exact nature of those arrangements will, as he rightly knows, require careful and detailed consideration.
Yes, we do not rule out the possibility of a management buy-out. The noble Lord interpreted the words in the Statement correctly. We have not divided and damaged. We have given the Crown Suppliers the opportunity to prosper.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that despite the gloomy observations of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, all experience of other activities which have been privatised supports the assertion in the Statement that the functions of this body can be more efficiently performed in the private sector? Can he confirm that the necessary legislation will be introduced during the current session?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right on his first point, and that is a major reason for the Government to proceed on this route. However, I cannot give him a firm answer at the moment on the date of the legislation but we hope that it will be in the fairly near future.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, as the former Secreary of State for the Environment who established the Crown Suppliers as a separate entity in the Property Services Agency, let me say how very much I welcome the Statement that has been made today about the privatisation. Is my noble friend aware that at the time the Crown Suppliers was set up we envisaged the privatisation of that organisation? Though it has taken a year or two to come to fruition, it will be very welcome, not least by many of the senior managers in the organisation who have looked forward to it as being the way in which they could get the Treasury off their backs. I hope that my noble friend will be able to accelerate the legislation as swiftly as possible.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who has considerably more experience of these matters than I have. I hope that your Lordships took on board his relevant comments about what the managers of the Crown Suppliers want.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for providing the opportunity to raise one or two matters. Will he explain why in the terms of reference of the last two reports consideration of the public interest aspect was not included? He will be aware that the public interest was the strongest prevailing criterion for the advice given to the Minister in the first two reports. Will he explain why it was deliberately excluded from the last two reports? In my view the public interest is very important.
Will the Minister also say more about the TUPE '81 pension transfer arrangements? The House will recall that when the ordnance factories and the dockyards were privatised the trade unions concerned were apprehensive about the impact of their transfer from one employer to another. I am not flying kites or setting hares loose here, but can the Minister tell me that the Government will consider carefully the experience gained of previous privatisations?
He also spoke rather glibly about those who presently work in sheltered workshops and who, are the recipients of employment from government
1120
agencies. The Minister professed that they would be looked after. Is he seriously saying that he intends that those who are less able to look after themselves and many others—I referred to them in my previous question—in disabled and sheltered workshops will be looked after very carefully indeed? The Minister could help them by giving assurances that in any contract clauses will be included to ensure that.
Will the Minister finally explain why he has deprived the ratepayer and the taxpayer of the measuring rod which the Crown Suppliers gives? When taxpayers have considered value for money from private sources, at least they have had up to now in their control a government supply agency and a purchasing agency. It has been a measuring rod and a monitor. That will disappear. Can the Minister tell us how he will ensure satisfaction from the new arrangement if that disappears?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, pensions are always a sensitive and difficult area that deserves great consideration. That will be given. Concerning sheltered workshops I can only repeat that the conditions that may be made by any government as a requirement for supplying to them can be introduced in the public or the private sector, but we realise what an important part this is for small firms and sheltered workshops. We take our commitment to them very seriously. Of course I cannot give guarantees, and I am sure that the noble Lord will realise that.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, went on to deal with what might be called quality and standards. There are appropriate British standards for various requirements such as fire retardancy, and it is a matter for the departments to make specifications when buying. The Crown Suppliers is not the only department in government interested in developing safer materials. In that regard I should like to mention the DHSS supplies technical division, the DTI consumer affairs division and the Home Office where in my previous position I had a good deal to do with the fire service. Therefore there is a range of in-house departmental bodies which are capable of performing all the functions about which the noble Lord is concerned.

EC Internal Market
5.50 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to call attention to the case for more rapid progress towards the completion of the internal market of the EC by 1992; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name in the Order Paper, I should like to say how delighted I am to see that the noble Lord, Lord Rees, has chosen this as the occasion on which to make his maiden speech. I dealt with him on many occasions in the past during his activities as a Member in another place and as a Minister. I have unfailingly pleasant memories of those occasions.
I have tabled the Motion because I believe it to be timely that we in this House should be considering

1121
what potentially could be one of the most important developments in Europe in the years ahead. The completion of the internal market in 1992 could offer this country and other members of the European Community an unrivalled opportunity to expand their economies, improve the social well-being of their inhabitants and compete effectively with the other strong industrial groups throughout the world. At the same time there have been reports of delays in the procedures for approving the various measures needed to bring this integrated market into operation by the due date. I think that it would be helpful if we looked at that and in particular heard the views of the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, about that aspect when he replies for the Government.
It might be asked, as members of the European Community why are we now having to concern ourselves with the completion of the internal market. After all, that was one of the main objectives of the Community when it was first set up by the original six signatories to the Treaty of Rome in 1957. It was a factor which motivated us as a country to join in 1973. I believe that that happened for the simple reason that, although the tariff barriers were removed expeditiously in the movement of goods within the Community, very soon a complex of non-tariff barriers was erected. They were barriers which related to differing standards, health and safety regulations, frontier delays and so on. There was a whole plethora of impediments against achieving the objectives of the Community. So it is that we are now taking the necessary steps to deal with that.
The other day I was reminded by Mr. John Drew, the Head of the UK office of the Commission, of a wise saying by Jean Monnet, the architect of the European Community. He said, if I may quote the French:
"L'Europe se fait par des petits pas".
The English translation reads, Europe is created in small steps. Indeed he was right and we cannot be rushed into these matters. The fact that it has taken us three decades to face up to the realities of the integrated market may not be a subject for concern so long as we now get on with it.
I should like to remind the House that this year is the centenary of the birth of Jean Monnet. I had an opportunity to meet him when I was a member of the UK Delegation to the High Authority of the Coal and Steel Community in Luxembourg, during the early 1950s. As far as Britain was concerned, he always took the view that we should take some time to make up our minds about membership but that once we had made up our minds we should take it seriously. We now have an opportunity so to do.
The plans that have been made for the completion of the internal market are extensive and meticulous. As your Lordships will recall, it began in 1985 when the Commission was asked to draw up a plan for its completion. The plan was presented in what was known as the White Paper, which was pepared in a most comprehensive way. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, as Vice-President of the Commission, played a large part in that. The objective is to make sure that in all the necessary details actions are taken to introduce the free movement of goods, persons,
1122
services and capital within the European Community. The subsequent passing of the Single European Act, which was ratified in 1986 and 1987 by the various member countries, should facilitate this process.
Turning to the present position, the Commission has tabled two-thirds (which is approximately 200) of the various actions which need to be taken to make this integrated market a reality. It considers that by the end of this year it will have introduced virtually the totality of the actions that need to be taken. On the other hand, the approval of these actions by the Council of Ministers has been somewhat slower, as one might reasonably expect. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, whether he considers that the speed at which the Council of Ministers is now approving the various actions is in line with the objective of completing this whole endeavour by 1992. The impression I have received is that during the British Presidency in 1986 a good deal of progress was made but that subsequently progress has not been quite so fast.
I think that it is desirable to turn next to the broad objectives which the Commission has set itself for achievement during the course of this year. As I understand it from an important speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, at a gathering of ELEC, of which the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, is chairman, he was not so much concerned at the number of measures which were agreed at any one time as with broad groupings of objectives. He set out four objectives which it was hoped would be achieved by the end of 1988. The first was in connection with standards.
Standards have been a real problem within the Community. The differing standards have acted as an obstacle to the free movement of goods. The attempt to bring about a total harmonisation of standards has been extremely difficult. The Commission has introduced what I believe to be a big move forward: it is the concept of mutual recognition of standards. That is that when a standard is agreed in a member country it should be accepted throughout the Community, it being agreed that the basis on which it is done will be a reasonable basis.
At the same time, one naturally hopes that some of the standards that we have established here will be accepted generally. I speak with some knowledge of this subject because I was president of the British Standards Institution. For example, there is a BS5750, which is the national standard laid down for quality management systems, and that has been a big breakthrough in Britain achieving a much improved approach to quality. We may be able to have that accepted generally. We must hope that this question of mutual standards will be adopted by the end of this year.
Secondly, the Commission is aiming for the opening up of public procurement. Obviously that cuts both ways. We would hope that our capital goods manufacturers in particular will win many more markets abroad but obviously it opens up the markets here. I have sufficient knowledge from my experience in one sector of industry in Britain to feel that we can stand up to that competition successfully

1123
and we ought to press for this opening up. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, was kind enough to write to me the other day as a result of a supplementary question I put recently and he assured me that the Government are keen to secure this opening up of public procurement.
Thirdly, there is the question of professional qualifications. So far there has been a real impediment to people possessing professional qualifications in the UK, for example, accountants, doctors or whoever it might be, practising in the other countries. Again the Commission's proposal is that there should be mutual recognition and I believe that that would be a very big step forward.
The fourth point that the Commission wants to see introduced in this period is common directives on banking, on which details have recently been published, and the liberalisation of financial services, which of course is a matter of great interest to this country because of our expertise in that sector. Those are the four broad objectives which, as I understand it, the Commission would like to see introduced during the course of this year, and no doubt we shall hear later whether that is possible.
Next I should like to turn to the problems which we understand from reports in the press have been encountered by the British Government in their negotiations. These seem to cover two issues. First, there are certain aspects of the freedom of movement of individuals which appear to have raised difficulties, and it would be useful for us to hear about those. Secondly (and this has achieved much more public notice), there is the question of what is known as fiscal approximation. There are new phrases which emerge from time to time and this is one of them: fiscal approximation. It deals with the vexed question of VAT and, as I understand it, this could be a negotiable proposition. The lines are not drawn hard and fast but it would be useful to know where Her Majesty's Government stand in this matter.
Finally, I should like to turn to the awareness of British industry regarding this big opportunity. For the moment I regret to say that, as far as I can tell, it is fairly low. A comparison was made with French industry by the President of the CBI recently and he put the awareness of British enterprise at something like 5 per cent. compared with about 80 per cent. in France. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, is leading a vigorous campaign to increase awareness. There is to be a meeting in London in April followed by regional meetings to bring this about. That perhaps is the most important issue of all.
What is the point in removing all these barriers if we are unable to take advantage of the resultant situation? Therefore, we have no time to lose and we must make it clear to industry that it must recognise that 1992 is something that exists on the calendar and there are only a limited number of years before we can prepare ourselves for taking advantage of this great open market—320 million people and £1,600 billion of combined GNP—which is opening up on our doorstep.
If we can combine pressing forward with the removal of the barriers and the awareness of British industry of the opportunities which this would present, this could be very much to our' ultimate advantage and to the ultimate advantage of Western Europe as a whole. The fact is that in spite of the existence of the EC for many years, a great deal of the technological advance in the world has occurred in other countries. It has occurred in other countries because they have combined their efforts, as in the United States, Japan and the various countries in the Pacific Basin. We now have an opportunity to combine our efforts effectively with our European partners. It is an opportunity we must seize. I hope that it is an opportunity in which Britain will lead the way. I beg to move for Papers.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Rees: My Lords, I hope I may begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his very kind references to myself. I also congratulate him not only for a singularly lucid, powerful and comprehensive speech but also for his impeccable sense of timing in introducing this debate in a week when Herr Pohl of the Bundesbank has issued, or perhaps reissued, a pressing invitation to this country to become a full member of the EMS, when our own governor of the Bank of England has stressed the need for convergence in banking regulations and when my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham has indicated his support for emphasis on the internal market during the German presidency of the EC.
I hope that the House will be indulgent to this my first intervention in its debates, particularly since it will inevitably cover ground that has been well tilled before. In particular, perhaps I may express my admiration for the work of the Select Committee and in particular for its 14th Report of the Session of 1984–85.
The deadline of 1992 approaches. Its realism has been doubted but certainly the work and enthusiasm of M. Delors and my noble friend Lord Cockfield must command recognition. Of course, progress has been made, and the United Kingdom Government have made a notable contribution in this field. Indeed, I hope I may recall that I played some modest part, when Minister for Trade, in the early internal market councils. It may be that we did not have a comprehensive agenda of 300 proposals, but at least we reinstated this critical question on the agenda of the Community. As the noble Lord has reminded the House, there are a wide range of matters to be addressed. Of the proposals of my noble friend Lord Cockfield more than half have been achieved, but I want tonight to concentrate on one sensitive area which promises exceptional difficulties: the field of fiscal harmonisation.
Every country is naturally jealous of its autonomy in this field. There are particular sensitivities, historical, social and economic. If we take the case of the UK in the field of VAT, its basic rate of 15 per cent. is comfortably in the middle of the European Community range. Our particular difficulties derive from the narrowness of the scope of our tax and from the zero rate. To extend VAT to, for example, food, children's clothes or even books must occasion keen

1125
debate and I am certain that your Lordships will wish to contribute to that debate. Powerful voices in the course of the last election and thereafter have indicated the position that the Government are likely to take up. Having had some hand in the 1984 Finance Bill, I know the sensitivities aroused by even a modest extension of VAT to take-away foods. I have debated keenly the impact of such a measure on the economy of Chinese take-away restaurants and the meaning of ambient temperatures in relation to food. I have felt the power of the publishing lobby in relation to any extension of VAT to books, magazines and newspapers of whatever merit. I have felt the scourge of the family lobby when any question of an extension to children's clothes has been mooted.
The conclusions which I offer the House are that, whatever the political sensitivities, the case for a wider base for our indirect taxation, particularly VAT, is structurally and economically sound. If the VAT and Excise duties were harmonised round a European norm, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be likely to be slightly in credit. Under our parliamentary system special interest lobbies are enabled not only to be highly articulate but to mobilise, if momentarily, an often disproportionate amount of support.
The only possibility of advance in this field which I can see depends, therefore, on the construction of a package. A piecemeal advance will, I believe on past experience, be defeated piecemeal. I commend to the House the example of Senator Packwood's package of fiscal reform in the United States some two years ago. A well-balanced package can often balance gains and losses over the whole of our society. The social security system and, in particular for example, child benefits, could be invoked to cushion some of the consequences.
The administrative advantages of a single rate may have to be sacrificed and in more sensitive areas a lower rate or rates constructed. I believe that if the internal market is completed we are particularly well equipped as a country to take advantage of the opportunities offered, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, reminded us, in the field of financial services—specifically banking and insurance. I believe that these prizes are worth a greater measure of flexibility in the field of fiscal harmonisation than has yet been shown.
I conclude with a reference of no particular originality to another relevant factor in this field—full United Kingdom membership of the EMS. Since 1979 we have encountered practically every combination and permutation of fiscal and currency circumstance. We have had a pound weak against the United States dollar; we have had a pound strong against the United States dollar; we have had a pound weak against the deutschmark; we have a pound strengthening against the deutschmark.
The official answer—I admit to having given it myself several times from the Dispatch Box—that we will join the exchange rate mechanism at the appropriate time is, I believe, no longer a credible statement of government policy. I believe that present circumstances are not unfavourable to our
1126
responding to Herr PÖhl's invitation and joining the exchange rate mechanism.
Our economic base and our national self-confidence have immeasurably increased over that of a decade ago. I hope the Government will play a yet more central role in the affairs of the Community; not just in matters such as the budget of the common agricultural policy, critical though they may be, but positively in the advancement of the goals of the European Community and a move towards the free movement of goods, capital and labour which must contribute, I believe, to the political and economic health of this country.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, though I do not wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rees, in all that he said this evening, I congratulate him all the more warmly because in another place I often enjoyed his financial expertise and, indeed, agility of mind. I hope they bloom merrily here too.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has today painted a somewhat rosy picture of the proposed common internal market of the EC. However, though he spoke of facing realities he did not, if I may say so, face some of the less rosy realities in this prospect. Of course there are some special cases—the insurance and banking service is one he mentioned—where the present EC rules have certainly discriminated against Britain and ought to be amended. However, there is danger in believing that that is true also of manufactured goods generally where the picture to date and the prospect is much less rosy.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke of this great market—was it 200 million, 300 million or 1,600 million people?—but we heard all those expressions many years ago and we were promised that if we joined this wonderful market our trade balance would greatly benefit. For a moment tonight we should look at what has actually happened in hard facts rather than ringed with those rosy hopes.
The hard facts are that as far as concerns manufacturing trade the removal of tariffs from our manufactured imports from the Continental EC simultaneously with the raising of food prices has pushed what was previously a small surplus in UK visible trade with the EC to such an extent that, despite invisible earnings on our balance of payments as a whole of about £7 million, last year the UK was in overall balance of payments deficit of nearly £3 billion.
The White Paper published by Mr. Heath's Government in July 1971, using very similar language to that used by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, this afternoon, said that that Government were confident—"confident" was the word used—that if we entered the EC the effect on our trade balance would be positive and substantial. Those are the words used in paragraph 45 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 4715, and meant, if they meant anything, a large visible trade surplus.
Those of us at that time who believed that the removal of tariffs on manufactured imports and the forcing up of labour costs at the same time by artificially raising food prices must cause a deficit

1127
modestly estimated then that the future visible deficit would be about £250 million or perhaps £300 million. At current prices and current sterling that would be about £1.5 billion today compared with the small surplus that previously existed up to 1970. However, the actual UK deficit in manufactured goods with the rest of the EC in 1987 was £11 billion, so I am afraid that those of us who made those estimates must apologise for having been insufficiently pessimistic. It is that £11 billion deficit, partly offset by a surplus in trade with the rest of the world, which is now dragging our whole balance of payments steadily into deficit.
The course of this debacle has been that between 1973 and 1976 we removed tariffs and raised labour costs at the same time. We might with less damage have done one or the other but not, I regret, both. EC food prices which the UK consumer has to pay are now, at the wholesale level, 100 per cent., 200 per cent. or at times 300 per cent. above world prices for grain, dairy products and meat. This raises our retail food prices by about 25 per cent. above what they would otherwise be and increases the cost of living by a not negligible amount. That forces up the level of money incomes and industrial costs throughout the whole of our economy.
The most striking and revealing effect has been that on the British car industry. United Kingdom car output—and people sometimes forget this—was rising until 1972, with a record of 1.9 million vehicles in that year, so you cannot blame everything that has happened since that time on the alleged inefficiency of the industry; that did not start in 1972. However, from that year output fell year by year to under I million by 1984, when it was about half that figure. Imports rose from 15 per cent. of our market to about 58 per cent. Those are the cold facts of the story in the car industry.
From now on our oil earnings, which at the peak a few years ago eased our balance of payments by between £10 billion and £20 billion a year, will steadily fall. We now have to meet an overall visible deficit of £10 billion which is entirely due to our visible trade with the EC. Before we embrace those rosy hopes too easily, perhaps we should ask ourselves: what is going to cover this gap as the oil earnings decline? A more open internal EC market, on all the evidence so far, is likely to widen that gap rather than close it. We are told that invisible earnings will come to our rescue, but our invisible earnings are only running at approximately £7 million a year which is not even enough to cover the EC visible deficit.
Only the other day the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry boasted about our £130 billion or £140 billion of overseas investment, and said that that improvement would help. However, the income from that is apparently only £4 billion to £5 billion a year. I should be most grateful if the Minister who is to reply to the debate could say whether that is correct.
The only escape from this dilemma is to rid ourselves of the crippling burden which the common agricultural policy is now increasingly imposing on our living standards and labour costs. In my view it
1128
is a common external market that we need just as much as a common internal one. Otherwise we shall be faced with an almost insurmountable payments problem in the years ahead. Therefore, in conclusion I say that the only remedy would be either to deflate and raise our unemployment levels or to lower the exchange rate. I suggest that whatever .happens the most immediate, practical moral is that we should keep in our own hands such control as we still have over the sterling exchange rate.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, to the idealist the European Economic Community is a most plausible concept as, indeed, is communism. But the reality of life is that someone would always want to be in charge to exercise control and to shape events for their particular interest.
The main difference between most nation states is how the people who are in charge came to be in charge. To generalise, it ranges from democracy to the machine gun. But, once in place, the fact is that they have it in common that they vigorously support causes—in generality, again—ranging from a perception of the professed good of their people to a totally selfish perception of their own good.
In advance of its formation, my main problem in contemplating the proposed European Community was that each nation state that joined would selfishly seek for its own perceived good and, without much qualm, abandon the concept of the unified community of principles and actions. In broad terms, my concern seems to have been borne out. For instance, the area which has generated most heat in recent years is the common agricultural policy. I truly believe that the French have repeatedly torpedoed many other countries' best efforts in support of advancing its peasant farming industry. However, the CAP is merely a detail, albeit a rather large one. If it is not accepted that the essence and purpose of forming a community was to effect a frontierless block of nations to counter the USA and the Far East, then I do not see any purpose in forming it in the first place; nor is there any benefit to be gained from an organisation that costs a mint of money to run.
But perhaps, to be realistic, one has also to be cynical. Undoubtedly there were votes to be gained by joining. A seductive prospectus can easily be put together showing how the enlarged market, thus created, can benefit, for example, our farmers, manufacturing industry, the professions and many others. So the story runs that your benevolent country's government is going to gain all these advantages for you by taking this great step forward. As with many idealistic proposals, it is only when confronted with the nitty-gritty of what he has taken on board that the patient begins to choke and say, "Oh well, striving for unity is all very well but this particular idea is ridiculous and goes against the basic traditions of a thousand years of history". That seems to be, in some measure, where we have arrived at now.

1129
A major article entitled "A Europe Without Seams" in the Independent last Monday began:
"The European Commission Vice-President, Lord Cockfield, stands accused of plotting to destroy the British way of life. He is, according to Labour and some Conservative MPs a bureaucratic ogre who wishes to impose VAT on children's shoes. He is the dangerous visionary who plans to throw open Britain's frontiers to terrorists, rabid dogs, drug smugglers and foam-filled sofas".
But, after three decades of its existence, all he is trying to do is achieve a frontierless Community by 1992. Perhaps his sin is putting a date on it. It is indeed far easier, and lucratively employs far more people, to travel hopefully than to arrive. For example, tomorrow I could give up smoking or drinking or lose weight. But to actually put a date on it and do it is often disagreeable. It is far easier to strive towards the light at the end of the tunnel than to arrive there. Simply by striving in Community affairs, those anxious for a change are pleased while the conservative traditionalists—and here I mean conservative with a small "c"—are not upset.
I am something of a believer in the biblical precept,
"that which thou do, do quickly".
Lock Cockfield exemplified that precept. He was appointed in 1985 and in June of that year published a White Paper, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, listing 300 steps to what he called a "seamless" Community by the end of 1992, not simply diminishing internal barriers but removing them entirely. That action would stimulate trade and sharpen competition. A common policy of indirect taxation would be required to remove the need for tax checks at frontiers. There would need to be closer co-operation between security services, and common approaches to immigration, terrorism and drugs trafficking.
In truth, by his energy, Lord Cockfield has merely put teeth into what was surely implied by the Treaty of Rome and last year's Single European Act. The rather academic point has been raised that the Act was strongly politically binding but not perhaps legally enforceable. But, surely, having come all this way—the Community, as I have already said, is in its third decade—we should get on and do it quickly. I say "quickly" because affairs that drag on rapidly lose authority and commitment.
In Italy, France and Germany, procedure to a single market is seen as inevitable and irreversible. During its presidency of the EC Council of Ministers in 1986, this country was able to force the pace of innovation more than any other country had managed to date. Lord Cockfield is quoted in the aforementioned Independent newspaper article as saying that his critics claim that it is idealism for a Community totally without internal frontiers that is taking matters too far and forming a sticking point. He says that his opponents claim that 90 per cent. of the economic benefits of a single European market can be achieved by a concerted effort to simplify frontier controls and deal with hidden trade barriers and that to abolish frontiers completely will require a disproportionate amount of political energy and risk. He states that if you maintain the frontiers you perpetuate the unnecessary burden on business of delays and bureaucratic checks.
1130
I believe that most important of all is the psychological aspect. Abolition of the "frontier mentality" would persuade industry to operate on a European basis; it is an argument accepted by many UK industrialists. It has helped to generate great enthusiasm on the Continent where surveys last year showed a big majority awareness of the proposals among businesses, while in the United Kingdom similar surveys showed widespread ignorance. However, I understand that the Government have plans, mentioned in greater detail earlier, for a business information campaign this spring on the opportunities provided by the unified market.
VAT and excise duties have been put forward as a stumbling block. But the principle of exemptions for countries in particular difficulty has been built into the plan. I should like to ask the Minister whether they are a major impediment. As we have already heard, member governments are already falling well behind the timetable laid out in 1985. That is surely the reason for the debate opened by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in which he called on us to move more rapidly.
The end of this year will be the halfway mark from 1985 to implementation by the end of 1992. This country has joined the Community, not only joined, but confirmed that decision in a referendum. Having gone that far, I believe that we should put all our efforts into trying for a unified market to make the Community work. EC overheads are enormous. Let us try to reap the benefits.
I have already quoted from the Bible,
"that which thou do, do quickly".
Although a thoroughly multi-racial society now, let us all follow that excellent biblical precept.
6.32 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for putting his pertinent question to the Minister. I hope that we shall hear an equally pertinent reply. I should also like to express my warm thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, who is not here but who has made a great many statements about the formation of an internal market and has begun a campaign to raise awareness of this matter among this country's business community.
Some figures for awareness in other countries have been given. A figure that was quoted in a newspaper today brings the argument closer to home. It stated that 87 per cent. of French companies were already including within their forward planning the position as it is hoped to be by the end of 1992. That is surely a graphic warning for us, if nothing else is. Although I could not follow the opening sentences of the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, I entirely agreed with him when he said, effectively, "Hurry up and get on with it"
Those of us who have to deal with some of the problems that arise from the fact that we do not have an internal market should draw attention to them. First, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was right: the Single European Act is a legally binding treaty. The one policy to which all member states agreed when they

1131
signed that Act was the formation of the internal market. Of course, as a lawyer I turned to the end of the book, where it says that the date of 31st December 1992 does not legally bind anyone. That was to be expected. Nevertheless, it was an objective which member states agreed to aim for.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked the Government to take all possible steps, when opinion from the Parliament and draft proposals from the Commission come to the Council, to ensure that the British Government take the lead in seeing that the proposals are adopted as quickly as possible.
I welcomed the speech made by my noble friend Lord Rees. It was enchanting to hear him recant the words he so often used from the Treasury Box in another place and to know that this noble House can effect such a rapid transformation as regards what for many of us is an essential policy for the good of the United Kingdom's economy; that is, joining the European monetary system. It is a great joy to know that we shall no longer hear such words from my noble friend.
It is worth thinking for a few minutes about VAT. It has caused a great deal of confusion and alarm. I shall put just two or three points to your Lordships' House. First, immense difficulties and hold-ups are caused by different rates of VAT when business people are trading with other countries. My noble friend Lord Bethell and myself, and I am sure other MEPs, continually receive complaints from businessmen about the difficulties they have when grasping this nettle. That is to say nothing of complaints from people who travel to the Continent with the tools of their trade or equipment. They are held up at Calais or on the Belgian frontier. They ring up and say, "For goodness sake, help me because my Toshiba computer has been confiscated by the Customs and I have had to pay a fine." That is because the VAT base and rate are different. I could quote many cases. I am sure other Members of your Lordships' House who are interested in such work could also do so.
Thirdly, this country's drink trade suffers from different rates of excise. Drinks form a large part of our exports. Companies are put at a major disadvantage in many EC countries because of the lower rates of excise on some types of alcohol due to the way alcoholic strength is calculated.
For all those reasons, it would be beneficial to have a reasonable approach. The rates need not be identical. That was never the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. There should be a rate band with a variation of 5 per cent.
Some leading articles have appeared recently which have confirmed what my noble friend Lord Rees has said—that there could be a broad package which includes widening the VAT base. At the moment, I think we have the lowest base in the Community. It is about 40 per cent. It is suggested that we should take on board a lower rate. At the moment 15 per cent. VAT is paid on pet food, which makes up 6 per cent. of all grocery purchases. If the rate where brought down to 4 per cent. it would make an enormous difference to the small purchaser who
1132
goes to an ordinary store. The price of drink would also come down. As my noble friend said, one would have to take into account at the same time those people on family credit (or whatever the new form of supplementary benefit is) or old age pension so that people at that income level could be compensated, possibly by lower income tax thresholds and other income tax packages. That would make sense, because we should be able to spend what we have in our pockets.
I understand from a recent study by the Institute of Fiscal Studies that the benefit of exemption or zero rating goes to 63 per cent. of the population which has above average incomes. It would make sense to some extent to put a low rate of VAT, possibly 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. on food and widen the VAT base. That would of course bring down VAT on those elements of food on which we are already paying 15 per cent. Those proposals would have to be studied. They would need what I would call a multi-departmental study. The DHSS, the DTI and the Treasury would look together at models which would specify the various criteria to be met so as to make the idea sensible.
It always amazes me when I come back from Calais to see the thousands of British people at Dover who cross cheerfully from Dover to Calais to buy French food in French shops, on all of which of course there is VAT of at least 5·5 per cent. Regrettably, I never see people coming from France to England to buy food which does not bear VAT. One must wonder what justification there is for not putting VAT on food. If it were to happen, and if there were any change in the weekly expenditure of those people on supplementary benefit, old age pension or child benefit, it would be essential that these benefits should all be raised in line with what would be the calculated increase in the price of food caused by VAT.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised the question of recognition of diplomas and professions. I should like to put in a plea on behalf of students. We in this country are suffering very greatly from skill shortages, as are other countries. Yet we have the opportunity to send our students abroad to take part in training courses in high technology which would be immensely valuable to them. However, until the universities and polytechnics recognise that six months in a college abroad can be counted into the time that students have spent on their course it will remain impossible to say to a student, "Go and spend six months in France. Learn French. You will have an opportunity to learn this or that subject". They subtract that six-month period from the total spent at the polytechnic. It is absolutley essential that this should be considered as quickly as possible. Perhaps we could then revert back to the Middle Ages, when this nonsense did not exist. Such a change would be of great benefit to the student population in this country as well as to those who wish to come to this country to take up vacant places in polytechnics. We have vacant places in polytechnics, yet the same problem applies to them.
Finally, perhaps I may refer to points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, on manufactured goods. Fifty per cent. of all our exports go to the EC. If we did not

1133
have the European Community as a place to which to sell our exports we should be very much worse off than we are. Regrettably one has to remember the period 1974–79, when taxes and increases in prices had an effect on our industries and manufacturing goods.
In conclusion I should very much like to support the Motion put to the Government and to recognise that fiscal, technical and other barriers to trade have been enormously costly to this country. The sooner they are removed the better.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and congratulate my noble countryman, Lord Rees, on his splendid maiden speech. I would have paid a glowing tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, on her determination in Europe if she had not taken two minutes of my time.
I rise as prejudiced a witness as is the noble Baroness. At the time of Britain's entry into the Common Market I was a dedicated, even fierce, opponent of our entry both at that time and on those terms. I have seen no reason in the last few years to change my mind substantially. My reason at that time—and it was a major one—was that when one goes into a system that is incompletely organised one probably has an extended opportunity to contribute to that body, but the way out is very difficult indeed. My fellow countryman, Aneurin Bevan, made a whimsical and typical response to the argument that going into a wider market of 320 million people would necessarily solve the difficulties of the British economy when he said that one does not tame the forces in the jungle by planting more trees.
The Common Market was then, and is today, a chaos of competing national interests. We cannot gainsay the fact that we ourselves—for example, in our recent debate on the fishing industry quotas—represent our own interests when we come to argue about what position we should take within Europe. Even when I was opposing entry I was schooled in doing so by the fact that I grew up in a western extremity of these small islands. The imbalances that occur within a small nation such as Great Britain, and within the nations that make up the United Kingdom, taught me that unemployment in those circumstances becomes endemic in a system that leaves the extremities exposed to the better concentrated interests of the communities that naturally attract development. In that sense I could not see that we as a nation were going to improve our chances in the immediate five-year period simply by going into a Common Market in which our influence was already eroded by the fact that we had been late in entering.
It would be quite wrong for anyone to assume that there is a consensus in Britain at this hour to our remaining a member of the Common Market. There is not. If many British people could see a way out and could have leadership to lead them out, they would follow that leadership. Many of them are not convinced that there have been great advantages to Britain in our membership.
1134
There are disadvantages in our membership. I shall give one or two examples. However, before I do so, in order that I shall not be accused of going overboard on this issue—which I am inclined to do—let me read out what advantages there have been, for example, for Wales. I speak often about Wales and make no apology for doing so.
On 27th March 1987 in another place Dr. Marek, a political friend of mine, asked the then Secretary of State for Wales, another friend of mine, Mr. Nicholas Edwards, now the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, what financial advantages accrued to Wales from membership. The then Mr. Edwards answered—and I repeat it now—that the European Regional Development Fund quota had begun in 1975 with a £6.2 million allocation to Wales, which had risen by 1986 to a £59.5 million, and to a total of £387 million. If I were to take the European Regional Development Fund non quota, the amount had risen by that year to £19.1 million in total. The European Coal and Steel Community—in which my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, the generator of this debate, had such a large part to play—up until 1985 had made a contribution of £405 million. The figures were not available for the two subsequent years.
I shall not go into all those sections; time does not allow. However, it is a very subtantial financial contribution to changing the nature of the British economy and one which compensates for some of the imbalances that I outlined at the beginning. But at what cost? As my noble friend Lord Jay has said today, and for 30 years, against that contribution has to be offset the very high tariff per head of the British population—the population per head of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland—for membership.
Having given those figures let me return to my own script, as it were. In the advantages that I have listed—and I do this very carefully—one great advantage to accrue to Wales has been this European investment to make up for the deficiencies in the old coal-based heavy industrial economy that was so clearly and historically running down. There has been an additional advantage. In that regard I must pay tribute to successive Secretaries of State and to at least two political parties in office. There has been a determined attempt to woo inward investment into Wales from sources outside Europe. The notable success of the Welsh economy in attracting the Japanese is a very important matter.
On the disadvantages, my noble friend Lord Broadbridge mentioned the common agricultural policy and the damage done to indigenous agriculture by our mandatory funding of less efficient foreign farmers and by the regressive and nationalistic attitudes, again of the French.
This very day the national newspaper of Wales, Papur Genedlaethol Cymru (the Western Mail), said this:
"Welsh farmers' leaders hailed last night a victory in the long-running Anglo-French sheep war".
I shall not read the whole article.
"British farmers had complained it was an artificial tax aimed solely at limiting their exports to France"—

1135
the national interest.
"The NFU, together with the meat trade, took this to the European Court and we are delighted we have been proved right",
said Mr. Maurice Trumper.
"It will help the export of mutton-ewe meat to the Continent. It's good news for the abattoirs and good news for the farmers",
and of course it is also good news for Wales.
"There have been obstacles put in the way of exporting our sheep meat and we produce more than we can eat, so anything that eases the problem of selling it would be welcomed".
In West Wales, as in the whole of Britain, the quotas imposed on milk farmers have forced some of the best of them from their land. Land values have halved; units and herds built up over generations have come under the hammer and once-wealthy farmers have been bankrupted. There is the retraction of the industrial base, the degradation of communities based on coal, the decline of deep-sea and middle distance fishing. None of this has been more than peripherally improved by our membership of the Common Market.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said that the French do not come to Britain. That is quite wrong. A major part of the economy of tourism is based on the fact that from time to time when the pound is in the right kind of balance with other currencies a great deal of money is spent in this country by people coming from Europe.
I sit down after eight minutes with an hour and a half left to expound.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Bethell: I should like to join with other noble Lords who congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on introducing the debate at a timely moment when the Government and Members of your Lordships' House are right to concentrate on the whole question of the internal market and particularly on the issue of fiscal approximation tabled by the Commission in August last year which has been the subject of so much misrepresentation in the media in recent weeks. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rees also on a most charming maiden speech, in particular the way in which he described in modest and engaging terms his path along the road to Damascus on the vexed question of the exchange rate of the European monetary system, Like my noble friend Lady Elles, I welcome him to those who have taken the more European line on this point.
It is disappointing to find noble Lords opposite in essence making the same speeches as I remember hearing or reading in 1972, or indeed in some cases last year when we were debating the Single European Act, making our flesh creep with all kinds of dire prognostications of what will happen if the horrible foreigner is allowed to come within our shores and sell his goods and peddle his wicked ways. Do we really find that Britain has suffered the invasion predicted by noble Lords opposite and some of their friends in 1972? I look forward to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who I trust will take the far more reasonable line approved in recent months by the Leader of the Labour Party, which is totally at variance with that apparently supported by some of his noble friends.
1136
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was right to point out the heavy burden that we bear through not properly moving forward towards a true common market. We decided 15 years ago to join this organisation. Surely we must once and for all decide that we are going to make the best of it and make it work 100 per cent. in the interests of the British people. It is not enough every time some little step is taken—even a petit pas, as M. Monnet said—to come up with the same objections that were adduced 10 or 15 years ago. The decision has been made. I wish that Members of your Lordships' House would accept it and co-operate in a positive way towards making the whole thing work better rather than complaining that it does not work as well as it should.
I think we must bear in mind the cost of non-Europe; the cost of all the Customs barriers, the paperwork, the 38 documents that a truck driver has to fill in before he is allowed to proceed across a frontier, the hours, sometimes the days, that the driver and his goods are kept waiting at frontiers adds billions of pounds on to the burden borne by the British consumer. It is estimated by the group that represents consumers, the Kangaroo Group, that barriers of this nature add 8p in the pound to the cost of goods imported into this country.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out, what really counts is the bigger market that will be created once these measures are passed and the progress that British manufacturers will be able to make in the production of steel, aircraft, computers and space programmes. In these areas it is impossible for a country of our medium size to work without a big market and without the help in research and development that we would have if we had a true co-operation with the other 11 countries, not to mention insurance, banking, mortgages and other areas where Britain is supreme and where even the noble Lord, Lord Jay, agreed there would be some advantages.
I invite my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook to clarify as much as he can certain points on the Cockfield White Paper. I know that it is early days and that the paper has been tabled for only six months. Sometimes proposals from the Commission take years in gestation both in the European Parliament and in the Council working party. It would be very helpful to some of us to have an indication at this stage of government thinking on the proposals put forward by my noble friend Lord Cockfield. It is a pity that he is not allowed to attend to explain himself, but those are the rules.
A proposal that food, children's clothes, fuel, electricity, gas and books should be subject to value added tax, whereas excise duties on alcohol, cigarettes and mineral oils should be done away with or replaced by the standard value added tax rate, cannot be presented to the British people with any great ease. There is of course the fact that the Government in their election manifesto pledged that in this Parliament value added tax would not be imposed on food, children's clothes or fuel. Does my noble friend feel able to confirm that that pledge still stands and that in this Parliament at least those items will not bear value added tax at any rate whatsoever? This would be a welcome reassurance if he feels able to give it.

1137
As for other items, will my noble friend let us know, if he can do so, that we are not in any way ready at this stage to accept the two bands put forward by the Commission? There may be something to be said for two bands, 4 to 9 per cent. in the lower level and 14 to 20 per cent. in the higher level, but this is surely only a suggestion. I hope that the Government will be able to indicate that they have not yet accepted it. We in the European Parliament certainly have not. Many of us believe that a band from zero to six would be more appropriate. Can he also clarify if possible the question of value added tax on travel, particularly in the light of an article in The Times of 30th January, which said:
"Eurotax may put 15 per cent. on airline fares".
My understanding is that there is no question of 15 per cent. being put on airline fares. I should be grateful for my noble friend's clarification.
In other respects I much agree with the sentiments expressed by the mover of the Motion. It will indeed help to bring about a true common market from which the people of this country will benefit tremendously.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I think that it is generally agreed that my noble friend Lord Ezra has provided a most valuable service by raising this important matter tonight. In common with my noble friends on these Benches I look forward to the completion of the internal market by 1992 in the belief that it will bring benefits to the Community as a whole and to our own country, particularly in respect of financial services.
I often disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, when he was a Minister in this House. We had some friendly argument about social security, but I congratulate him most warmly on the initiative which he has taken in this matter and on the determination with which he is seeking to carry it through. Like my noble friend, I regret the delays in achieving our targets. I regret that we are behind target and I hope that the operation of the Single European Act will facilitate quicker action by the council.
However, it is widely recognised that the completion of the market, desirable as it is, will tend to accentuate the divergencies among the different member states and among the different regions within the Community. Therefore, I believe that a substantial increase in the structural funds to help correct those divergencies is essential.
The Select Committee of this House on the European Communities in its report on financing the Community, which was published last July, warned that the poorer member states may not consent to completion unless there is such a substantial increase in the structural funds. It went on to say:
"In view of the vital importance of the completion of the internal market for the Community and the benefits which will undoubtedly accrue to all member states, the Committee recommend that HM Government agree to such an increase in stuctural funds as will help to secure this objective".
It went on to say that an improvement was needed in the management of the funds and in their targeting.
1138
I understand that that is something which the Commission now has in hand.
The Commission has proposed that the structural funds should be doubled in size. I believe that the British Government consider that that is excessive. I am wondering whether the noble Lord who is to reply can give us any indication of the degree to which the Government would be prepared to support an increase in the structural funds. For example, would they agree to a 50 per cent. increase? Do the Government recognise the need? The disparities among the Community's regions are getting wider, not narrower. Twenty per cent. of the European Community's 320 million population have a gross domestic product per head of less than three-quarters of the Community's average. Gross domestic product per head is below average in well over half the European Community's regions.
The Commission has also proposed that grants from the European Regional Development Fund, which is one of the structural funds, one which takes 9 per cent. of the Community budget—a budget incidentally which is less than 1 per cent. of the gross domestic product of the Community—to areas of industrial decline should be reduced from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the total and that grants to underdeveloped areas should be increased from 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. I understand that that principle has been approved by the European Parliament.
That would hit the United Kingdom unless total funds increase. William Dawkins, writing in the Financial Times last Thursday, pointed out that it was ironic that if the Commission's proposals are adopted the United Kingdom has a vested interest in an increase in structural funds; yet the United Kingdom Government are seeking to scale back the Commission's proposal to double those funds.
The purpose of my brief intervention in this debate is to emphasise to the House that the completion of the internal market, which most of us believe will be to the benefit of this country, makes an increase in structural funds essential in order to help remove disparities, to maintain the United Kingdom's share in the structural funds and to secure the full co-operation of the poorer countries for the completion of the internal market by 1992. I hope that the Government will recognise that.
7.6 p.m.
Earl Cowley: My Lords, I should like to join others in the House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on bringing this important issue to the attention of the House and giving us an opportunity to debate it tonight. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Rees on an excellent, well-informed speech. We look forward to hearing many more in the future.
The long overdue realisation of a common EC internal market envisaged in the Treaty of Rome over 30 years ago is now in sight. At last EC citizens have reason for enthusiastic anticipation, tinged with regret and frustration that the process has taken so long. The bringing together of the world's largest trading bloc represents a momentous undertaking,

1139
an undertaking with a promise of attaining the economic power and efficiency to compete both within the EC and in the world's market on an equal footing with the United States and Japan.
On the basis of integration accomplished to date EC members already conduct 50 per cent. of their trade internally. To the extent that that proportion can be increased and market share gained in the rest of the world, a large proportion of the EC 16 million unemployed have the prospect of employment. As in all peaceful evolutionary but also revolutionary change, the politics of implementing economic and political integration in the culturally diverse and nationalistic mosaic of the EC slowed progress to a snail's pace prior to 1985. However, progress has quickened dramatically over the past two years under the leadership of Mr. Delors and the work of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield.
The passage of the Single European Act in 1986 embodied the concept of majority voting, partially widening democracy from a national to a Community level, and permitting agreement where previously special interests had been able to prevail over consideration of wider Community benefit. The second major revolution has been the acceptance that the laws of any one member state, if properly constructed and constituted according to accepted principles of consumer protection, will be accepted by the Community as a whole. This avoids bickering on thousands of minor technical details and has permitted major initiatives which had previously been impossible.
Thirdly, the setting of the 1992 deadline finally to harmonise the internal market has established a definitive goal and permitted an organised approach to its attainment, with an appropriate sense of urgency which had previously been lacking. The urgency is fully justified. Until now American companies, with their large unified home market and greater capital resources, have been able to compete across the EC more advantageously than their European counterparts. By 1992 integration will in large measure help right the balance although there will still be a long way to go.
All these factors make valid the case of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for more rapid progress to completion of the internal market. In the event, the 1992 timetable has been jeopardised by delay in several respects. The first is the delay until last July in the member governments' ratification of the Single European Act and in the adoption of executive powers as provided for in the Act by the European Commission. As a result, the process is behind schedule.
Of the 300 directives required to implement the internal market, 80 had been adopted by the Council as at the end of 1987, and another 50 are expected to be adopted by the end of this year. This would leave about 170 directives to be published and enacted after 1988. Once enacted by the Council, they must be implemented by national governments. Included are many contentious issues outside the internal market, including the common agricultural policy and the budget. As a result, meeting the 1992 schedule, let
1140
alone speeding up the process, appears to be very difficult, however commendable.
Nevertheless the realisation that integration will in fact occur in the early 1990s has created considerable commercial momentum, either in anticipation of future directives or in reaction to those already adopted. In two areas of which I have some knowledge and experience—investment funds or unit trusts and insurance—European firms are developing and implementing business strategies designed to position themselves for the integrated market. Both are businesses in which Britain has considerable expertise and a competitive advantage and in which firms with the foresight, resources, mettle and initiative to take action early should benefit substantially from the larger, albeit more competitive, EC market.
Non-believers in my opinion will tend to suffer at best a loss of opportunity and at worst a loss of competitive position and relegation to diminishing local markets. In that connection, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned the surprising lack of awareness. I found that awareness in Britain in both those industries. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook could comment on anything that the Government might be able to do to increase awareness because competition will become extremely intense. However, we have the opportunity to take advantage of it if we are ready.
The currently fragmented EC investment fund market is scheduled to be harmonised in October 1989, based on the implementation of the collective investment for transferable securities or UCITS direction adopted in 1985. Simply, the directive provides that an investment fund registered under the laws of any EC jurisdiction which has previously adopted UCITS guidelines can be marketed in all EC member states subject only to local marketing laws. Britain, with the Finance Act 1985, was the first EC government to adopt UCITS legislation. The second will be Luxembourg which is scheduled to complete its legislative process this summer.
Luxembourg, with flexible and uncomplicated regulations, is likely to be the primary pan-European investment fund registration jurisdiction and is already benefiting from the influx of fund registrations directly related to harmonisation. There are approximately 150 UCITS funds either in registration or awaiting clearance in Luxembourg with the number expected to expand strongly after the Luxembourg law is adopted. These funds started to be registered early last year; for comparison, there are slightly over 1,000 unit trusts registered in this country.
The Department of Trade and Industry has said that Luxembourg funds will be eligible for sale in the UK as soon as the duchy adopts UCITS legislation and well before the 1989 date established for UCITS implementation throughout the EC. Other European governments have indicated that they will permit proper UCITS funds to be distributed in their countries as well.
I cite that history as an indication of the momentum towards unification. All that seems to be needed is the publication of a suitable directive and

1141
the required legislation. Then the commercial entities, or at least those with foresight, will be in a position to take advantage of that unification as rapidly as possible.
With regard to insurance, the harmonisation is on a long timetable. It has resulted in a number of acquisitions. In October, Compagnie Du Midi purchased Equity and Law and Allianz the largest German insurance company, has purchased Italy's third largest insurance company and a very large French company. Those acquisitions represent the wave of the future, not only in insurance but across the scope of commercial activity. The next 20 years will witness major mergers and acquisition activity as companies enter markets which they could not enter by more direct means.
In conclusion, I wish again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing this timely debate. The issues are large and it is incumbent on the Government to use their considerable influence to accomplish the internal market as rapidly as possible. We in Britain can only benefit.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, may I begin by joining other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for putting down this Motion to enable a debate to take place on this extremely important topic. A number of noble Lords have referred to the common agricultural policy. I wish to deal very briefly with the agricultural implications of the proposals for a common internal market and then perhaps to spend a few moments on the wider lessons which might be learnt from the agricultural experience.
I must say a few words at the beginning regarding the complicated subject of the green pound and the monetary compensatory amounts. As your Lordships will know, at the heart of the common agricultural policy is the principle of common support prices. But if there were no mechanism to restrict the effects on prices of the day-to-day variations in national currencies, the upsets in the market would he considerable. Therefore, there is a complicated system of green currencies which are designed to even out those fluctuations. There are no fewer than five green pound rates from different sectors of the agricultural industry in this country.
The basis of the common agricultural policy is that intra-Community trade should take place without any barriers between farmers. But obviously, a farmer will be able to export from a country with a weak currency to a country with a stronger currency because the intervention prices in the second country will be higher. Therefore the system of the monetary compensatory amounts, which in effect is a tax paid at the border to even out fluctuations, has been set up. I am having to go extremely quickly over a very complicated subject because I have received a note from the Front Bench to speed up. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is shaking his head. I am sure that he understands the green pound and the MCAs much better than I do.
One of the major implications of all this is that MCAs can be applied only in a way which acts as a
1142
barrier to free trade. Therefore, the Community is committed to removing all MCAs in four years' time at the latest so as to comply with the Single European Act. if MCAs are abolished, this will have a substantial effect on agricultural and food prices in this country. If the pound is weak in 1992 compared with the currencies of the other member states, then agricultural products would flow into the member countries with the stronger currencies. Without the green pound adjustment to stop that, the inexorable conclusion is that we would have to join the EMS if the agricultural support system were to survive.
It is just not possible to abolish the green currencies and the MCA system unless the market rates of currencies are kept in a very closely controlled relationship, namely the EMS. I ask the Minister when he replies to comment on that and to say whether he agrees with it.
The other major area where there is concern in agriculture over the effect of the common internal market is the long-standing attempt by the Community to harmonise animal and plant health standards and procedures across the Community. The Single European Act would allow for decisions to be made by a qualified majority and with more influence in the hands of the European Parliament than is presently the case under Article 100 of the Treaty of Rome whereby everything has to be agreed unanimously.
The harmonisation of animal and plant health regulations should take place at the highest standard, I think we would all agree, in order to protect the United Kingdom's plant and animal health. Of course we have the enormous benefit of being an island in that respect. The harmonisation of plant health is, I believe, on schedule, but the timetable for animal health harmonisation has fallen behind. Will the Minister assure the House that the necessary derogations from the EC regulations will be applied for and allowed if animal and plant health in the UK is threatened by the imposition of the common internal market?
I turn to wider issues. Perhaps other industries can learn from the agricultural experience. Despite 30 years of trying to create a common internal market in agricultural goods, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, there has not been a common internal market and the CAP, with the whole of the paraphernalia of the green currencies and the MCAs, has been expressly designed to prevent this. The reason is simple. Every time the implementation of the CAP in a member country has affected the voters, be they farmers or consumers, that member country has made internal adjustments and cushioned the blow. What will happen here when the common internal market starts to hit certain industries, particulary if they are heavily represented in marginal constituencies? What happened in agriculture? Member countries adjusted the social security taxes for farmers and the way they collected VAT from farmers. There was the border overtime tax imposed in Italy to stop the import of foods and all the rest of the adjustments that were made to prevent the CAP from hitting the voter.
My conclusion is that just as membership of the EMS is essential if the system of agricultural support

1143
is to survive in Europe, so harmonisation of indirect taxes and social security taxes will be essential if the common internal market is to work. At the moment there is increasing interest in the idea of repatriation of agricultural policies to bring them back to member states as a way of solving the problems of the CAP. It would be the final irony if the problems of the CAP were finally dealt with by repatriating agricultural policies to member states while at the same time the common internal market in industrial goods and services was being born, no doubt to be repatriated in turn when it was found to be unworkable.
7.23 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have raised the question of fiscal approximation and I must declare an interest. As a publisher of books, magazines and journals, I am one of that happy band who so far have enjoyed the approbation of my right honourable friend in another place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who so far have escaped the imposition of VAT by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. I hope that in replying to the debate my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook will be able to firm up the assurances he gave the book trade that there are no plans at the moment to bring books, magazines and newspapers within the net of VAT. Surely with a surplus estimated at between £5 billion and £11 billion, this is not the moment to change.
As many of your Lordships may know, I have the honour to assist the noble Baroness, Lady David, in organising the campaign to ensure that the completion of the internal market does not involve the imposition of a tax on knowledge, which would be the effect of levying VAT on the printed word.
It is perhaps solely on that one point that any words of praise I may have for the otherwise admirable maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Rees may have a hollow ring. During an earlier campaign against the possibility of VAT being imposed on published material, the noble Lord was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in another place. I take this opportunity of asking his forgiveness. I believe that my mobilisation of the energetic and prolix literary community produced such a wealth of correspondence that the Treasury word processors overheated. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my apology as a manifestation of my sincerest congratulations on his speech.
As a member of the Periodical Publishers Association, I have to say that in the case of some magazines I find the cultural argument for keeping books and magazines without the taxation ambit hard to support. The problem is that if we try to draw a line between the culturally desirable, the culturally acceptable and the culturally undesirable, we find ourselves in danger of treading into the minefield of censorship which we ventured into earlier in the week. Cultural desirability, like social acceptability and beauty, is, I suspect, in the eye of the beholder.
The same problem goes for educational content. For intellectual and professional persons such as noble Lords opposite, Ladybird books may not be
1144
very educational. For a mere tradesman such as myself, I have to say that I have learnt a great deal from them.
My concern is about tax approximation centred on the notion that it is a sine qua non for the completion of the internal market. Does not the United States of America have a single market within which each state is free to set its own sales tax and excise duties? Agreement on common standards and simplification or elimination of Customs paperwork would do far more to facilitate (not to mention speed up) the free movement of goods, services and people between Community members.
I remind your Lordships that while the European Commission has argued that a zero-rate of VAT disrupts competition between member states, it conveniently ignores the wide range of differing provisions inside the Community to support book, magazine and newspaper publishing by various systems of subsidy or tax relief. Subsidy implies choice. In the area of publication, choice is again dangerously close to censorship. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can see that while he might be happy to offer a subsidy for Yachting World or Fast Car, others might find putative rejection of such a similar subsidy for the Lancet or Nursing Times less felicitous, especially if such journals might at that time be taking one or more of his ministerial colleagues to task.
The answer to all those problems, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is within the Minister's grasp. All he and the Government have to do is amend the proposed lower band of VAT rates to include zero-rating. That way the British Government could maintain their proud tradition of refusing to tax knowledge, and still find themselves in harmony—or approximately so—with the Commission in Brussels.
Such a policy would commend itself also to the electorate, for as noble Lords on the Alliance Benches will certainly recall, the announcement of a proposal to put VAT on essentials was very badly received both by the rank and file of the two parties concerned and by the public at large. I therefore commend that course to the Minister.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, before making what will be a modest contribution to the debate, I have three tasks to perform. First, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for initiating this important debate, which will be well read in Europe and the United Kingdom. Secondly, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rees on his maiden speech; it is a great relief when it is done and we bid him welcome. Thirdly, I must declare an interest. I am a director of a financial services company that is at the forefront of the expansion into Europe and intends to take full advantage of the liberalisation of the internal market.
As your Lordships may have guessed, I shall be concentrating in my speech on the third part of the 1992 package—the liberalisation of financial services within the Community. It is an initiative in which we in the United Kingdom can play a full and constructive part. I am not speaking of the

1145
controversial fiscal proposals which have come to public attention recently, but rather of the technical proposals which will enable our banks, stockbrokers and insurance industry to operate in a market of some 320 million people as easily as they do in the United Kingdom.
We in the United Kingdom have a considerable history of financial management. We have developed an expertise in international dealings which is the envy of many of our European counterparts. I have no doubt that we shall take full advantage of those large markets on our doorstep.
The negotiation and approval of the Single European Act gave a new impetus to the freeing of the internal markets in financial services. The Treaty of Rome has now been amended to strengthen its provision on the free movement of capital, which has been very important in that area. However, it is an important point that not all member states are as well placed as we in the UK to benefit from those moves. We must be aware that there are many structural and technical difficulties for some member states which make them more vulnerable and cautious about radical changes in those fields.
Developments such as the Second Banking Directive which was published last month and the Transferable Securities Directive, published in 1985, have been critical in providing the financial framework enabling goods, services and people to move freely throughout Europe, living, working and travelling without hindrance. However, it must be acknowledged that such a freeing-up of financial markets exposes the private investor to unknown risks. In parallel with the freeing of the market, we must ensure that adequate controls are built in to protect investors and investments alike. The Commission has recognised the importance of that and has pointed out that unrestricted capital movements, combined with the emancipation of financial services, will enable banks and savings institutions to offer their expertise and advertise their services to savers and depositors throughout the Community. However, it maintains that it is important that this takes place in a framework which allows a satisfactory level of protection—whatever that may mean—for both savers and depositors, provides for equal conditions of competition, and ensures the solvency and stability of banks and other institutions.
As we are all well aware, the UK Government have been very vigilant on this front, having spent much energy on the Financial Services Act to ensure that the self-regulatory bodies that have been established have rules for investor protection. This country is well placed to demand a high standard from the EC proposals in this field—many EC member states are far behind us and have some way to go—and our own institutions should not be placed at a competitive disadvantage compared with their European counterparts. This has particular relevance to the Commission's proposals for harmonised solvency margins and harmonised definitions of capital which are to be published shortly.
The freeing of the internal markets is not just another piece of legislation—I hesitate to say boring
1146
legislation. It is very important legislation that is coming out of Brussels and there are important implications to be grasped. Among many, there are three that I wish to bring to the attention of the House. First, I believe that, unlike the financial centres and institutions, there is a serious risk that UK manufacturers will be unprepared for 1992 compared with our Continental partners. We have heard this evening about the strategic work done in France particularly and in Germany in preparation for the relaxing of the internal market. If we speed up the whole initiative, do we run the danger of increasing the possible unpreparedness of our manufacturing industry? That, clearly, is a rhetorical question and maybe the answer is, "Too bad—they simply have to get on with it". It is a fact that 1992 will see the relaxation of the internal markets and if we are to survive we had better do our best to compete properly.
The second question that I should like to ask is whether we have thought through the full implications of freeing these internal markets? For instance, will the influence of the Bank of England over the regulation of our own national banks be diminished? Will we have 12 national regulatory authorities or one in Brussels? In relation to the point first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rees, will membership of the EMS no longer be a choice for us—will it no longer be a question of joining when we think it appropriate but of having to join?
My third question is: will all member states—or particularly those which are unlikely to gain immediately from this freeing of the markets—allow their markets to be accessible to much stronger competition? If they do not, will the Community be given resources by the member states to enforce this legislation on the recalcitrant?
Finally—I have one minute left in which to speak, I believe—the freeing of these internal markets is not a simple matter. National and geographical issues have to be considered—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, brought to our attention. It is not solely a matter for national governments. I suspect, for instance, that the Council of Ministers will have to take on board the full implications of the open frontier policy for immigration policies. I wonder if it has done so.
To my noble friends in the Government I say, "bonne chance" in what is a very difficult area. I hope they will adopt an appropriate speed in relaxing the controls on the internal markets and will balance our national interests with those of the Community.
7.34 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in this debate, which has been so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Ezra, all Members have spoken in favour of going ahead with the development of the internal market except those speakers from the Labour Benches, where the noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Parry, and to a much lesser extent the noble Lord, Lord Carter, declared themselves unreconstructed anti-Marketeers. They were quite straightforward and honest about it.

1147
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who says that the great difficulty is that our manufacturing industry will not be able to compete, why has he so little confidence in the ability of our manufacturing industry to hold its own with its European competitors? There were times when it might have been more difficult—for reasons not altogether unconnected, I think, with the policies pursued by the government which he supported—
Lord Williams of Elvel:—and you supported.
Baroness Seear: I beg pardon, my Lords—indeed not!
Lord Williams of Elvel: What about the Lib-Lab pact, my Lords?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we did not support—I do not think that this is the moment to have an argument about the Lib-Lab Pact. I shall claim another minute for that interruption.
So far as I can see the noble Lord, Lord Jay, intends to retreat into a fortress economy in which there can be no future at all. If we were to pull out of the Common Market, where would we go? He has not told us. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will tell us.
Lord Jay: My Lords, what I actually said was that I thought we ought to remove the barriers to trade which were preventing us from importing foodstuffs from all the countries of the world best able to supply us.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord is indeed an optimist if he thinks that importing foodstuffs will deal with our entire trade problems. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be able to explain his position and reconcile it with the attitude now taken—in, I understand, a most welcome change of heart—by his honourable Leader.
The fact is that we made the decision to go in. On these Benches we always believed that that was the right decision. The trouble is that we have dragged our feet and been anything but wholehearted. The opportunities are plainly there. It is a market of 350 million people. If we remove the barriers—the transport barriers at the frontiers, for example—that will reduce our costs.
As a country—though not as a Government—we are putting a great deal of money into the Channel Tunnel. The whole point of the Channel Tunnel is that it takes us to these growing markets where we can develop our trade to very good effect. The opportunities are there and it is up to us to seize them by going ahead with the Common Market and having the single internal market which we have for so long supported in theory but done little to support in practice, partly because of continuing Gaullist attitudes (now beginning to change) on the government side of the House.
We must take advantage of all the opportunities that exist. We have to have the courage of our convictions and know that we are able to
1148
compete—and why not? Our productivity is going up although we have to recognise that it is still lower than that of most of our competitors. There will be real difficulties. Nobody pretends otherwise, but they are difficulties which we have to face and to overcome.
The question of VAT has been discussed by almost every speaker this evening. We have to negotiate the right kind of settlement. We are talking about approximations, not about the unification of those standards. Let us not lose sight of the object, which is to have genuine competition. What have to be removed are real obstacles to genuine competition. One can have genuine competition and still retain considerable variation, or at least a degree of variation, in many of those matters which cannot be completely unified.
I understand, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred to it today, that one proposal has been put forward to have VAT bands ranging from 0 to 6 per cent. Surely that is the way to approach it. We must find out what the variations are in order to make a package and get a settlement which allows for genuine competition without upsetting too greatly the practices and traditions of particular nation states.
The single nation state is no longer the important economic unit. We have moved into a global economy. One cannot run a successful economy today purely on the basis of a nation state. We must recognise that we have to collaborate outside the nation state and that narrow economic nationalism will lead us absolutely nowhere. There is a great deal of such collaboration in Asia. We have to go into this with complete confidence that we can make it work.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who is, after all, one of our number, has given a magnificent lead. I had the opportunity not long ago to listen to him speaking to the European League for Economic Cooperation. I am sure we would all agree that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, is not a man given to purple patches. He is not a romantic. He said:
"If you belong to a community, you have to accept that at the end of the day it is the community interest which must prevail. We are far from accepting this. We are not alone in this, but that is not the company we ought to be keeping. The leadership of the Community is passing into other hands".
Alas, we never really had it though we had the opportunity.
"There are many people in this country who will view that with indifference. I do not. I am sure you do not. Our history shows that we have both valour and vision. The time to exercise them is here and now".
So said the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and surely he was right.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for bringing forward his Motion at this particularly opportune moment. All your Lordships will agree that the internal market is an issue which between now and 1992 will pre-occupy us more and more. I am sure that noble Lords recognise that we shall return to this subject on many future occasions.

1149
I was also glad to welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rees, a very distinguished Member of another place. If I may speak as a Welshman, I know that, although our joint origins are obscured in the mists of history, my noble friend Lord Parry will recognise that anybody in Wales who refers to Lord Rhys does so with considerable respect, though the spelling of the great Lord Rhys is rather different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Rees, from whom we have heard today.
There is one point arising from the debate on which your Lordships will all agree. We are members of the European Community and will remain so for the foreseeable future. It follows that it must be realistic to acknowledge—and I advance this, for what it is worth, as my personal view—that the integration of the United Kingdom economy with the other European economies will even by the end of this decade, let alone the middle of the next, have proceeded so far that economic withdrawal, leaving aside political relationships, would be the economic equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot. We have to start from that principle. The community is there, warts and all. Indeed the warts are fairly plain for all to see.
British membership of the Community has brought few of the advantages widely predicted by its more extreme advocates. My noble friend Lord Jay was very pertinent on this point. The common agricultural policy is expensive, inefficient and unjust. My noble friend Lord Carter was quite right on that point. Community finances are at the point of collapse. Political leadership in the Community is reduced to quarrels about the minutiae of Community budgeting instead of dealing with the major issues of unemployment, North-South relations, technological and scientific co-operation, environmental protection or regional economic and social disparities.
However, it is not enough for me to point to the warts. We must consider whether it is possible to develop a strategic initiative that will give the required impetus to the Community, bearing in mind that any such initiative should not be judged by the reference to this or that ideology but by its likely impact in Europe on those who live, work, consume and invest their savings—in other words, the people throughout Europe who in their daily lives will either support the Community or reject it.
I am by no means certain that the strategic initiative of the internal market—for strategic initiative is what it is—will by itself satisfy that major criterion. I am under no illusion; and I want your Lordships to be under no illusion. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, is not engaged in a simple exercise of removing outdated restrictions or of promoting international co-operation. He is engaged in an effort to extend the so-called supply side measures of deregulation and labour market flexibility across the whole Community, the objective being to ensure that, in the words of his White Paper, Completing the Internal Market,
"the market is flexible, so that resources both of people and materials and of capital and investment, flow into areas of greatest economic activity".
1150
We all know what that means; at least those of your Lordships who in previous debates have commented at length on the North-South divide will know what it means. Without compensating action, wealth and economic activity will be even further concentrated into what is frequently called the golden triangle of Northern Italy, Western Germany, Eastern France and South-East England, and into what is called equally frequently by sociologists the coffin, a rectangular area whose four points are Milan, Lyons, Birmingham and Amsterdam. In other words, the programme of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, is Thatcherism with a European dimension.
It is time that we talked about compensating action. It is certainly true that the White Paper suggests,
"a full and imaginative use of the European Community structural funds".
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, referred to the problems to which I am going to address myself. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, in an impressive intervention, drew attention to the structural problems that will arise from the internal market if it is applied without any compensating action. But there is nothing in the timetable advertised by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, which activates this full and imaginative use of the structural funds. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pointed out, a recent proposal by the Commission to double the structural funds was blocked by Her Majesty's Government in the Council of Ministers.
At this point I have to turn to the Government and ask what is their real attitude. What is the substance of the argument between the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Cockfield, about which we hear so much? The internal market strategy is entirely based on the operation of free market forces. I understood that both noble Lords supported that principle. But the Opposition point out that such a strategy, and what it implies, restricts national policies for regional aid, restricts government support for disadvantaged areas, even when that is judged to be socially necessary, throws open public procurement, and there is no provision even hinted at in the White Paper either for European economic planning or for allowing the continuance of national programmes to alleviate hardship among the disadvantaged.
We do not believe that that is good enough. Let me recommend to the Government that they read, mark and inwardly digest a recent report from a group of experts headed by Dr. Padoa-Schioppa of the Bank of Italy. From its many conclusions I choose just one:
"it is essential to design and implement—at this early stage of the 1986–92 process—the complementary programme needed to set the evolution of the Community on a balanced course…greater Community involvement in stabilisation and redistribution policies is the indispensable complement of the ambitious project of completing the [European] Internal Market".
That hits the nail on the head.
Either there is a complementary programme which sets out the action necessary for the Community to intervene constructively in all the areas where the creation of the internal market will work to social and economic disadvantage where, in the past and now,

1151
national governments have striven to prevent hardship, exploitation and waste which result from the operation of unregulated markets, or there is not; and if not, is the answer then that we as the United Kingdom must preserve the right, in whatever manner may be appropriate and legal, to pursue those policies in the area over which the British Parliament has sovereign power? This inevitably means not rejecting the internal market but rejecting the restrictions on our ability to support our population and to implement our regional policies and the restrictions that the internal market programme implies.
None of what I am saying is essentially negative, although in all realism I have to accept that it is against the thrust of the Motion moved by the noble Lord. But there are positive elements which I wish to pursue. First, we in the Labour Party are hoping to join our fellow Socialists in preparing a manifesto on which we can campaign throughout the Community in the 1989 European elections. If we can all agree such a manifesto it will look forward to the kind of Europe that will exist in the 1990s, the opportunities of the internal market and its limitations and dangers if it is not subject to social control and geared to social objectives.
I have to remind your Lordships that the Socialist group is the largest group in the European Parliament. If we arrive at an agreed platform and we are returned on it, that will carry considerable weight. I remark in passing that the noble Lord, Lord Bethel], has returned to hear what I have to say, but unfortunately the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, had to leave and so I am unable to address myself to two Conservative Members of the European Parliament but only one. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with the response that I am giving him.
Secondly, we shall work for greater co-ordination and direction of macro-economic policies within the Community. That seems to be quite obvious. It makes no sense whatsoever for Europe to complain about the US balance of payments deficit or the Japanese balance of payments surplus unless we as Europe are prepared to do something as a Community to confront those problems seriously. Furthermore, I agree entirely with Mr. Edmund Dell when he wrote in a letter to the Independent published yesterday that:
"If economies are integrated in the absence of sufficient economic policy co-ordination, the result may well be a systematic deflationary bias".
These are the policies which I believe constitute the way to make the internal market a success. But they are policies for the long term. Who would believe that the Community as at present organised could run a successful programme of social and economic redistribution, or, even more, a programme of closer co-ordination of macro-economic policies? Some would say it could not even run a whelk stall.
It will certainly be a long haul, but because it is long it does not mean that it should not be attempted. In the meantime I have to tell your Lordships that we are not in sympathy with the move to speed up the programme. On the contrary, we might like to slow
1152
it down. But in any event, knowing how the Community works, it is a fair bet that it will slow down of its own accord.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I should also like warmly to welcome the debate introduced today by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and also to congratulate my noble friend Lord Rees on an excellent maiden speech. He brings with him enormous experience of economic affairs and we hope to hear him on many future occasions.
Since we joined the European Community 15 years ago our pattern of trade has undergone a remarkable and startling transformation. At that time the 11 other countries which are now Community members took 34 per cent. of our exports. By 1982 that figure had risen to 44 per cent. Today one-half of our trade is with our Community partners. This is the point from which I should like to begin. No one can seriously doubt our economic as well as our political commitment to the future of Britain in Europe.
That is not to say that we are satisfied with the Community as we presently find it. But agriculture and future financing are not the only issues on which we must insist that realism prevails. We want the Common Market to mean precisely that: a market in which there are no barriers to trade. But that has not yet been achieved. The creation of a single market in Europe is an objective which goes back to the establishment of the Community some 30 years ago. We have made progress. Tariffs and quota restrictions have virtually been eliminated, but the free movement of goods is still impeded by technical barriers, and the growth of a free and competitive market for services is blocked by a range of national restrictions.
Unlocking this market—which we and other member states have pledged to do by the target date of 1992—is essential if we are to build the industrial capability which will enable Britain and Europe to compete successfully in the world of the 21st century. With the accession of Spain and Portugal, we now have a potential domestic market of some 320 million people, very nearly as many as the United States and Japan combined. That is why—in keeping with our realistic approach to the Community—we want to make and accelerate progress towards completion of the single market.
I have seldom heard British companies say that, so long as trade is fair, they are unable or unwilling to compete. The single market will present them with the opportunities and the challenges which they are seeking. But companies throughout the country must be given the chance to make the most of them.
I agree fully with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that we have to increase awareness of the changes which the single market will mean in every part of industry and commerce. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that I do not accept that British manufacturing industry will necessarily lose out.
American and Japanese success owes much to economies of scale, particularly in new technologies and access to a market of 320 million people is essential to our industry. That is the reason for the

1153
awareness campaign which my noble friend the Secretary of State recently announced. I can tell my noble friend Lord Cowley that this will be followed by a sustained campaign throughout the country to reach companies both large and small in every sector and encourage them to consider the implications of the single market for their businesses. The developments which are already taking place in Europe will change the economic and commercial life in this country and in other member states. We need to ensure that we all fully understand and respond to them.
But how are we to achieve the target date of 1992? It can only be by hard work. There are so many aspects to the single market, all of which we need to address. The simplification of frontier formalities is one. I welcome, from 1st January this year, the introduction of the single administrative document which replaces with one form up to 70 different customs documents used by member states. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that progress has been slow so far with the Commission unable to keep to its original timetable.
However, there have recently been encouraging developments. The directive on simple pressure vessels has been adopted and agreement is near on toy safety. In addition, a number of other directives are under discussion and the Commission is expected to introduce yet more during 1988. We welcome that and will press for the momentum to be increased in order for the 1992 single market goal to be achieved.
Therefore, I do not accept that the Council of Ministers is significantly behind schedule. After all, member states have to negotiate directives. The Commission's progress reports concentrate on measures in the 1985 White Paper, but many other measures reducing barriers have also been agreed by the Council of Ministers. More than 100 measures have been agreed over the past 18 months alone, including 48 during the UK presidency in the second half of 1986. I believe that we are on target to achieve the 1992 date.
The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, raised the issue of the Commission package. I should like to thank the noble Lord for his acknowledgement that the UK has forced the pace and achieved more rapid progress in 1986 than ever before. I should like to assure him that there has been no lessening of commitment since then. As I have indicated, we are talking about literally hundreds of measures and neither we nor other member states can accept that these constitute a package which we must take or leave in its entirety.
Public purchasing is another aspect. Narrow national preferences not only penalise the consumer but make for inefficient producers and so help no one in the long run. We believe that European public procurement should be opened up to give better opportunities for suppliers to sell into other member states and to enable public authorities to get better value for money.
I have already mentioned different product standards which fragment the single market. I welcome the Community's new approach in this area which ought to speed up progress by concentrating
1154
on essential health and safety requirements and seeking mutual recognition on other matters. The testing and certification procedures in different member states are often as great an obstacle to trade. Making progress towards their mutual recognition—much remains to be done—is very much a priority for the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, pointed out that trade in agricultural and animal products is an important constituent part of the single market. I am confident that progress can be made to remove trade barriers without prejudice to the high health standards which we enjoy in this country. While dealing with agricultural matters, I should like to turn to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. MCAs are an integral part of the current system of agricultural pricing in the Community and we should like to see them abolished in a phased way. However, a number of our partners would not be able to accept that easily. The single market will not be achieved while MCAs remain.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Rees that the long overdue liberalisation of the Community market in insurance and other financial services is another priority area. I am delighted that in December the Internal Market Council was able to reach agreement on the main aspects of the non-life insurance services directive. In many cases it will enable companies to sell insurance from one member state to another without the need to establish a local presence in the host market. Developments in new technology and systems of electronic transfer increase the opportunities for doing business in this way. It is important that national restrictions should not prevent companies from taking advantage of them.
Another subject which must be tackled is the right of professional people to practise their professions throughout the Community. For example, an accountant would need to spend a working lifetime in pursuit of the right qualifications if he wished to practise in all member states. A directive on professional qualifications is now under discussion in Brussels which will provide the right of establishment to most professions requiring three years' university-level training. Of course, there will always be some legitimate differences in the requirements of different member states and this suggests the need for an adaptation test on which the United Kingdom is insisting. However, there are greater areas of overlap than there are dissimilarities among the professions in Europe. It is inconsistent with the principles of a single market that professional people should need to duplicate their qualifications and submit themselves to a period of training in subjects which they have already mastered.
Many noble Lords have referred to the Commission's tax approximation proposals. I should like to emphasise the fact that there is no commitment to approximate VAT or excise duties as part of the single market programme. We have said that we will discuss the role of approximate tax measures in the completion of the single market but, in line with the Brussels European Council last year, we do not see it as a priority area. As did other member states, we have some fundamental difficulties with the present proposals but these cannot be

1155
adopted except by unanimity. We have made it clear that VAT will not be extended to food, gas, electricity, or young children's clothing or footwear. Equally, we have made it clear that we shall not accept proposals which restrict our right to apply VAT zero rates.
I should like to point out to my noble friend Lord Rees that although the Commission's package of proposals on indirect taxation would increase revenue overall, increases in the price of necessities such as food would be offset by a substantial reduction in the price of alcoholic drinks and cigarettes with potentially serious problems for health policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, suggested the possible use of derogations; for example, in relation to UK zero rates. The Government are likely to wish to consider that suggestion during the course of negotiations. However, many if not all member states face particular problems. If all serious difficulties gave rise to derogation the amount of harmonisation that actually emerged could be rather limited.
My noble friend Lord Bethell asked about the article which appeared in The Times concerning possible VAT on air fares. We understand that the Commission is preparing a draft directive which would end the exemption currently applied to intra-Community air fares. However, this proposal has not yet been put forward for discussion and we have not yet seen any text, so it is difficult to comment on exactly what the Commission has in mind. I can confirm that a proposal of this kind would require the unanimous agreement of the member states. We understand that the Commission is not proposing a 15 per cent. rate in this case but as we have not yet seen a text there is little more I can say in that regard. My noble friend Lord Bethell also commented on the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, that excise duties should be replaced by VAT. This is not true. What has been proposed is the harmonisation of excess duty rates. It is not a wholesale abolition and replacement by VAT standard rates.
Turning to the point made by my noble friend Lord Stockton, I can go no further than the assurance I gave in your Lordships' House about two weeks ago on extension of VAT to books. Changes in taxation are entirely a matter for my right honourable friend's Budget judgment. I also say to my noble friend Lord Stockton that he will not be surprised that his suggestion for a lower rate VAT band which starts at zero has been duly noted.
Turning to the matter of the White Paper as proposed by my noble friend Lord Cockfield, we make no apologies for seeking the best results for this country. But what is significant is the amount of common ground which we share with the Commission, although of course there are some differences of perception. Completing the single market will mean a large number of individual measures which member states will have to negotiate and decide. We cannot accept that there is a single Commission package which we will have to take or leave. Member states have never endorsed every measure in the Commission's White Paper—nor for
1156
that matter would the Commission claim that the White Paper is exhaustive. There is no prior commitment to adopt Commission proposals on their own terms. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that my noble friend Lord Cockfield has been able to add a great deal of impetus to the single market campaign, but that does not mean that we should be uncritical of some of the proposals.
Perhaps I should mention the European monetary system. I do not intend this evening to reiterate the argument that I have put to your Lordships and also my noble friend the Secretary of State. That is a well-known text. I think that all I can say is that our view has not changed.
Turning to the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, on structural funds, this question touches upon the future financing of the Community on which we want a general resolution. While we agree that there should be a greater concentration of structural funds on the poorer member states, budget discipline must be respected. We want to do more than make free trade in Europe a reality. We want to do it by a process of liberalisation which will allow market forces to work. Business flourishes in a competitive and open economy. This means creating a climate that stimulates enterprise, and ensuring that economic activity is not subjected to unnecessary and burdensome regulation.
Creating the single market involves adopting a substantial volume of new Community legislation. It is essential to do so in a way which avoids adding unnecessarily to the burden of regulation on business. The creation of a genuine common market must mean removing the barriers to business without creating new obstacles in their place. It means not imposing requirements for which there is no justification or which add excessively to business costs, constrain competitiveness, or inhibit the ability of firms to expand and employ more people. It also means avoiding measures which make European business less competitive in world markets.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks. raised the question of structural funds and compensation. We believe the completion of the single market will in itself be to the advantage of the entire Community. The key issue is the ability of British and European firms to compete in the wider world. That is why the completion of the single market can never be accompanied by a resort to external protectionism. Not only would it be contrary to our interests as a trading nation and our obligations under GATT, but it would undermine our very objectives for the Community. We need the single European market in order to expand our horizons, and in doing so we will ensure that our horizons go well beyond the Continent of Europe.
8.15 p.m
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we have had a vigorous and informed debate on a subject which, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, we shall no doubt return to many times. I think it is right that as we are nearing the half-way stage of the preparations for the single market, we should have had this debate tonight. I am

1157
very pleased that we had our deliberations enhanced by the impressive maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rees, and also by the presence of two MEPs, the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell.
In conclusion, I was very heartened by the continuing commitment of the Government to achieve this single market by the due date and by the vigorous campaign which they will be waging throughout the country to increase the awareness of industry. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Northern Ireland: Afforestation
8.16 p.m.
The Duke of Abercorn The Duke of Abercorn rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to promote further afforestation in Northern Ireland.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should like to declare an interest in regard to this debate as follows: first, as president of the Ulster Timbergrowers Association in Northern Ireland; secondly as non-executive director and shareholder of a softwood mill near Enniskillen in County Fermanagh; and, finally, as a wood owner in County Tyrone.
I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Brookeborough is making his maiden speech on this occasion and I know that the House looks forward to hearing from him. His father will long be remembered in this House as a man of great charm, personality and courage and always deeply concerned with the interests of the people of County Fermanagh. Indeed, the word courage is synonymous with Fermanagh because in recent months and in tragic circumstances the world has had a vivid insight into the courage, dignity and resilience with which those remarkable Fermanagh people have, like other Border areas, sustained almost two decades of violence.
In asking the Government to make a statement on their policies and objectives for the encouragement of further afforestation in Northern Ireland, perhaps a brief overview of the situation prevailing in the Community and, indeed, on a global basis might be appropriate. Within the Community, agricultural products such as cereals, dairy goods and meat remain over-supplied and therefore future expectations for price increases for these commodities must be limited, while throughout the Community there is an under-production of timber. Currently, the Community is approximately 50 per cent. self-sufficient in wood. Surely, in the context of the community, this situation indicates a misallocation of land and also demonstrates that there is no danger whatever of a timber mountain appearing even on the horizon.
On a global basis the situation is again interesting. World forestry is also out of balance due to an increasing world demand and contracting stock as
1158
more and more natural forests throughout the world become worked out and thus more reliance is placed on established plantations. Surely the time must now be opportune for the Government to examine both in depth and with urgency whether Northern Ireland, particularly in the hill areas west of the Bann, can take advantage of the situation which I have just outlined and also alleviate to an extent some of the inevitable future hardships which will arise in agriculture due to community overproduction problems by encouraging further afforestation.
At this stage I should like to emphasise my belief and trust that the farming industry, which is indeed the very backbone of the entire community in Northern Ireland, employing as it does some 43,000 people with another 18,000 employed in ancillary industries, will remain our most important industry. Again, clearly, the preservation of the life and character of the rural community is of the utmost importance. I believe that further afforestation in Northern Ireland will prove a positive, not negative, factor in maintaining this objective in rural areas.
Forestry is a national renewable resource and where forestry has expanded in other parts of the United Kingdom it is an increasingly important contributor to rural employment. Furthermore, Ireland, whether North or South, is the most suitable location for forestry in the entire temperate northern hemisphere, yet the country remains one of the least afforested in Western Europe. Depending on location, sitka spruce takes between 35 and 50 years to grow in Northern Ireland. The average growth period for similar species is about 50 years in Scotland, 80 years in Germany and 90 years in most parts of Scandinavia.
There is an unfortunate tendency in Northern Ireland to dwell on our economic problems and thus neglect our economic opportunities. Surely, therefore, these most favourable temperate conditions should be further developed—in fact, exploited—particularly on land classified as severely disadvantaged, in the Counties Tyrone, Fermanagh and Londonderry. However, the percentage of land area under afforestation in Northern Ireland is only 5·2 per cent., compared with 12 per cent. in Scotland and a Community average of 22 per cent.
Furthermore, in order to reduce public expenditure, the department has been slowing down its forestry programme in Northern Ireland, resulting in approximately 1,000 hectares per annum currently being either planted or re-established. The annual planting rate in 1970 was 1,893 hectares, while by 1985 it had been gradually reduced to 1,285 hectares. Again, the level of forestry employees has been drastically reduced, particularly in remote rural areas.
That is in direct contrast to the rest of the United Kingdom, where new planting is currently running at 24,000 hectares per annum. Here in Great Britain there is a significantly different and more realistic attitude by government towards forestry. As a result, both employment and investment in the developing, integrated British forestry industry will continue to grow in the period to the year 2000 as forest output expands and labour input rises.
Sadly, and wrongly, in Northern Ireland there will be a substantial decline in forest output around the year 2020, due to the present low level of planting. This situation is not only unacceptable but it is also ironic, since, according to the Department of Economic Development in its November 1987 Summary of the Review of the Timber Industry in Northern Ireland, paragraph 10:
"In the long term, world timber supply is expected to be severely constrained by the year 2000, and consideration needs to be given now to action to maximise planting either by the Forest Service or by encouraging private sector participation, e.g. by way of present trends towards afforestation as an alternative land use."
The afforestation situation in the Irish Republic is indeed vibrant, with the state planting approximately 9,000 hectares in 1987 while the private sector planted 2,700 hectares. That is a dramatic increase by the private sector from a virtual standard start of 498 hectares in 1982. Clearly a different and radical attitude towards Northern Ireland forestry is therefore urgently required by government.
In spite of its dedicated and professional work over many decades, particularly with the establishment of the most successful and innovative leisure parks providing all types of recreational pursuits for the community, the Forest Service has been inadequately directed and led by the Department of Agriculture, since in the context of agriculture it has always been regarded as a poor relation. Again, according to the Department of Economic Development review, there is a serious imbalance between the timber supply position and the wood processing capacity in Northern Ireland. The report states that production from Northern Ireland forests at the beginning of the group's work stood at around 115,000 cubic metres per annum against an estimated industry processing capacity of 260,000 cubic metres per annum, including capacity then in the process of installation. Perhaps my noble friend can inform the House exactly how and why that situation has occurred.
If the Government are determined to establish an integrated Northern Ireland forestry industry similar to that in Great Britain, but obviously on a much smaller and more modest scale, clarity of objective is essential. First, I believe it is essential that one government agency alone should be responsible for financial assistance to the Northern Ireland timber processing industry, thus avoiding further encouragement of over-processing capacity. Secondly, I suggest that the headquarters of the Forest Service, comprising approximately 60 personnel, should be located west of the Bann, either in Omagh or Enniskillen, since 75 per cent. of the Forest Service woodlands is located in Western Counties. Doubtless this House will recall that the Forestry Commission was relocated from Hampshire to Edinburgh for similar reasons.
I believe that if the Forest Service is removed from Dundonald House and given a free-standing status that will provide a new impetus and recognition of its importance, particularly to the severely disadvantaged areas of the Province. Again, the location of the Forest Service headquarters in the West would considerably increase consumer spending in that area, where there is no alternative
1160
form of employment. I trust that the facts and figures already provided in this debate demonstrate that the commercial arguments for further afforestation in Northern Ireland are both significant and compelling.
I should now like to discuss the practical argument, particularly the acquisition of further land for afforestation. Any afforestation programme is dependent on the availability of suitable land and consistent levels of investment. Again, I am only too aware that additional forestry should in no way conflict with our outstanding environment in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I put forward for the Government's consideration that the target for Northen Ireland afforestation should be double the present overall afforestation by the year 2010. The percentage of total land under afforestation would then be approximately 10 per cent. That would involve a modest planting rate of 3,000 hectares per annum overall.
In 1970 the then Stormont Government published a White Paper suggesting a target of 30,000 hectares of private forestry by the year 2000. There are only approximately 13,000 hectares of private forestry to date, so clearly the Government should provide the required stimulus to encourage further private investment in the remote rural areas of Northern Ireland, since I believe that the main thrust and drive for further afforestation should come from the private sector, as is the case in Great Britain. Moreover, I believe that the Government can and should provide this stimulus in two significant ways.
First, there should be privatisation of certain Forest Service woodlands. That will immediately alert the attention of pension funds and individuals to the opportunity of purchasing a forestry investment in Northern Ireland, since economic logic surely dictates that forestry investment should take place in areas where the returns are highest. Northern Ireland pension funds are indeed potential investors—the biggest pension fund, the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee, has recently purchased 5,300 acres of afforestation in Great Britain. I understand that this pension fund is looking for further investment in afforestation.
This House is aware of the remarkable success of the Government's programme of privatisation. Likewise the privatisation of certain Forestry Commission woodlands in Great Britain has taken place successfully. The Department of Energy in the Irish Republic has also adopted this policy and thus generated a real awareness of forestry as an investment in that country. During 1988 it is proposed to sell off IR £3 million of state forestry in the Irish Republic. Therefore I remain amazed that the Minister, who supports the policies of this Government and their ideology, should be so reticent and reluctant to implement a similar scheme in Northern Ireland.
Moreover, why should this situation be accepted, since surely every avenue of attracting new inward investment to Northern Ireland should be actively encouraged and explored? Having served for five years on the Industrial Development Board of Northern Ireland, I am only too aware of the

1161
difficulties in attracting new investment to Northern Ireland. Again, in remote rural areas of Northern Ireland it is not feasible to attract alternative inward investment. Therefore I trust that the Minister will announce this evening that it is the intention of his department to embark upon a policy of limited privatisation of certain Forest Service woodlands and that the valuation will be based on the same methodology as that adopted by the Forestry Commission. In other words, the valuation must be realistic and must reflect market conditions.
In 1985 the Department of Agriculture commissioned a respected and well-known forestry consultancy firm to make a report on the possibilities of expanding forestry in Northern Ireland through additional private capital. This report resides in Dundonald House and matures slowly, but to date has not been published. Doubtless some innovative proposals were contained in it, and I trust that my noble friend will enlighten the House this evening on some of those proposals. I need hardly remind the Minister that Ulster people are also highly innovative and will respond rapidly to an investment opportunity like forestry which is indeed a credible and a secure venture.
Clearly an investment of such a long-term nature needs more incentive from government. To prove this viewpoint, the private sector in the Irish Republic responded with alacrity to the forestry grants available under EC Directive 1820, known generally as "the western package". I have no doubt therefore that the private sector in Northern Ireland would respond in a similar positive way if a similar package of incentives were to be introduced in Northern Ireland.
I understand that the current thinking of the Community remains sympathetic; namely, that forestry should be developed on a regional basis and regions need not necessarily be divided by national boundaries. I believe the Government would receive a sympathetic hearing in Brussels if they were to apply to the Community for financial assistance to encourage further afforestation in the western counties of Northern Ireland similar to that already available to the Irish Republic under Directive 1820. I should also mention that Northern Ireland has a very similar landowning pattern to the Irish Republic. Therefore I do not foresee a great problem of procuring further land for afforestation in the upland areas of Northern Ireland.
Economists from the University of Ulster confirm that the forestry uptake in the Irish Republic is not only dependent upon but also results from grant aid. Their estimation is that in the Irish Republic 10 per cent. in grant levels in real terms would generate an increase of about 11 per cent. in private afforestation over a five-year period. The farm woodland scheme is a welcome step in the right direction. However it is certainly modest in scale and will be of only marginal beneficial effect to the upland areas of Northern Ireland.
In conclusion I trust that my noble friend, in replying to this Question, will explain why in this industry Northern Ireland is lagging behind both the rest of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.
I trust that the Minister will also confirm the Government's awareness of Northern Ireland's climate advantages for further afforestation. I hope that my noble friend will announce a private sector initiative to pre-empt inevitable future pressure from the Community to diversify from farming into forestry, since afforestation offers the only large-scale land use alternative to agriculture.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate this Question about the future of afforestation in Northern Ireland as tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn. First, there is the importance of the subject along with the fact that the issues have been raised by the noble Duke, whose family has contributed much to our Ulster heritage and to nature conservation, especially through the work of the noble Duke's father, who was widely acknowledged as an expert of international standing on the subject of forestry.
Secondly, with other noble Lords, it gives me the opportunity formally and warmly to welcome the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, to the House. As all noble Lords will, I shall listen with keen interest to his maiden speech. I know that the noble Lord is strongly committed. With youth on his side, I feel sure he has much good to contribute to the business of the House and to the future peace and prosperity of Northern Ireland. We all wish him well.
I have consulted with farming friends 'and trade union colleagues directly concerned with agriculture and the forestry service. I have also had discussions with qualified and professional people in Northern Ireland who have responsibilities for developments in forestry, conservation and agriculture. I have listened with keen interest to the constructive and challenging speech of the noble Duke. I agree with much of what he said and I believe that I can support—with a little qualification—the specific objectives which he proposes for afforestation in Northern Ireland.
The noble Duke has drawn attention to many matters—the acquisition of land and the management of forests and woodlands—that require careful and thorough examination. There is an adequacy of financial provisions and suitable investment capital. There are training and employment prospects for all grades of forestry personnel. Then there are the critical matters of conservation and of general community well-being. I am sure the noble Duke will agree that those are all vital elements which require carefully balanced decisions and legislation in support of any successful and realistic policies for afforestation.
State forestry has had a long and honoured tradition in Northern Ireland. That fact has been recorded in a recently published book, which is an excellent history, by a former Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland chief officer, Mr. Cecil Kilpatrick. In its 78 years some 150,000 acres have been planted mostly in the western counties where upland and high rainfall make farming difficult. Forestry policy has been similar to that in Great Britain; that is, mainly the planting of spruce for maximum commercial return. Such policy has

1163
been profitable but that profit has also been combined with amenity. The Northern Ireland forestry service has placed great emphasis on public recreation in forest areas and has pioneered this concept within the United Kingdom. In setting up, with much success, forest parks and amenity areas, the forest service has also enjoyed good relations with voluntary statutory conservation bodies. By co-operating with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Ulster Trust for Nature Conservation and the Conservation Service, it has set up nature reserves and wildlife sanctuaries.
Conservationists are thus concerned that the integrity of the state forest service should be maintained in Northern Ireland and that resources should be made available for continued maintenance for public recreation as well as for commercial profit. Conservationists would not favour privatisation of the existing forestry held under the DANI forestry service.
The reasons for the strong community support for, and dependence upon, state forestry in Northern Ireland are founded on very practical grounds together with 78 years of experience. I repeat what the noble Duke has already mentioned. The Province is comprised of relatively small owner-occupied family farms with currently some 5 per cent. of the land under trees compared with 8 per cent. for Great Britain and some 23 per cent. for other EC countries. This small-scale land ownership means that extensive block planting of coniferous forests is not so prominent in Northern Ireland compared with the visual monotony of many uplands in Great Britain. The loss of variety in wildlife habitats is less of a problem in Northern Ireland.
However, farm amalgamation and the creation of larger holdings could make more extensive plantings possible. Should this happen, I hope that the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland will be mindful of mistakes made in Great Britain. The small scale of much of Northern Ireland's scenery requires sensitivity in forest planting if the quality of the landscape is to be maintained. That quality of landscape is one of Northern Ireland's most precious assets and part of its great heritage. It must not be bartered for a mirage of commercial immediacy.
The noble Duke has dealt with the number of hectares of forest in Northern Ireland and the fact that holdings include few privately owned estates. Only some 13,000 hectares are in private agricultural holdings; some of these estates are partly managed and provided with the necessary services by the Department of Agriculture Northern Ireland forestry service. Therefore in Northern Ireland few of them are engaged commercially in forestry. Notwithstanding government efforts and financial grants to encourage private woodlands and afforestation, comparatively little has been undertaken by private ownership over the past 50 years. Perhaps the noble Duke's proposals might create the necessary incentives for new private forestry developments. But I repeat that such developments must not be to the detriment of existing forest services.
1164
Perhaps forestry in the uplands could become increasingly important for farmers facing major changes in farm economy as a result of the European common agricultural policy. Upland forestry could be encouraged for such owners as part of a diverse economy in which traditional farm practices and stock rearing are combined with forestry, conservation and outdoor recreation. That consideration is especially important in the more scenic areas which have tourist potential and where developments require careful planning. I urge the Minister to do what he can to encourage closer co-operation in this respect between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture. I am sure that the Minister has heard what I have just said. But perhaps he can tell us whether there are any plans or proposals that could help and encourage those upland farmers to plant suitable trees and adopt new farming practices.
Deciduous planting is especially in need of encouragement. Ireland's native woodlands were wiped out centuries ago and there are no Royal forests that enjoy kingly protection. Estate woodlands are now decaying and the small farmers, who succeeded the large landowners, lack incentive to invest in deciduous woods.
I strongly believe that in the interests of conservation and landscape amenity, as well as long-term investment, deciduous planting needs more effective incentives. There is little response to the present planting grant scheme as few of our small farms find it sufficiently attractive. Does Northern Ireland need different approaches to the replacement of deciduous forests and the establishment of new ones? That issue raises important questions. However, I think the noble Duke made forceful points in this connection.
I mentioned earlier that I had discussed with trade union colleagues the matters concerning afforestation in Northern Ireland. I shall quote from a letter that I have from the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, which is the trade union that caters for all grades of professional and manual forestry employees. It says:
"we would wish to make the point that although we are opposed to privatisation of public sector services, including the State Forest Service, that does not mean we are opposed to the expansion of private forestry within the country. Indeed we would very much welcome the establishment of more forests within Northern Ireland through the development of both State and private forestry projects, but any expansion of the private sector must not be at the expense of the service currently owned and run by DANI"—
that is, the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.
The letter continues to deal with matters concerning personnel and employment in the forest service and states:
"Since 1979 the Forest Service in Northern Ireland has been the subject of numerous reviews both by DANI and by DFP"—
Department of Finance and Personnel—
"through their Manpower and Management Resource Division. These reviews have included staff inspections, efficiency reviews and policy reviews and have resulted in drastic cuts in the numbers of professional, technical, administrative and industrial staff employed in the State Forest Service…at the end of the last decade the URIC"—
the Urban and Rural Investment Campaign—

1165
"scheme was wound up with disastrous results in terms of employment levels for people in this country. Within the Forest Service…somewhere in the region of 1,000 jobs were lost mainly amongst the industrial grades…since then … many more jobs involving administrative and other grades have been lost …within the last few months [we] received a further report of a staff inspection of the Forest Service …this has recommended even further cuts amongst our members … this is bound to affect the overall efficiency of the service which is…a most professional one and includes a unique research and development function not provided by anyone else",
in the Province.
Those quotations underscore the concern already expressed by the noble Duke. In the absence of a forestry commission for Northern Ireland, there could be much public support for the noble Duke's proposal for the establishment of a distinct executive-type forestry division within the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. Although headquarters' staff for such a division may be better sited in the west, in my opinion Cookstown would be more central. The strengthening of the existing seven district field staff operational units is much more urgent and relevant if there is to be any economic change in forestry and woodland policies.
I should also see to the re-establishment of the urban and rural investment scheme, or a similar scheme, in which the forestry division would have a prominent part to play with rural councils and others in planning, drainage, replanting and the new planting of forestry areas.
I welcome the noble Duke's initiative. It calls for action, and that is important. We do not want another sheaf of plans put on shelves only to be brought down and reread. We hope that the Minister will give a favourable response to that call for action.
8.52 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' indulgence for those who speak for the first time in this House. I thank my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn for asking this Question and thereby giving me a chance to speak on a non-controversial subject. I am sure your Lordships realise that it is difficult for an Ulsterman to be non-controversial.
I live near Enniskillen in County Fermanagh— the lakeland of Northern Ireland. For those of your Lordships who do not know the area, it is, to say the least, a little damp. In fact, it has been said that in summer Lough Erne is in Fermanagh and in winter Fermanagh is in Lough Erne. As a result, three things grow especially well there—grass, sitka spruce and an abundance of fish. It is the westernmost county of the United Kingdom, of which it is a most important and beautiful part.
While many Fermanagh people have been to John O'Groats and Land's End, I fear that many of your Lordships may never have been to Fermanagh. I can assure your Lordships that you will he most welcome, provided that you bring your Barbours and wellington boots, or at this time of the year, even better, your waders. I believe—I learnt this only recently—that the Minister will agree that even chest waders would not have saved him from the ducking
1166
that he received in Fermanagh recently. Perhaps he will tell us more about that story.
There are two areas in the vast subject of forestry that I should like to mention. The first is the forecast of forestry expansion in Northern Ireland, and the second is the grants available to the private sector—the proposed farm woodland scheme and the forestry grant scheme, as it stands at present. The government target for expansion of forestry—the planting of ground not previously used for timber production—is 750 hectares a year. Of that, 600 hectares would be forest service plantations and 150 hectares would be private. The forest service is achieving its target at present, but in two years' time there will be insufficient funds to continue at a rate of more than 300 hectares a year. That is half the target.
The forest service has been planting from a pool of land acquired a few years ago, and that will be largely used by the end of 1990. Will the Minister assure the House that the situation will be remedied? More funds should be made available by the Government, and, if and when some of the smaller blocks of state-owned forest are rationalised, the funds generated could go towards acquiring new land for planting. Land prices are higher in Northern Ireland due to the small size of farms and the land pattern problems. However, it would take only an extra £250,000 a year from 1990 to put the forest service back on target.
Your Lordships may have noted the increase in private forestry in 1987, which was 254 hectares as compared to the previous three-year average of 69 hectares. However, those figures should be qualified. Of that, 75 per cent. was planted by a forestry investment company and therefore does not truly reflect the private sector; that is, areas planted by owner-occupiers. Therefore I welcome the experimental farm woodland scheme as an incentive to farmers.
I thank the Minister for securing a one-hectare minimum for Northern Irish farmers compared with the three-hectare minimum in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is due to the much smaller average size of farms in the Province. The points raised in my noble friend's opening speech justify the Province being given a large share of that scheme, especially in the less favoured areas. I note that within the three-year scheme and the 36,000 hectares to be planted, 3,000 hectares only are allocated to less favoured areas within the United Kingdom. That figure should be increased with Northern Ireland in mind.
In the future, no doubt an extension or various improvements to the scheme may be thought wise. However, one condition should be included at that stage. Anyone taking up the scheme should be legally committed to the marketing of mature timber at the end of the cycle, natural disasters such as gales permitting. I say that because I can see a large number of small isolated woodlands being uneconomical and difficult to work with large machinery.
There may also be many devious people who will see the scheme as a way of satisfying their short-term needs; for example, for firewood and fencing posts. Should that occur, insufficient funds may be generated at the end of the growth cycle to enable the

1167
farmer to replant. We should remember that by that time the annual income from the scheme will have ceased—after 20 years for soft woods, 30 years for mixed hard and soft woods of which 50 per cent. must be hard woods, and 40 years for 100 per cent. hard woods. That is an important condition as the scheme is intended, among other things, to produce a long-term increase in timber production.
I should like to mention the forestry grant scheme as it is at present. Will the Minister give further consideration to the private sector west of the River Bann and, in particular, Fermanagh? As already stated, we have a large amount of wet land. In addition, there are unproductive scrub areas with briars, gorse and birch trees.
That means that an expensive ground preparation programme is needed. I am talking about drainage and clearance before the establishment of a plantation. In such areas, extra funds, in addition to the normal grant must be made available to encourage the private sector. In this part of the country it is not only the trees which grow fast, as my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn said; the weeds grow just as fast. The weeding problem is immense. Weeding must be carried out far more often and more thoroughly than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Additional funding should be made available for that.
Conservation is an important factor, and the better management of these derelict areas can only help wildlife and the natural habitat in general. At this stage I should like to commend the forest service for its promotion of forestry in the private sector. It has not met with a great deal of success but it puts much effort into such promotion and it runs good lectures, exhibitions and roadshows at agricultural meetings.
In conclusion, I would point out the relevant figures that justify a new appraisal and additional funding of Northern Irish forestry. Overall 22 per cent. of the EC and 10 per cent. of Great Britain is afforested while in Northern Ireland the figure is only 5 per cent. The 1988 Republic of Ireland forecast for new plantations is rising to 10,000 hectares in the public sector and from 2,500 hectares last year in the private sector to 5,000 hectares this year. This is not just a target. These are realistic forecasts that will be achieved, considering what has been done in the previous few years. The figures for Northern Ireland are these. There are 600 hectares in the public sector. That figure will drop by half in two years' time if nothing is done. There is a very small increase in the private sector.
I hope that the Minister realises that action must be taken in the next 12 months to remedy this potentially disastrous situation for the Province's timber industry. I suggest to noble Lords that while investment in industry in Northern Ireland is often considered extremely high-risk, our unique problems in the Province should have little or no effect on the value of timber production in the future.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I thank the noble Duke for having introduced this interesting and important
1168
topic. However, before moving to it, I hasten to congratulate most warmly the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, on an outstanding maiden speech. I am sure that I speak for the entire House in so saying. The delivery of his speech did not surprise me. I was present at the memorial service following the tragic and untimely death of his father where he had to read the lesson amid all the emotion that was involved and in front of television cameras transmitting live, and he was rock steady. I should have been scared out of my wits; I should have lost my breath control. But no; he is made of sterner stuff than I am.
Nor was I surprised at the content of his speech or the careful preparation that had obviously been given to it. When his family sets its hand to anything, it does so thoroughly. I know that well because our families have had close links over many generations. Indeed, his grandfather was one of my godparents. He was my favourite godparent because every time we met he would tip me half a crown. That was in contrast to some of my other godparents who either took a cost effective view and gave me only a miserly shilling, or took a negative cash flow view and gave me nothing. I therefore had a high regard for the noble Viscount's grandfather.
His family has an outstanding record of public service, both civil and military. Even before the noble Viscount came to your Lordships' House this evening he had shown already that he has every intention of continuing that distinguished record of public service. We greatly welcome him here.
I welcome the Question raised by the noble Duke this evening. I salute him for the convincing case that he made. I beg leave to touch on one or two of the realities of the situation. They do not conflict with what the noble Duke said, but perhaps complement his remarks. After three centuries of decline, re-afforestation was resumed in a deliberate manner between the wars when the Ministry of Agriculture acquired areas, mostly of less favoured tracts of land at high altitudes. This was disadvantageous land where, for the most part, the Ministry planted conifers. This was commendable in that it gradually began to increase our capacity for timber production. It also put to use land that would otherwise have gone to waste.
After the war the Government began to offer incentives to private landowners to plant. This was also to be welcomed. However, in both the public and private sector, the policy advocated by the Government was to plant conifers and softwoods in order to provide as quick a crop as possible and to make the uptake of these offers to private owners as attractive as possible. Unfortunately, this resulted in large blankets of conifers—sitka spruce, Norway spruce, perhaps Japanese larch—often over some of our most scenic areas, which was detrimental to the appearance of the countryside and to the environment. Conifers are very suppressive both of flora and fauna. They also tend to encourage the presence of predators at the expense, for instance of song birds.
More recently, however, there has been a greater appreciation of the broadleaved varieties. We welcome the new incentives which are to be offered,

1169
I understand, with effect from next autumn, under the farm woodland scheme. If this is successful, it will enhance the environment and indeed the habitats for our natural wildlife. But even though these incentives are more generous and attractive than ever before, I cannot help asking how effective they will be. A price of £190 per hectare is offered for a broadleaved plantation over a period of 40 years. This is in addition to the standard forestry planting grant which is over £800—an instalment on planting and a further instalment on establishment. Once that has been paid out, that is it. Can one expect a farmer to make a living out of that when by comparison, if he is any good at all, he should be able to make more than £500 per hectare from milk and £250 to £300 from cereals on good arable land? Will it be attractive' That is the question I respectfully ask.
I refer next to the psychological barrier with regard to broadleaved planting. How many people will be attracted to the idea of establishing a crop that will not mature in their life-time and almost certainly not in the lifetime of their immediate successor? They will wonder about the market for timber in 100 years' time. On present indications it will probably be very good, possibly even better than it is now. But it is an uncertainty. What other crop can one think of where such a long-term commitment is involved? What other investment can one think of on the farm? Even if one invests in a costly, extensive range of buildings for, say, dairying, and then decides to go out of milk after 15 or 20 years, there is a reasonable chance that the buildings can be converted for some other purpose, even if at some expense. If one has established a stand of oak or beech, who will cut them down after 20 years if the outlook for timber is not so bright? The problem is that one is locked in. Planting hardwoods for amenity is certainly a most attractive proposition. As a crop, I do not disagree with it; I merely point out the reality of how many people would be attracted by the scheme. This is the case with our traditional varieties of hardwoods such as beech and oak, which are quoted in the farm woodlands scheme.
Gradually and steadily, I come to my point: have we been too conservatve in our view of the species that we plant? The noble Viscount pointed out how very much more quickly certain varieties grow in Northern Ireland than elsewhere. I wonder whether we have taken advantage of this to a sufficient extent.
In principle I am entirely in favour of planting indigenous trees. Let us consider agriculture. If we stuck to native livestock and were denied the use of Friesians, Charolais or Simmental, our dairy and cattle industry would not be in a very good way today. If we stuck to indigenous varieties of plants and were denied the rye grasses and cereals that come from elsewhere, our arable enterprises would not be in a very good way.
I venture to ask this: should we not be considering for commercial production varieties of trees that we know grow well in Northern Ireland and that beat the native species? Have the Minister and his department considered varieties such as Nothofagus Dombeyi, a beech indigenous to Chile and Argentina? In the encyclopaedia of plants and trees I read recently it said that Nothofagus grows to 30 feet in height. I
1170
know of one at home which is 75 to 80 feet in height with a girth of 9 feet 6 inches yet it is younger than I am. It was planted in about 1935 or 1936. What indigenous beech or oak could put on growth at that rate? This would produce a high density hardwood when mature, which it almost is now.
Similarly, I wonder whether his people in the forestry division of the Department of Agriculture have considered Eucalyptus globulus. Again, the encyclopaedia states its height as being 50 feet with a spread of 20 feet. The height of ours is 90 feet with a spread of 50 feet. I have planted examples of this which have made 40 feet in height in only 12 years. Surely this rate of growth that can be achieved in Northern Ireland is something of which we should take advantage. Whoever compiled the encyclopaedia was obviously writing in good faith and taking evidence from what he had seen in the South of England; but what is not realised, as the noble Duke and the noble Viscount said, is that we can grow trees much faster in Northern Ireland than they can in the South of England, even though we are further north.
I should like to suggest that some of these more exotic varieties should be considered. I speak with hesitation because the noble Duke knows much more about this than I do. He has a garden centre. I know, because I have been there, that amid the Grecian urns and plastic gnomes he has a wide selection of most interesting plants, many of which I am sure could be developed and grown on a commercial basis, although maybe he sells most of them for amenity purposes at the moment.
I should like to ask the noble Lord on the Front Bench whether he will tell us what his department's view is of selecting species for commercial production in order to make the farm woodlands scheme more attractive to owners of the arable land which I know it is the Government's desire to take out of agricultural production.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to begin by joining with the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, on his well reasoned and well researched maiden speech. By any standards it was an excellent speech. His late father was a regular contributor to the debates on Northern Ireland affairs in your Lordships' House. He brought to our debates a certain unionist perspective which must always be taken into account by the legislator. We knew that here was a man whose heart and soul was in Northern Ireland. We hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, will maintain his family's long tradition of service to the Province and that henceforth his rational voice will be often and regularly heard in your Lordships' House.
We are grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, for addressing the Question before us to Her Majesty's Government and for giving the House the benefit of his wealth of knowledge of the subject. His speech too was well researched. It could achieve something worth while for many of the rural communities of Northern Ireland. That is why, with

1171
the agreement of my noble friend Lord John-Mackie, who is the Labour Party's spokesman in this House on agricultural matters, I wish to support the general argument advanced by the noble Duke for strengthening the role of afforestation in Northern Ireland.
The starting point must be the forestry target. The 1970 White Paper on Forestry in Northern Ireland laid down the target of 300,000 acres of state and privately owned forests by the end of the century. Can the Minister tell the House whether this target has been increased or lowered since 1970, or are we still talking about 300,000 acres by the end of the century? Can he also tell the House how that compares with the target set for Wales, Scotland and England in terms of the percentage of their land under afforestation? The noble Duke has indicated that there is a significant difference between Northern Ireland and Scotland and that in general Northern Ireland is dragging behind the rest of the UK. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us about that.
The noble Duke has made a powerful case for a very substantial increase in the land area under afforestation. His case is based on three main arguments. The first is that the changes within agriculture require the transfer of land from dairying and livestock to afforestation. Secondly, the climate in Northern Ireland is excellent for growing forests, making it one of the most suitable places in Europe for that purpose. Thirdly, the Province is not self-sufficient in the domestic supply of timber, whereas, if I understand it correctly, it could be a timber exporter. Each argument is strong but if the three arguments are valid then taken together they seem to me to be almost irresistible.
I turn for a moment to the annual report of the Forest Service for 1986–1987. I was surprised to read in its second opening passage on page 1 that the rate of acquisition of land for afforestation
"over the last 5 years will not enable White Paper targets to be achieved".
If the targets cannot be achieved, that at least calls for an explanation and a remedy. Therefore we should like to know what the problems are, why the programme is slipping and what steps can be taken to remedy the position. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, can enlighten us.
I must confess that that slippage raises another worry. If the Forest Service cannot maintain the build-up towards the existing target is it likely, as it is at present constituted and with the instruments at present available to it, to achieve the much more ambitious target which the noble Duke has in mind? As I understand it the target that he has in mind is double the existing target. One is left wondering whether it can be achieved without a radical initiative from the top of the department.
Another major theme running through the speech of the noble Duke is that the department should give more generous financial support to the private investor in forestry. I believe that that theme is also supported by the noble Viscount. Reference has been made to the grants—the Western Package as it is called—which are available in the disadvantaged
1172
parts of the Republic. I am told that the grants paid to private foresters in the Republic are much more favourable than those paid in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that there is much more to this point than the noble Duke wishing to keep up with the Joneses. But a number of questions arise and I should like to pick out one or two of them. First, are there any EC directives or regulations which govern the value of the financial grants which a member state can make available to private forestry and indeed also to public forestry? After listening to the remarks of the noble Duke it seems to me that there is none.
My second question has also been touched upon. It relates to the price of land to be acquired for afforestation. Can the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, tell the House how prices per acre for forestry land in Northern Ireland compare with prices in the Republic and in the rest of the UK? We appreciate that prices vary within each country. However, we want to know whether there is a substantial differential between similar sites in different countries of the United Kingdom.
I was also going to ask whether the Secretary of State has the power to pay a different level of grant to the private investor in Northern Ireland to that being paid in the rest of the United Kingdom or the power to have a substantially different policy from that in force in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, the noble Viscount has answered that question. Perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm that the Secretary of State has that power.
The noble Duke also raised the topic of the role of privatisation, which he favours and which is currently popular with the Government. However, it is a controversial theme. Some of us, including my noble friend Lord Blease and members of the trade union movement, are dubious about it. Perhaps, though, it will be of some consolation to the noble Duke that my noble friend Lord John-Mackie considers that privatisation could have a limited role to play on some sites, provided that the sums raised by privatisation could be retained by the Forest Service and used by it to improve and strengthen its programme of acquisition and planting. That condition is not likely to be attractive to the present Government. Therefore, the moneys available from the pension funds would not be paid to the Forest Service but would be paid over to a consolidated fund.
It emerges from the 1986–87 annual report that the total number of people employed by the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture—that is, the public sector—is no more than 520, though that figure does not include those who are employed in the processing mills. Moreover, the number has been going down since 1983 and my noble friend Lord Blease anticipates that it will go down even further. I was surprised that the number was so low. Can the Minister tell the House the cost of job creation through forestry? How does that compare with the cost of job creation through tourism and light industry? I am afraid that the comparative cost must be very high indeed.
Given the difficulties which the IDB and LEDU are experiencing in attracting inward investment into

1173
rural communities—the noble Duke spoke on that matter with experience because he has been a member of the IDB—and given the surplus capacity of the processing mills in the timber industry—that matter was again referred to by the noble Duke—I am bound to conclude that the high cost of job creation through forestry is not a conclusive argument against further substantial afforestation.
Our concern on these Benches is for the well-being of the rural community. We seek a viable rural economy; we fear, as we approach the end of the century, the slow disintegration of many rural communities and particularly those west of the Bann. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House what priority the Government have given to preventing rural stagnation and depopulation 15 and 20 years hence. Can he tell us something about the Government's thoughts concerning the likely movement of labour from the countryside between now and the beginning of the next century? To what extent can forestry, tourism and light industry offer additional employment?
We think that there is a lot of good sense in the suggestion made by the noble Duke that the headquarters of the forest service should be relocated west of the Bann. Given that there is a need to move away from the traditional pattern of agriculture and that the climate in Northern Ireland is ideal for afforestation, is it not the case, as the noble Duke has argued, that afforestation offers an opportunity which the Government must grasp now if it is to bear fruit in the next century?
9.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, your Lordships' House is deeply indebted to my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn for this opportunity to examine what is happening in the forestry industry in Northern Ireland.
At the outset I shall take just a moment of your Lordships' time to follow those speakers who have offered congratulations to my noble friend Lord Brookeborough on the occasion of his maiden speech tonight. We have listened to an excellent maiden speech of very high quality. I should like to add my personal congratulations and to say how pleased we all are to have a recruit of such quality with us.
My noble friend the Duke of Abercorn and also the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, referred to my noble friend's father who, as we all know, was never afraid to give his views on any subject, not just those relating to Northern Ireland. My noble friend's voice is always welcome, and I appreciate the opinions that he has expressed this evening. He will always be welcome whenever he can join us. Noble Lords know what a tremendous job he does in Fermanagh. Your Lordships will agree with me on the importance in this House of having a voice from Northern Ireland on all subjects and especially one from County Fermanagh, whose tie I am proudly wearing this evening.
As for my noble friend's views about my visits to that county, I hope that I can visit it much more often—and the wetter I get the happier I shall be. I
1174
note that thigh waders must be part of my equipment for visits to County Fermanagh, even in what is known as summer, although the summers of 1985 and 1986 did not merit that name.
Before turning to the specific points which noble Lords have raised in the debate on forestry this evening, perhaps I may take a moment to explain forest policy in the Province. The Government are committed to a forestry programme in the Province on the lines laid down in the 1970 White Paper on forestry to which several noble Lords have referred. I should like to comment on the main thrust of that paper since, though subject to periodic review and to substantially reduced objectives, the policy direction that it contains remains basically unchanged. The main objectives stated in that White Paper were to develop a total of 120,000 hectares of state and private forestry by the end of the century, and to encourage afforestation and tree planting by public and of course private agencies and individuals. Since there were 52,000 hectares—or, as we say in Scotland, thereby—in forestry in 1970 (there are now 71,000 hectares), the first of these targets implied new planting of 2,300 hectares per year of both public and private planting over the 30-year period. These targets were rapidly shown to be unattainable because of the main bugbear that affects forestry in Northern Ireland. I refer to the lack of land being offered to the industry and to the fact that in recent years we have aimed at buying what is available, which generally turns out to be smaller areas of better and therefore more expensive land.
These targets were reviewed in 1982 and revised downwards to 750 hectares per annum. This was split into 600 hectares of state planting and 150 hectares per annum of private planting. That decision went to amplify the lack of suitable land coming on to the market at realistic forestry prices, a point which I stressed earlier. There was also the relative failure of the private sector to develop, although there were a number of shining exceptions.
There is certainly a distinct difference between the rate at which trees are being privately planted in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. When one compares the areas of grant aided private planting in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain in relation to the amount of available land, one sees that planting in Northern Ireland is pro rata only one-twelfth of that in Great Britain. In recent years only 88 hectares on average have been planted against 15,300 hectares in Great Britain. Eighty-eight hectares may not appear to be exactly one-twelfth but I am told that if one takes the land area of Great Britain and compares it with Northern Ireland these figures match up.
I should like to emphasise to my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn that when one considers that exactly the same fiscal arrangements apply and that we have similar planting grants with rates adjusted to favour the small planter, this contrast is particularly stark. I should stress that my department is making every effort to remove any outdated constraints on the planting programme. I am pleased to confirm that it no longer demands that the planting of land inside the original less favoured area must be cleared by the local county agricultural office. In Europe it is called

1175
the specially disadvantaged area. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is nodding. He has considerably more experience of these matters, as well as of Eurospeak, than I do. Any planting inside the original less favoured area used to have to be cleared by the local county agricultural office. That is no longer the case. We hope that that will be one less constraint on those who wish to plant. It is one less hurdle to cross.
The department itself through its forest service will be concentrating within the tight budget on having to plant better land in future. The future programme of forest service planting is especially important. This point was stressed by my noble friend in his opening speech. The pattern of land acquisition for forestry over the years and certainly over the past 18 years means that the tremendous bulge in new planting, both private and public, in the 1960s and 1970s will be harvested between 1990 and 2020. During that period the present capacity of the modern sawmilling industry in Northern Ireland could be fully supplied from our own production. Thereafter supplies would fall sharply because of the decline in new planting in the 1980s.
As the forest service is the main supplier of the Northern Ireland timber industry's requirements, and as, despite a great deal of effort, the private sector is not expanding as fast as all of of us would wish, we have to look in large measure to the state forest service to ensure the continuity of timber supplies in the years ahead, particularly to the indigenous sawmilling industry. We have made substantial efforts to see that the private sector starts on planting. Quite apart from the system of planting grants and the fiscal arrangements, the forest service regularly runs open days to bring forestry interests to the public notice. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, raised that point as did at least one other noble Lord.
Farmers and members of the public receive advice on forestry, and the forestry grant schemes are publicised at any agricultural events round the Province. I stress to your Lordships that these efforts have borne fruit in an increase in applications for planting schemes. I am also pleased that within the last couple of years private forestry interests in the Province have developed afforestation in investment operations with some success. But I have to add that the continuing relatively high price of land, together with the small pattern of land ownership in Northern Ireland, tends to discourage the private investor. The use of private investment companies would be the quickest way in which to establish large areas of private forest.
Your Lordships will agree that these companies would be unlikely to be attracted by the small farm size, since contiguous parcels of land come on to the market so rarely. But our efforts to encourage the private sector will continue and, given some reduction in agricultural land prices, I am sure that we shall see increases in private planting in the Province.
My noble friend the Duke of Abercorn—indeed, all your Lordships—touched on the proposed farm
1176
woodland scheme. We welcome all the interest that has been shown in the scheme and in our proposals within the Province. Changes were made to the scheme following consultation, and these have resulted in Northern Ireland being allocated a minimum planting area of one hectare compared to three hectares in the rest of the United Kingdom. It was kind of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough to pick that up in his maiden speech, which showed all the hard work and research that he had done. I congratulate him on that.
The small derogation we had in Northern Ireland recognises the pattern of land ownership in the Province and we hope that it will go a long way to increase the uptake in the scheme, although one hectare compared to three hectares for the same number of applications will result in a relatively small area being planted. But every extra hectare we can get will be welcome. I am confident that the farm woodlands scheme will be a success in the Province.
My noble friend the Duke of Abercorn in his opening remarks stressed the need to grow more timber. That pattern ran through all the remarks on the Question this evening. I have made it clear that we have not been able to keep up with the growth in timber production in Great Britain, especially in the private sector. The various planting schemes in Northern Ireland differ from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. They give additional flexibility to aid small plantings and we are able to give planting grants on coppice biomass, which is a very interesting new experiment being carried out within my own department. Forestry investment companies exist in Northern Ireland. They have had encouragement, advice and all the help they require from the forest service. But the fiscal arrangements are just the same and just as generous in Northern Ireland as they are in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I want to stress that simply selling public sector forestry to the private, sector at any price—this will interest the curiosity of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, though whether it will answer his questions I am not too sure—does not deal with the main thrust of the questions this evening: that is, the need to increase timber production. The forestry industry in Northern Ireland should be given credit where it is due. It is held in healthy respect by environmental interests. I was pleased that your Lordships mentioned the RSPB and all the other recreational activities that are so popular in the forests in Northern Ireland.
The main problem to which I must return is the slow development of private sector and to some extent public sector afforestation in Northern Ireland. The problem lies not in the efficiency or effectiveness of the forestry service or private sector companies but in the pattern of land ownership which is reflected in the price of land in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked about the European Community directive. My noble friend the Duke of Abercorn spoke about European Community Regulation 1820 dated 24th June 1980. The means by which the 1820 regulation was implemented was the Western Package in the Republic of Ireland. I believe that the treatment of

1177
this directive is a matter for the United Kingdom Government and I do not want to enter into the full treatment of that package in the Republic this evening.
In his remarks my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn raised the problem of rationalisation in the Northern Ireland forest service. The approach which is being adopted by the service is identical to that of the Forestry Commission. It is presently being implemented in two phases which are running concurrently. During 1988 the service will offer for sale unplanted land amounting to 220 hectares and 92 hectares of plantations in varying stages of silviculture. These sales may help further to assess the private sector investment potential of forestry in the Province. This is a first hesitant yet significant step. We shall have to see how the sales go before making further decisions. Noble Lords have suggested to me that similar attempted sales, and sales which have been completed in the Republic of Ireland last year, do not seem to have been terribly successful. Although the hectarage has increased, much of it has been on the private side. There are other factors which apply in the Republic but do not apply in Northern Ireland as far as we are concerned.
The noble Lord raised a query about forestry activity. The future development of forestry in Northern Ireland, both public and private, will largely be conditioned by movements in land prices, linked with policies in agriculture in both the Community and the United Kingdom. I am particularly hopeful that the Government's ALU RE proposals will increase private sector awareness of the opportunities which are presented by forestry, even in Northern Ireland. There are 53 nature reserves on state forestry land in Northern Ireland. That shows that the forest service, as well as receiving tremendous help for the private forestry sector, is taking the lead in playing a major role in conservation. Your Lordships have heard that the growth of activity holidays is being seized by the service as an opportunity to further assist and enrich the recreational value of forestry by the promotion of activities such as bird watching and photography.
The average farm size in Northern Ireland, which will have a great bearing on the success or otherwise of the farm woodland scheme, is only 24 hectares. The large hill farms, which go some way to promote the major forestry development in Scotland are not in the main present in Northern Ireland, although there may he one or two exceptions. Last night my noble friend stressed to me one or two interesting details in County Fermanagh. It is the pattern of land ownership and above all the relatively small size of the farms which will tend to be a limiting factor on how far and how fast we can go forward.
I shall try to cover some of the points made by noble Lords. However, if I do not cover them all, my colleagues will undertake to reply to the points which have been made by my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn and by others in writing. My noble friend was very much in favour of increased planting in the less favoured areas but he likened that to reducing agricultural surpluses. While 1 am sure that we should not ignore the less favoured areas for forestry, he will appreciate that the better the land we take out
1178
of agriculture the more we shall reduce the surpluses. That goes on to show that the environmental arguments will tend to favour planting trees in the lowlands, and that is reflected in the rates which the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, mentioned. The emphasis under the new farm woodland scheme is on planting the better lowland areas, with the higher rates which are available for planting in those areas.
My noble friend also referred to the gap between supply and demand for timber as far as the timber industry was concerned. I believe that he went a good way to answering his own question. However, we have allowed timber processing capacity to run ahead of timber supply, though I think that that will be put right by increasing supplies in the 1990s and in the later part of this century. After the bulge in the timber supplies planted in the 1960s and 1970s is cut, there will be problems, but in the 1990s and in the next 12 to 15 years I believe that the gap between supply and demand will narrow.
My noble friend also asked about performance, comparing the Republic of Ireland with Northern Ireland. I believe that one reason for the slower progress may be that competition for land for agriculture seems stronger in Northern Ireland. Also there are the more widely developed co-operative agricultural arrangements in the Republic.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, made a very helpful speech. Above all we welcome his support for the development which respected the existing Forest Service enterprises. Certainly I undertake to ensure that co-operation between the Department of the Environment and my own department continues at its present high level because I spend a great deal of my time in the forests and continually it is stressed to me the high priority that we give to conservation, matters like birds and above all the fauna, not just the flora, that exist in forestry areas. We place great emphasis on the farm woodland scheme, and certainly forestry grants will help in plantation, and not just in deciduous plantation.
The noble Lord also asked about co-operation. There are forest district conservation committees which meet to consider aspects of forest management and with particular reference to conservation. The qualified personnel draw up landscape plans which cover large areas of forest and these are certainly looked after in environmentally sensitive areas.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough had one particular query regarding the farm woodland scheme. We certainly will be receiving our proper share of the United Kingdom's scheme. However, it will be up to all the landowners in the Province to justify our efforts in taking up the funds which are available. I believe that they will be taken up and we shall do everything we can to promote their uptake.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, stressed the attractiveness of the farm woodland scheme. Certainly we would have expected him to have done his sums, but I think he will agree that the milk producer is able to gain £500 per hectare if he has any problems with his quota, or he might even be under quota. Therefore, he might be prepared to put a small portion of his land into trees which will be particularly fast growing on some of the better land,

1179
while he may be able to farm fewer and more productive cows. Indeed, far more than notes on forestry it is notes on quotas which still flow into my office like snow in the new year.
The noble Lord raised a number of interesting points concerning exotic species. I am afraid I did not take on board all the exotic names but I shall certainly read them in Hansard with interest, I am able to confirm that the Forest Service has planted test areas with the species mentioned but I have to say that it has been with varying degrees of success. However, I shall certainly ask all the officials of the forest service to make suitable arrangements to meet the noble Lord—I shall accompany them if I can—to discuss any ideas he has for planting some of the more exotic species. If the noble Lord is achieving the growth rates that he mentioned I should like to know a little more. That is an open invitation which I am sure the noble Lord will not hesitate to take up.
I was asked for an approximate value for land which could be called good quality planting land. I am given to understand that it varies between £1,000 and £1,200 per hectare. I do not have the relevant figures for Great Britain but I understand that those I have given are a little higher than they would be for Great Britain.
Both my noble friend Lord Brookeborough and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised a point of detail about the different levels of private planting grants payable by the Forestry Commission in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The amounts are similar but they are marginally adjusted to cater for those in Northern Ireland who wish to plant fairly small areas. I alluded to this derogation as between one and three hectares for the farm woodlands scheme. For areas up to 50 hectares, forestry grants give the Northern Ireland planter of trees approximately a 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. advantage over his counterpart in Great Britain. For areas over 50 hectares the private planter in Northern Ireland would be at a disadvantage by some 5 per cent. and it could go as high as 10 per cent. We have had only three individual applications involving
1180
more than 50 hectares. Once again, I think this goes back to the average farm size I mentioned earlier.
My noble friend the Duke of Abercorn and the noble Lord, Lord Blease, referred to the possibility of moving the forest service headquarters out of Dundonald House to west of the Bann. I can stress to the House that of the forest service staff, which numbers in the region of 500 persons, 88 per cent. are already placed outside Belfast, near the areas where they work. Reference was made to the Forestry Commission and its headquarters in Edinburgh but those noble Lords who may refer to a map, let along drive in Scotland as 1 do, will agree that the headquarters staff in Edinburgh have much further to travel to visit their far-flung empire than do the Belfast staff. However, any efficiencies that we can make by moving staff nearer to their place of work will be certainly taken into account.
I have taken up enough of your Lordships' time and I am sorry if I have been unable to answer all the questions put to me. There are one, or possibly two, points that I may have missed and I certainly undertake to write to your Lordships on anything I have not dealt with. As far as possible I have made a quietly positive reply to the Question asked by my noble friend this evening on the forest service in Northern Ireland. I wish to stress to your Lordships that the Government are as committed to forestry in Northern Ireland as they are to forestry in the rest of the United Kingdom. There can be no special afforestation policy for the Province so far as the fiscal regime is concerned. Whatever we are able to do in afforestation as regards the forest service, as well as giving assistance to the private sector, must be funded from existing resources. When we are discussing these matters I shall continue to push the question of agricultural resources when considering the Northern Ireland budget. The forest service has a very high priority among those resources. The answer to the question from my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn is that Her Majesty's Government intend to promote further afforestation in Northern Ireland.
House adjourned at one minute past ten o'clock.

  MOUNTAIN AND HILL RESCUE OPERATIONS
  MOUNTAIN AND HILL RESCUE OPERATIONS
  DTI STATIONERY
  DTI STATIONERY
  INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  IRAQ: BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
  IRAQ: BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
  NORTH SEA: PROTECTION
  NORTH SEA: PROTECTION