Sitting of 16 February 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    School Leavers (Illiteracy)
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the illiteracy rate among school leavers.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): Evidence collected by my Department's assessment of performance unit suggests that very few 15-year-olds are unable to read or write a single word, but that some have difficulty with fairly simple reading and writing tasks. The national curriculum will help to raise standards of literacy at all levels, through the introduction of attainment targets in English. The national assessment arrangements will in due course provide information on the language capabilities of 16-year-olds.
    Mr. Butler: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply and for the improvement that we expect through the use of assessment and the national curriculum. However, what is my hon. Friend's response to the many personnel managers who are dissatisfied with the current level of literacy among school leavers?
    Mrs. Rumbold: We accept that there are still some inadequacies in literacy attainment, which is one of the very good reasons why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has introduced a national curriculum to tackle immediately the problem confronting some employers.
    Mr. Boyes: Should we not have more teachers with special responsibilities for dealing with such children? That would need cash. It is clear from the written answer given by the Secretary of State on 8 February—it appears in columns 51–52 of Hansard—that he plans cuts in cash for special and secondary schools to the end of the decade and that there will be only about 1 per cent. growth in the sums available for primary schools. Given that the Secretary of State will not put the necessary money into the service, it is no wonder that some of our children leave school illiterate.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is clearly not aware that the grant given to the adult and literacy skills unit has been increased from £0·5 million in 1980–81 to more than £2 million in the current financial year. That is a substantial increase, which will contribute to solving literacy problems.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a direct relationship between indiscipline in schools and illiteracy? What action might she be able to take to improve discipline in our schools, particularly in the light of the recent Professional Association of Teachers survey showing that violence and indiscipline have been growing substantially?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Clearly, if we are to tackle the literacy problem in our schools in the long term, we must work towards breaking the cycle affecting a proportion of the weaker pupils with literacy difficulties. It is, indeed, an inadequate foundation, which catches some of the children least able to withstand indiscipline in school. Therefore, the PAT report was of great importance. We must establish discipline in the classroom so that weaker children can learn and therefore benefit from the introduction of the national curriculum.

    Education Reform
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish his proposed amendments to the Education Reform Bill regarding charges for school activities.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I shall be announcing the outcome of our consultations later this week, and would hope to table new clauses next week.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Secretary of State aware that extra charges would fall particularly heavily on one-parent families, especially charges for field courses and arts and music courses? In his reply, will he dwell on the city technology colleges, which will find it extremely difficult to give their pupils what they need?
    Mr. Baker: The Government will not be imposing charges but will allow schools to charge for extras if they wish. [Interruption.] This problem was brought to our attention by the local education authorities, which asked us to find a way through and particularly to protect them in their present practices. Before Opposition Members laugh too much, I remind them that many authorities controlled by the Labour party and the alliance charge for extras at the moment.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that schools have always charged for certain activities, such as home economics, field trips and materials for woodwork and handicraft, as well as for skiing trips and so on? Is it not now necessary to make that practice legal, and is that not what Labour, Liberal and Conservative authorities want?
    Mr. Baker: That is exactly the position, and I believe that my proposals, which will be published later this week—we have already discussed them with local authority associations—will be widely welcomed. I can confirm that, as my hon. Friend said, since the 1944 Act it has been the practice for authorities to charge for certain extra activities.
    Mr. Fatchett: When the Minister of State said in the Standing Committee on the Education Reform Bill on 28 January that opt-out schools would be able to use parental contributions to employ additional teachers, was that a clear statement of Government policy? If so, does the Secretary of State realise that those contributions will

    809
    become less and less voluntary and that opt-out schools will become fee-paying schools, which will be even more divisive than the Government's current proposals?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish. We have made it clear in Committee, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that grant-maintained schools will not be allowed to charge fees. They can certainly attract voluntary contributions, as can, and do, schools in the state-maintained sector. I should emphasise that our objectives in clarifying this policy are to preserve the principle of free education, to clarify the law and to safeguard current valuable provision.
    Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the need for an early statement — which I would welcome — arose because it was hoped that the Government would make it clear that parents on income support and family credit will be exempt from such voluntary charges, particularly for field trips and so on?
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend will see, when I announce the changes later this week, that we shall be covering that matter specifically. Should schools wish to continue to make charges for field trips, there must be remission arrangements for children whose parents are on family support.

    Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the Committee of Vice Chancellors and of Principals; and what subjects he discussed.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): My right hon. Friend addressed the Committee on 30 October on matters concerned with the Government's higher education policy.
    Mr. Darling: Did the Minister discuss the 20 per cent. reduction in funding for Scottish universities over the past four years, compared with a reduction of only 13 per cent. for England? Did he discuss the implications of that on the ability of universities to contract to provide courses under the new system of funding? More important, did he discuss the future viability of the four-year honours degree in Scotland, which is the envy of the academic world? What will he do about this attack on Scottish education?
    Mr. Jackson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the University Grants Committee is a national organisation and it pursues a policy at arm's length from the Government. The distribution of funds between the different institutions in the United Kingdom is a matter to be determined by the University Grants Committee. Last year we increased expenditure on universities at the central level by 10 per cent., and this year it will increase by 8·2 per cent.
    Mr. Rhodes James: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the proposed amendments by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State relating to higher education. Does this not show the value of consultation? Is it not nice to know that occasionally sanity can prevail?
    Mr. Jackson: Sanity has always prevailed. The Government listen to what is said during debates in the Standing Committee and outside, and they respond to
    810
    that. We have responded with amendments to other parts of the Bill, and we are so responding in respect of the clauses that will be debated this afternoon.
    Mr. Ashdown: The amendments — details of which have not yet been announced—may deal with academic freedom. The Government claim that they are not increasing their powers, but, under the present proposals, are they not abolishing a 70-year-old convention not to intervene and replacing it with specific powers to intervene on a day-by-day basis? How can the Minister square that with the claim that the Education Reform Bill is about freedom? Is it not about the iron fist of central control? Is it not about the imposition of control on universities, which is a constitutional violation?
    Mr. Jackson: This is an important matter. The hon. Gentleman is offering us a travesty of the true position, which is that, with regard to the balance of power between central Government and the institutions, the proposals contained in the Education Reform Bill make no difference in substance between what is already established in the case of the UGC and what is proposed for the Universities Funding Council. There is no impact, either positive or negative, on that balance; it merely sustains the old arrangements on a new footing.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to discuss in Committee the subject of the money raised by the universities? Will he make it abundantly clear that universities such as the University of Lancaster, which has raised up to £3 million of its own funding, will not find my hon. Friend or any of his successors being able to dictate what they do with such money? Will that be clearly expressed in the Bill?
    Mr. Jackson: The University of Lancaster and all universities are to be congratulated on their successful efforts to diversify funding. It has never been the Government's intention that the universities should be held to account for the money that they have raised under their own steam. My right hon. Friend will make a statement this afternoon in which he will say that the Government intend to make that clear beyond doubt in the legislation.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that there is considerable concern in all Scottish universities that have four-year degrees, in places such as Keele in England and in other colleges of higher education that have four-year degrees, that they will lose as a result of the new method of bidding for funding? Will he give a categorical assurance that the Government do not intend any of those four-year degree courses to lose out?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government have no views or policy on the academic policy of institutions. The four-year degree in Scotland is to be decided by the Scottish universities and the UGC. Expenditure on students in Scotland is one third higher than the level in England and Wales. That is the extent to which we recognise the importance and value of the four-year degree in Scotland.
    Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the University of Southampton has done well in co-operating with industry on research and development? At the moment all seems calm, but people who have written to me from the university—several times—have expressed three fears. They are concerned, first, about the Secretary

    811
    of State's ability to appoint the Universities Funding Council, secondly, about the interest charges on spending, and thirdly—we must kill this fear—that they will lose some of their independence.
    Mr. Jackson: We do not believe that the proposals in the Bill compromise the independence of universities or polytechnics; rather, they enhance the independence of the polytechnics. For universities, the position is neutral as between the existing arrangements and the proposed ones. Appointments to the Universities Funding Council will be made by the Secretary of State in exactly the same way as he appoints members of the UGC now.
    As regards possible interest charges and repayments, the basic principle underlying the Government's thinking is that money is provided by the Universities Funding Council to the institutions to do certain things. If it becomes apparent that the resources have been misallocated, the issue of what should be done about that will arise, and the Government are thinking seriously about it.

    Primary Schools (Pupil Costs)
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil in primary schools (a) in England as a whole and (b) in Staffordshire in the most recent year for which figures are available: and what were the comparable figures in 1978–79, at constant prices.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): Local education authorities in England spent an average of £690 per primary pupil in 1978–79 and £815 per primary pupil in 1985–86. The comparable figures for Staffordshire are £695 and £815.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show an impressive increase in expenditure per pupil in primary schools in Staffordshire and the whole of England since the Government came to office? How can the Labour party justify claims of cuts in education under this Government, either in Staffordshire or in the rest of the country?
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is right. Between 1978–79 and 1985–86 expenditure per pupil rose nationally by 19 per cent. and is currently at its best ever level. Opposition Members never acknowledge that improvement.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Under-Secretary acknowledge that it is a Labour authority that has provided those good educational standards despite restraints on spending by central Government?
    Mr. Dunn: I acknowledge that it is a Labour authority — I wish it were not. I remind the House that Government plans for local authorities current expenditure in 1988–89 represent an increase in cash of nearly 8 per cent. over the plans for the current year. I am extremely proud of that.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that that Labour-controlled authority is reorganising primary education in Burntwood in my constituency? Before my hon. Friend approves any of those proposals, will he ensure that he is satisfied that the complaints of the parents that the accommodation proposed by Staffordshire county council is inadequate will be taken into account?
    Mr. Dunn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a legal duty to examine the proposals for closure and the arguments for and against. I am grateful for the fact that in the past my hon. Friend has brought deputations to see me. Their views, as well as those of the authority, will be carefully taken into account before my right hon. Friend makes a decision.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Why do the Minister and his colleagues continue to deceive us? Is it not a fact that since 1979 central Government spending has been cut by 20 per cent. in real terms, and that in that time it is the much maligned local authorities that have increased their spending by 8 per cent.? It is those authorities, not the Secretary of State and the Government, that have protected our schools.
    Mr. Dunn: That question was much laboured, if I might use that word. The Government's strong record is supported, not only in cash terms, but by other objective standards. For example, the overall pupil-teacher ratio on January 1987 was 17·3:1 compared to 18·9:1 in January 1979. Average class sizes have been improving in primary and secondary schools and there are now far fewer classes with more than 30 pupils.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how the figures for Staffordshire and England as a whole compare with those for ILEA? Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the effectiveness of the last figure?
    Mr. Dunn: I do not have all day to do that, but my hon. Friend is right to point out the massive difference between expenditure levels in ILEA and even the more extreme Labour authorities out in the country. The reasons for abolition are quite clear.

    First Division Association
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet representatives of the First Division Association branch of his Department.
    Mrs. Rumbold: No, Sir.
    Ms. Armstrong: I am pleased that that answer suggests that the Government have got over their slight problem with First Division Association on the stand at the Ideal Home exhibition. Is the Minister aware that parents in my constituency will not benefit from any of that wonderful information — I understand that it will cost at least £30,000—because they will not be able to afford to go to the Ideal Home exhibition? They would much rather see that sort of expense put into the schools to ensure that their children have books. If the Minister is interested, I could give her many more effective and cheaper ways to communicate with parents.
    Mrs. Rumbold: We hope that parents who have access to the Ideal Home exhibition will benefit from the information that will be disseminated there. I should make it perfectly clear that that information about the rights of parent governors is to do with the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. Parents in the hon. Lady's constituency will also receive information and leaflets, which will be distributed to all parents at all the schools.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that concern has been expressed among the members of the FDA about the so-called efficiency payments that are now paid in the

    813
    Department to high education officials? Can she tell the House who decides to whom those payments will be made, and how does she distinguish them from straight political patronage?
    Mrs. Rumbold: There is no question of political patronage. These matters are properly decided within the association and its general negotiating circumstances. It does not come anywhere near Ministers.

    Secondary Education (Cumbria)
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received proposals for the reorganisation of secondary education in the county of Cumbria.
    Mr. Dunn: No, Sir.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that the future of secondary education, particularly Catholic secondary education, in my constituency is now being prejudiced directly as a result of the cuts that the Government are imposing on Cumbria county council's education budget? Does the Minister understand that people are getting angry? Is it not true that the Government are pressing the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make attacks on the clergy as part of a campaign to undermine the truly independent position of the Church in Britain?
    Mr. Dunn: I thought that the question was about secondary education in Cumbria. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Cumbria received a prescribed capital allocation for schools of £4·651 million in 1988–89. That was a generous allocation and represented 83·3 per cent. of the county councils plans, compared with the national average of 47·2 per cent. That is rough treatment indeed.

    Postgraduate Training and Research
    Mr. Maxton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what study he has made of the trends in the number of British students of high ability wishing to do postgraduate training and research; and in what subjects he sees cause for concern because of poor career prospects.
    Mr. Jackson: Institutions are responsible for the provision of and recruitment to postgraduate courses. Overall, however, the recruitment of British students in 1986 compared with 1980 was 6·6 per cent. higher on full-time courses and almost 28 per cent. higher on part-time courses.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that despite his answer, there are many young, outstanding scientists in Britain who are deterred from undertaking postgraduate research or who go abroad to do that research because of the poor career prospects in Britain? Does he agree with Sir David Philips, chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, that we are in great danger of falling behind our foreign competitors in terms of industrial development because of the Government's failure properly to invest in civil research? Will the Government ever understand the close connection between Government-backed investment and industrial development?
    Mr. Jackson: I have to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the numbers of postgraduates in science have
    814
    increased by one third since 1979. As for his observations about Government expenditure on civil research and development, an examination of the proportion of the national product invested in civil research and development by Governments makes it clear that we spend more than the United States and Japan.
    Mr. Roger King: Will my hon. Friend confirm that as our economy picks up and our manufacturing industry expands throughout Britain the opportunities for students to move into engineering and manufacturing disciplines have never been better?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The recruitment of graduates and postgraduates into a wide range of occupations is flourishing. That is confirmed by all the statistics relating to graduate and postgraduate recruitment.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that the proportion of well-qualified students with first-class honours and good second-class honours who are failing to get research funds has steadily increased during the past few years?
    Mr. Jackson: I shall have to look into the figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted, and I shall certainly come back to him on that point. The resources made available by central Government for science have risen by 15 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and by 1·5 per cent. in the past year.

    Education Reform
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the cost implications of the Education Reform Bill.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Many of the responses we have received have commented on the resource aspects. All representations, except those from individuals, are deposited in the Library.
    Mr. Greenway: I recognise that spending per pupil has increased considerably under the Government and that we have substantial resources for the implementation of the GCSE, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the Government education initiatives will depend on adequate resources being made available for the national curriculum and for the delegation of school budgets? Will he assure the House and parents that those popular policies will be properly financed?
    Mr. Baker: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Government are providing £150 million over the next three years specifically to help to implement the national curriculum proposed in the Education Reform Bill, which is now being considered in Committee, and to introduce CTCs. Substantial resources are also available for education support grants. It is important that such reforms should be financed properly. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that the national curriculum will be phased in over a number of years.
    Mr. Madden: What particular aspects of the Education Reform Bill does the Secretary of State think will benefit schools in places such as inner-city Bradford?
    Mr. Baker: Specifically, the national curriculum. There is no doubt about that. The emphasis on basic skills in the

    815
    national curriculum, the delegation of budgets to school heads, and the greater responsibility for head teachers and governors are all policies that are not only popular, but are to be supported by all the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues upstairs.
    Mr. Baldry: Is not the key part of the Education Reform Bill its proposals for local financial management, and have not these proposals been welcomed by every major teachers union? Will they not ensure that money is spent more cost-effectively and responsibly, according to the wishes of head teachers, parents and governors?
    Mr. Baker: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. In those schools which already have delegated budgets the general pattern has been that money has been spent more effectively. Money has been saved and spent on the sharp end of teaching on extra facilities of one sort or another. These proposals are fundamental and important and will be introduced in the course of the next three or four years. They will certainly lead to greater efficiency and more cost-effectiveness.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Is it not a disgrace that Edinburgh university—as revealed by the former admissions officer, Mrs. Ann McGuckin — discriminates against Scottish working-class youngsters in favour of deadbeats from English public schools with inferior qualifications? Is that not something that the Minister should consider? We speak about Victorian values, but is that not unacceptable to the majority of Scottish people?
    Mr. Baker: I know of no discrimination against Scottish applicants going to Scottish universities. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome applications from English children. I am sure that many English children will benefit enormously from a Scottish education.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a national curriculum will lead to curriculum-led staffing and the removal of the previous system whereby teachers were produced for non-existent subjects, and that that will itself lead to the saving of cash and the better deployment of teachers?
    Mr. Baker: Certainly there will be a need to retrain some teachers. A concentration of subjects is implicit within the national curriculum and there will be some need to redeploy and retrain teachers in the foundation subjects. I agree that that will lead to the better redeployment of many teachers in our schools.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is it not the case that over the next three years, according to DES figures, only £67 million will be spent as a direct result of the Education Reform Bill, and that money will be spent on developing assessment procedures and the work of the Schools Council in terms of the national curriculum? How much money will be spent in the classroom and on each individual child? Or will the Government's reforms simply be paid for by local authorities so that, yet again, the Government will not foot the bill for our children's education?
    Mr. Baker: No. Schemes of assessment and testing, and their moderation, will be paid for from Government funds. We are providing £9 million to help polytechnics to become independent, and another substantial sum for the CTCs, which are part of the Education Reform Bill.
    Mr. Salmond: Do we take it from the Secretary of State's apparent denial that there is bias against Scottish-qualified applicants to Edinburgh university that he has read the allegations referred to by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown)?
    Mr. Baker: I have seen the allegations, but there is little in them. The Government do not influence the admission procedures of various universities. They are a matter for the universities. It does little good to besmirch the reputation of such a great university as Edinburgh.

    Children (Assessment Tests)
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether it is the Government's intention to publish the results of assessment tests for children aged seven years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Baker: The task group on assessment and testing has recommended that schools should not be required to publish aggregated national assessment results for seven-year-old pupils, but should be allowed to do so if they wish. I shall be considering this in the consultations that will be taking place on the task group's report.
    Mrs. Mahon: I am glad that the Minister is considering further the testing of seven-year-olds, but could he also consider further the testing of 11 and 14-year-olds? Does he not realise how divisive this is, and that for seven-year-olds particularly it will lead to cramming and competition in schools, quite unnecessarily?
    Mr. Baker: I shall send the hon. Lady a copy of the report, because it simply does not bear out what she says about assessment and testing at the ages between 11 and 14 being divisive. It recommends a system of assessment and testing at ages seven, 11, 14 and 16 and that at 11, 14 and 16 the results should be published so that parents and the whole of the local community may know how the schools are doing. I do not believe that that is divisive. I think that it will improve standards.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the protests against assessment and testing are rather bogus, as teachers have been doing this at every age ever since teaching started, and that it is vitally necessary if we are to have a correct diagnosis of children's problems?
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend, who I believe was a teacher, is absolutely right. There is a great deal of testing and assessment going on in schools, because one has to assess and test the ability of children at certain ages to know what should be their next course of studies. This has been well established and practised. We intend in the future to regularise it and make it a much more open process.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister not realise that the mentality of "Friday morning is test morning" has long since disappeared, because it was useless, and that in our primary schools, especially with young children, a continuous assessment programme goes on all the time? The children are thoroughly assessed, and this is a crude intrusion coming from the most backward of the Right wing of the Tory Government.
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman could not have been in a school recently. If he had, he would know that already about 75 per cent. of primary schoolchildren are tested in

    817
    English. There are five or six well-established tests. In mathematics, there are about nine established tests. The hon. Gentleman really ought to find out what is happening in the schools.
    Dr. Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend understand that there is considerable anxiety in the schools as to how rigid this process is going to be? Can he say that there will be a distinction between the assessment that will be required in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science and what I hope will be the broader approach to the rest of the national curriculum?
    Mr. Baker: I cannot quite give that undertaking to my hon. Friend, because the whole purpose of the national curriculum is to establish attainment targets for the whole range of academic subjects, beyond English, mathematics and science—foreign languages, history, geography and technology. Technology is particularly important. One of the important changes that we are making is that in future every boy and girl will have to take science and technology up to the age of 16. That must be right.
    Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the public have a right to know how the schools are doing. I agree with him. In order to achieve that, his junior Minister promised in Committee that the Government would consider the proposal that when tests were published social and economic factors would be taken into account. Will he now give an undertaking that the Government, in putting forward their proposals for publishing tests, will require social and economic factors to be taken into account?
    Mr. Baker: The task group recommended that the assessments and tests should be published as they appear, undoctored, but that at the same time there should be for each school a statement about its socio-economic background so that those who studied the results could take into account the social mix of the children. It did not recommend that the assessments and results should be doctored in some way. Various universities try to do that, but it does not work at all well.
    Mr. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the tests at age seven are diagnostic they will be widely welcomed by parents, particularly if he undertakes to provide the additional resources to make certain that the results of the diagnosis are applied to the children in their subsequent education, so that those with disabilities get more attention and those with great gifts get the right attention?
    Mr. Baker: I would say yes to my hon. Friend. One of the purposes of assessments and tests is to diagnose how a child is doing, to determine whether a child of seven can decipher a page of writing. If a child of seven cannot decipher a page of writing, he will be in some trouble. By determining that, one can determine the next course of study. As I have already said, we are making substantial resources available in the education system to ensure that this can take place. The increase in expenditure this year is 8·2 per cent.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the view of Professor Black and other authorities is that publishing results of seven-year-olds' assessments is highly undesirable? Why does he refuse to support that view? Does he agree with the punitive approach recommended
    818
    by his right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) that failures, even at the age of seven, should spend their summer holidays at school?
    Mr. Baker: It is no purpose of the system of assessment and testing to stigmatise failure at an early age—none whatsoever. I can assure the hon. Lady of what I have said. We shall consider the recommendation very carefully. Professor Black said, "Do not publish, but schools can be allowed to publish." That might be a suitable way of dealing with it.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend recall that during the Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill, in response to an intervention by our hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), he made it clear that schools would not be forced to publish the results of assessments of seven-year-olds? In the light of that, does my right hon. Friend think that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) should read Hansard before putting questions on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Baker: I hope that all hon. Members avidly read Hansard all the time. I think that it is an excellent thing to do. It is very clear that we find some favour in Professor Black's proposal. Perhaps I should emphasise that we have been talking about the publication of results, which does not involve the individual results of children. In no way will it be possible to find out how a particular child is doing. That information will be restricted to the teacher, the parents and the child.

    Children (Special Education Needs)
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to increase the number of people training to teach children with special education needs; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dunn: Our policy is to maintain the supply of specialist teachers of children with special education needs.
    Mr. Fisher: Why does special education merit only one clause of three lines in the Education Reform Bill? Is that an indication of how seriously the Government take children with special education needs? If the Minister cares about special education, what additional resources and staff will he provide to address the important special education needs of children?
    Mr. Dunn: If the hon. Member bothered to read the proceedings of the Committee, he would notice that the Committee has spent a great deal of time dealing with the problems of children with special education needs. The Government have accepted a number of changes that will improve the position of such children under the Education Reform Bill.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister consult his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that there is adequate provision for children with special education needs, because our teachers are trained in England?
    Mr. Dunn: I thank the hon. Member for that helpful point.

    Education Reform
    Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from rural areas about open enrolment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Rumbold: A number of the responses to the Department's consultation document, "Admission of Pupils to Maintained Schools", and some of the letters received from groups and individuals, have raised issues relating to education in rural areas.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Can my hon. Friend offer an assurance to parents living in a village which has a popular school that their child will be able to go to that school, even though it may attract pupils from other parts of the district?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The criteria for admission to schools will remain very much as they are at present. That is to say, they will relate to where the children live, whether there are brothers and sisters in that school, and the distances to be travelled, so I think I can offer my hon. Friend the assurance he requires.

    State Schools (Rural Areas)
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement of his policy towards state schools in rural areas.
    Mrs. Rumbold: It is the responsibility of local education authorities to provide a proper service to rural as well as to other areas. My right hon. Friend is currently supporting a number of projects, including some in Norfolk, designed to identify ways of enriching the curriculum of rural primary schools. Any proposal for the closure of a rural school which comes before my right hon. Friend is considered very carefully in the light of the criteria set out in the Department's circular 3/87, which makes it clear that size alone is not a criterion for closure.
    Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful for that reply. Will my hon. Friend reiterate her support for small rural schools and, above all, for the crucial role that they play in conserving the fabric of many rural communities? Is she also aware that some rural schools would like to opt out under the Secretary of State's proposals and that it would be unfortunate if they were precluded from doing so by too high a limit being set?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I thank my hon. Friend for those words. Of course, the Government are anxious to preserve those schools which are excellent, particularly those in small rural areas. We are well aware of the role that they play. However, we have to consider other criteria besides the fondness of parents for small schools, and these include education criteria.

    Education Reform
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effect the Education Reform Bill will have on units concerned with special education attached to county and voluntary schools; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dunn: There is no specific provision in the Bill relating to such units.
    Mr. Martlew: Does the Minister agree that, due to the opting-out possibility included in the Education Reform Bill, special units will suffer because education authorities will not take the risk of those schools opting out and will not put resources into those particular units?
    Mr. Dunn: When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State comes to consider any applications for schools to become grant-maintained schools and to have grant-maintained status he will consider all the arguments for and against such opting out.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
    Mr. Gill: In the light of the Brussels agreement, will my right hon. Friend undertake to seek the elimination of MCAs on pigs and poultry? In doing so, will she consider the enormous potential in that sector for converting surplus cereals into pigmeat and poultrymeat, of which the United Kingdom is a net importer?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that British farmers will welcome the agreement that we reached in Brussels. With regard to the two matters raised by my hon. Friend, I am aware that pig farmers are in acute difficulty at present, although I understand that poultry farmers are not in quite such difficulty. I confirm that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be seeking at Brussels the elimination, or at any rate the reduction, of MCAs in order to help our pig farmers.
    Mr. Hattersley: As there have been very substantial changes in the education policy on which the Government fought the general election, may we be told whether the basic principles still stand? Does the Prime Minister still insist, as she did at the last Tory party conference, that in education the wishes of parents must be paramount?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, in our last manifesto and in the legislation before the House, we are giving parents a greatly increased say in education and greatly increased opportunity for children. Those are the principles on which we fought the election. That is what is happening.
    Mr. Hattersley: May I first of all welcome that emphasis on the importance of parental choice —[Interruption.] Does that mean that, if the ballot of inner London parents demonstrates that a majority of them want to continue with ILEA, the policy will be changed and ILEA will be kept in operation?
    The Prime Minister: No. Our policy on ILEA has been generally welcomed—[Interruption.] At the election we made it clear that each local authority could opt out if it wished. Therefore, the future of the ILEA was always in doubt. We went further than that in our wish to help parents and said that if parents chose to opt a school out of ILEA or of a local authority they could do so. They

    821
    could, therefore, have stopped ILEA on their own. We were faced with views which suggested that there should be an orderly rundown of ILEA and I believe that that is the right policy.
    Mr. Hattersley: Does the Prime Minister realise that if her last answer means anything it means that parent power is to be respected so long as it agrees with Conservative prejudice?
    The Prime Minister: Nonsense. The trouble is that the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with our policy. That is why he lost.
    Mr. Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the evidence that Lord Cockfield gave yesterday to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service? As the EEC Commission is evidently prepared to consider only formal representations, will she today write to the Commission, making it clear that the commitments that she has given on zero rating for VAT are absolute and that the Commission should not waste its time putting forward proposals that involve the abolition of the principle of zero rating for VAT?
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the Commission and one of the commissioners representing this country are very well aware of our position on VAT. We shall insist on our right to determine zero rating. Any changes in taxation have to be by unanimous vote and we would not agree to that. If my right hon. Friend thinks that the commissioners do not know, I shall make arrangements to see that they do.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Prime Minister clarify the reports to the effect that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is conveying to the Government of the Republic of Ireland the intention of another Department of Government before that Department comes to the House and has the consent of the House? Or is this just another attempt to make the House as useless as Members representing Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's question was a little Irish; in fact such that I did not get the full meaning of its content. There is no change in our policy towards Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Stokes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her recent meeting with the bishops of the Church of England has caused widespread satisfaction? Is she aware that at a time of rising prosperity, this can best be accompanied by high moral standards? Is it not the duty of the Church, as well as of parents and teachers, to proclaim those standards?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Rising prosperity brings great benefits, but on its own it is not enough. It is how one uses that rising prosperity that counts. I certainly had a private meeting of the kind that my hon. Friend indicated. I think that he and I, and most people, believe that all societies need to have rules and standards by which to live, and that the Church has a great part to play in setting those rules and standards.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: When will the Prime Minister end the confidence trick that is being played on pensioners and other recipients of state benefit in relation to the back pay which they were supposed to receive recently? Is she aware that in my constituency a 79-year-old blind pensioner, who has a son claiming constant attendance allowance, was due to receive £16 on both books, and in that very week her branch of the DHSS sent one pension book and reduced the entitlement to £8? Is it not time the Government got rid of the sinister streak that enables them to rob blind pensioners of £8 when the Prime Minister is doling out money to the Common Market and not investigating the fraud in the City of London?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the extra sum of approximately £8 is being paid. The Government were not legally compelled to pay it —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has been asked a question.
    The Prime Minister: The Government were not legally compelled to pay it, but took the decision to pay it as a moral duty. In the overwhelming majority of cases it is being paid perfectly normally. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case he should let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State know—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be given a chance to answer.
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case to raise he should let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State know, or have the courtesy, if he is raising a case of one out of 10 million pensioners —[Interruption.] to let me know. If the hon. Gentleman is really the compassionate man that he is, I am sure he will see that that person does not lose.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: In welcoming the positive news from Moscow, may I ask my right hon. Friend to organise a fresh mission for her right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary? As he has been able to persuade the Soviet Union of the logic and sense of our maintaining our independent nuclear deterrent, perhaps he could be sent on a mission to persuade the Front Benches of the Labour and Liberal parties—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the Prime Minister's responsibility.
    The Prime Minister: I very much welcome —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is perfectly in order for the Prime Minister to answer the first part of that question.
    The Prime Minister: I very much welcome Mr. Shevardnadze's confirmation of Soviet policy, that our independent nuclear deterrent is not contained within these arms control negotiations and is entirely outside them. That is why we are modernising it with Trident, and that is why we on the Government side believe that it is fundamental to our defence, and we shall see that our defences are fully safeguarded in the future.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Prime Minister reflect on a letter in Saturday's Guardian from Dr. MacSweeney of Leytonstone House hospital which is within my constituency, saying that many mental health problems in this country are treatable, but with the cuts that the Government are imposing beds are often not available for psychiatric or mentally handicapped patients? As the Prime Minister is fond of reading out NHS statistics, will she read to the House the NHS statistics for bed losses and cutbacks in the mental health service? Or, in this matter is it mindless negligence that figures?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, this Government have done a very great deal to see that patients who would otherwise be in mental hospitals are outside and looked after in community care. We have made great strides towards that. I stress once again that what the hon. Gentleman runs away from the entire time is the fact that expenditure on the Health Service is up from £8 billion in 1978 to £22·5 billion this year.
    Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Peacock: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the leaflet that was recently circulated by the Labour party from Walworth road, which says that anyone who does not register—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must be related to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House today that someone who does not register for the community charge will not be prohibited from voting in future elections?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. There are two quite different registers. The register that entitles one to vote is registration on the electoral register. The community charge register is directly related to the community charge, and failure to register on the community charge register does not in any way affect one's right to vote. Anything said to the contrary is totally false.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to read John Stalker's book? Is she aware that, for the ordinary Member of Parliament or, indeed, for the ordinary citizen who is not always involved in Northern Ireland, and does not agree with terrorism — in fact, hates terrorism — but is supportive of security, it is a pretty shocking book?
    Will the Prime Minister tell me why a police officer who was singled out because of his probity and exceptional qualities should be treated in such a way? Surely the right hon. Lady cannot simply ignore what he said. Will she tell me what she is going to do about his allegations?
    The Prime Minister: I have not read the book. The findings of that person were directed to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland in his prosecuting capacity, and not to anyone else. Neither I nor anyone else in Government, other than my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, would be entitled to read that report, because it is not a matter that affects the Government, but it does affect the prosecuting authorities.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has given the reply about criminal prosecutions and proceedings, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has told the House that the next step is for the findings of the Stalker-Sampson inquiry to be considered in the context of possible disciplinary proceedings. He has also promised a statement as soon as possible on matters within his responsibility concerning procedures and control within the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That is the proper way to deal with the matter.

Training (White Paper)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the White Paper "Training for Employment", which I am publishing today.
In November last year I informed the House of my decision to bring together all the existing programmes for unemployed people over 18 into a new unified training programme. I informed the House that I had asked the Manpower Services Commission for its comments on the new programme and for its proposals for implementing it from September 1988.
I received the commission's detailed proposals last month. I am glad to say that the commission warmly welcomed the new programme and was unanimous on each of its detailed recommendations. The White Paper announces that I have accepted its proposals in full. I should like to pay tribute to the commission for the very thorough job that it has done in designing this new programme.
The White Paper describes the new programme in detail and sets it in the context of trends in the labour market. As it points out, there has been a dramatic transformation in the employment position over the past 18 months. In that time, unemployment has fallen by nearly 600,000, and there have been record falls in long-term unemployment and school-leaver unemployment. Over the past 12 months, the rate of unemployment has fallen faster in this country than in any other major industrial country.
At the same time, there has been a sharp growth in the number of jobs. The labour force survey—which I am also publishing today—shows that between March 1983 and September 1987 the number of people in jobs increased by 1·5 million. The survey also reveals that self-employment increased by 234,000 between 1986 and 1987. Since March 1983, there has been the longest sustained growth in employment for more than 30 years; there can be no clearer indication of the continuing strength of the British economy.
There is new evidence in the White Paper about the volume and nature of the job vacancies that are now available. A survey carried out specifically for the White Paper shows that there are currently over 700,000 unfilled vacancies in the economy as a whole. Vacancies in jobcentres account for only a third of this total. The survey also shows that last year employers throughout Great Britain recruited about 7·5 million employees. That was not confined to the south: two thirds of the recruitment took place outside London and the south-east.
As the White Paper makes clear, the challenge now is to ensure that unemployed people — particularly the longer-term unemployed—can take full advantage of the growth in the economy and in the number of jobs. At the centre of our strategy for meeting that challenge is the new training for employment programme.
The programme will have an annual budget of some £1·4 billion and will be able to provide training for about 600,000 people a year. Training will last for up to 12 months. It will begin with an initial assessment of each trainee's needs and aptitudes, carried out by training agents who will be appointed by the Manpower Services Commission. That will lead to a personal training plan for each trainee, which will set the pattern for his training.
826
A wide range of training will be provided — from basic skills to training at craft and technician level. Wherever possible, trainees will be given the opportunity to obtain a recognised vocational qualification or a credit towards one.
The new programme will be designed to ensure that the valuable contribution that voluntary organisations and other bodies have made to the community programme can continue. With that in mind, I have asked the commission to ensure that there are at least 170,000 project places in the new programme.
At the same time, it is essential that trainees who begin their training on projects should be able to move on to training with employers, so that they can learn and practise their new skills in a normal working environment. My intention is to involve employers increasingly in training long-term unemployed people.
The Manpower Services Commission has drawn up detailed proposals for ensuring that the new programme provides high-quality training. Training agents and training managers will need to demonstrate to the commission that they can meet the required standards, and the commission will regularly review their performance.
I have accepted in full the MSC's proposals for the payment of trainees in the new programme. Each trainee will be paid a training allowance, which will be between £10 and £12 a week higher than his previous benefit entitlement. In addition, there will be assistance towards travelling costs and other expenses. One defect of the present community programme wage is that it discriminates against the family man with children. Everyone in the new programme will be better off than if they had remained unemployed and claiming benefit.
The White Paper also details the efforts the employment service is making to help long-term unemployed people back into work. New efforts will be made to explain the in-work benefits available to them. In a survey carried out for the White Paper, half the benefit claimants interviewed did not know what benefits they could claim if they took a job.
Unemployment in this country has come down rapidly in the past 18 months and all the evidence is that there are more and more jobs available. We now have the opportunity to train long-term unemployed people in the skills they need in today's labour market. This will help to ensure that, as a country, we have the skilled work force we need to compete in markets at home and overseas. For these reasons I believe that the new training programme announced in this White Paper should command the support of the House.
Mr. Michael Meacher: It is because the Opposition have repeatedly stressed that Britain now has the worst trained work force in Europe that we positively welcome any proposals to improve training. However, this scheme is a tragically missed opportunity. The Secretary of State speaks of a commitment to training. In that case, why are no extra funds being made available? Does he seriously expect the House to believe his claim that he can increase the number of people on the schemes by 50 per cent. and substantially enhance the quality of training that they receive—all for the same budget as now?
The Secretary of State implies that £10 per week over benefit is an incentive to join the scheme. However, is he aware that it will actually be only £5 per week because the first £5 of work expenses will have to be paid for by the

827
participant? Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that what the scheme really means is that people will be forced to work on £5 a week?
The best incentive is high-quality training. People will queue up for that. However, under this scheme, 60 per cent. of the time will be spent working, and almost all the managers in the field recognise that there will not be nearly enough funding or time for serious training. Is it not a fundamental flaw in the scheme that, because the Government refuse to provide an adequate budget, allowances have had to be cut to a derisory level so that nowhere near enough people will join the scheme voluntarily, and compulsion will then be used?
The Secretary of State says that participation will be voluntary. In that case, why has he taken powers in the current Employment Bill so that he can withdraw benefit from those who decline to join the scheme even if it is unsuitable to their skill needs? Will he give a commitment to the House that he will not trigger those powers in the lifetime of this Parliament? If he refuses, hon. Members will draw their own conclusions. Will he anyway recognise that restart and the tighter availability for work rules already involve creeping compulsion?
Why do the Government insist on regarding training as a cost to get people off the register rather than an investment and an opportunity? The Secretary of State recently visited Sweden. Did he note that, by spending two and a half times more per trainee place and by setting much higher training standards, Sweden has achieved an unemployment rate only one fifth as high as ours? Why does not the Secretary of State look to Sweden's record on training rather than to America on workfare?
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order afterwards.
Mr. Bruce: It is relevant.
Mr. Speaker: It may well be relevant, but I shall still take it afterwards.
Mr. Fowler: I do not accept anything that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has said. Frankly, I find his points about Sweden incomprehensible, given that Sweden has the kind of compulsion against which I thought the hon. Gentleman sought to argue. That is the essence of the Swedish system; that is what it is all about. I suggest that he goes to Sweden and has a look at the system.
We are spending a total of £3 billion on training—in real terms, three times what the Labour Government spent on training. The new programme will cost £1·4 billion for 600,000 people, whereas the previous programmes cost £1·3 billion for 500,000 people in the current year. We aim not only for a contribution from employers but to use money better in one programme rather than in the 30 schemes.
On the benefit-plus proposal, in November the hon. Gentleman attacked me on the basis that the plus element on social security would be £4 or £5. We have now increased that figure to £10 or £12. I must underline the fact that we have accepted in full the proposals of the Manpower Services Commission, on which three trade union commissioners serve. I repeat that we have accepted in full what the Manpower Services Commission said.
The hon. Gentleman made allegations about compulsion. Let me say again that this is a voluntary scheme and
828
I have no plans to designate it as an approved training scheme. I have made that absolutely clear. We have debated clause 26 of the Employment Bill and, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, one of the aims of that clause is to get rid of anomalies in the present position as between trainees and employees in work.
There is a need for a unified scheme. The new programme will train 600,000 people each year. It is backed by the unanimous report of the Manpower Services Commission, whose proposals the Government have accepted in full.
Mr. John Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, far from being given the grudging greeting that we heard from the Opposition, this imaginative scheme will be widely welcomed out in the field? I am sure that he will understand if I raise the question of those who have been on the community projects who have special needs because they are physically or mentally disabled. Will he confirm that the MSC's recommendation of a supplement of an extra £20, raising it to £40, will be accepted? Does he accept that there will be a need for a staff-trainee ratio of 5:1 instead of 10:1, as there is in the excellent share community project in my constituency? Will he consider incorporating a measure to deal with earnings, incomes and bonus incentives for people working on the scheme, so that they can be prepared for the world of work outside?
Mr. Fowler: As I said, I have accepted in full all the proposals made by the Manpower Services Commission. It is one of our aims to seek to help disabled people with training. If there is anything further that I can do to underline that, I shall willingly consider it.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the Secretary of State recognise that the weakness of his announcement is that it is a campaign without cash—there is no new money? He will know that the new job training scheme, which paid benefit and travel, did not command consensus and was a dismal flop. There is widespread scepticism about Government schemes. For this programme to succeed, he needs the support, cooperation and good will of all the bodies involved, including trade unions and local authorities. Why is he jeopardising that success by imposing an unrealistic premium of £10? It will cost almost £10 to get to work, so there is no incentive. Why is he spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar? Why does he not double that puny premium?
Mr. Fowler: Again, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman, who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, that, as he well knows, and I hope appreciates, the Government have shown their good will and good faith by accepting in full the proposals and recommendations made by the Manpower Services Commission. Among the commissioners of the Manpower Services Commission, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), there were three trade union representatives. I find it difficult to see how the Government could have done more to show what we want to do, which is to provide good training in this country. The new proposal for benefit-plus will mean that married men with children, who in the past have been excluded from some of the community programmes, will now be able to benefit from training.
Mr. James Paice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the provision of training

829
and the opportunity to be part of the economic revival of this country, will be of benefit to the new skills that are needed for the expanding industries in my constituency and many more? On top of the plus aspect of the benefit, people participating will be better off not only while they are in training but in the future when they are back in employment doing a job that this country needs done.
Mr. Fowler: Yes, that is right. The purpose of the scheme and the programme is to train people for employment. More jobs are becoming available than for many years past. We want to provide the long-term unemployed with skills so that they can take the opportunity offered by those jobs.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is the Secretary of State aware that his claims that unemployment is falling and that jobs are being created are accepted? Nevertheless, there is considerable concern about the quality of jobs being created, compared with those being destroyed. They are part-time, low-paid and often not adequately protected. In those circumstances, will he accept that his proposals to move to a benefit plus £10 to £12 scheme will be greeted with considerable concern by many organisations which are currently recruiting people, because it is supposed to be a gateway to a proper job?
The right hon. Gentleman said that it is essential that trainees who begin their training on projects should be able to move on to training with employers. If the community programme is so valuable, who will continue this work if local authorities and other agencies are denied the necessary rights, responsibilities and funds to do it?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in these circumstances, the community programme operators will feel that they have been sold short and will not be able to train people at the rate for the job, or to offer them a permanent job at the end of the training, unless the Government's wider policies are also changed?
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the growth in employment and the reduction in unemployment. However, I do not agree with what he said in the latter part of his question. We look forward to the contribution of voluntary organisations in the new project training and we are making available 170,000 project places. The reform will mean that this will be training, rather than makework, and full-time rather than part-time. We hope to improve on the 30 per cent. who go into jobs from the community programme; we certainly hope that the new training programme will improve on that.
I do not think the hon. Gentleman was right about the record on low-paid jobs. More than a third of employment growth in recent years has been in areas such as banking, finance and business services, which are not noted for low pay levels. Another third has been in jobs in public administration, education and health. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman said bears analysis.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the tremendous emphasis being laid on improvement in training is welcome? Does he recognise that considerable skill shortages are beginning to emerge in certain critical industries? Can he assure us that the new plan will go a long way towards meeting them?
Mr. Fowler: Yes, there is no question at all but that skills are required for many of the new jobs that are being made available. Therefore, the key to bringing long-term unemployed people back into employment is to provide skills for them. That is the essence of what we are trying to do.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: The Secretary of State asked what more the Government could do. I suggest that they could have had full discussions with the Trades Union Congress and with the individual unions concerned—for example, in the construction industry—precisely to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) about the need for skilled workers. Also, the Government could have entered discussions with the employers in those industries, so that some of the money could have gone to the creation of real apprenticeships in those industries to deal with the skill shortages.
Is it not clear that the Government are not really dealing with training for young people, and with skill shortages in this country? Once again, this is unfortunately another way of trying to decrease the numbers of people in the dole queues rather than dealing with the real issues at stake.
Mr. Fowler: No, I do not accept that. Not only is unemployment falling, but the survey that we have done for the White Paper shows that there are increasing numbers of vacancies. At present, we estimate that there are more than 700,000 vacancies in the economy. In that context, the sensible thing to do is to try to give training and skills to the long-term unemployed to bring them back into work. That is what we are trying to do.
As for consultation, we have consulted the Manpower Services Commission and accepted its recommendations in full. As the hon. Gentleman knows, three commissioners on the MSC are from the trade union movement.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: When taking up the kind invitation extended by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to examine Government funding for training in Sweden, will my right hon. Friend also take the opportunity to examine the position in Japan, where the Government put virtually no money into training, and where training is considered the responsibility of private industry and is done extremely well?
Hon. Members: And they do it.
Mr. Fowler: I am in danger of going on a world tour. I hope to take even the Opposition Front Bench with me when I say that training must be a combination of Government funding and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, funding by employers. We shall want to underline the latter aspect again during the coming weeks.
Mr. Henry McLeish: I think that the Secretary of State is aware that we are concerned not only about the quality of training because of under-funding, but also about the element of compulsion to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has referred. However, another issue on which we must touch is the status of the participants in the programme. The Secretary of State is well aware that, in Committee on the Employment Bill, it was made clear that the rights of the participants in the programme could be drastically affected depending on whether they were designated as employees or trainees. Can he guarantee, and reassure the

831
House, that all participants will be covered by all the employment laws and that they will not be affected by the withdrawal of such measures as health and safety, race relations and other equal opportunity requirements that should apply?
Mr. Fowler: The participants will not be afforded all the protection that goes with being an employee, but we made it clear in Committee that they are regarded as trainees. Therefore, we expect and require that such health and safety and discrimination measures should be carried out.
Mr. Michael Colvin: From what my right hon. Friend said in answer to earlier questions, it is clear that he accepts the importance of ensuring that local training provision meets local demand for skills in existing job vacancies. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the work that has been done by the local employer networks towards meeting such needs? Those networks are involved with tripartite schemes combining local education authorities, the MSC and local chambers of commerce representing industry to ensure, to as great a degree as possible, that local training provision meets local training and skill needs.
Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir, I am glad to do that. I believe that those schemes have made an extremely good start. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that what we want is training that is relevant not just to the needs of an employer, but also to the needs of local employers. That is what LENS is all about.
Mr. Barry Jones: In the absence of a statement by the Secretary of State for Wales on this subject, is the right hon. Gentleman speaking about Wales today? May I remind him that, in the Welsh coalfields and the steel areas, unemployment is still extremely high. In some areas, particularly in the valleys, male unemployment is as high as one in four. Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement guarantee good, permanent well-paid jobs? We need such a guarantee in Wales. I urge him not to adopt a complacent attitude when he speaks to Wales on this important matter.
Mr. Fowler: There is no question of complacency. Unemployment has come down in all the regions. Some of the areas where the rate of unemployment has come down fastest are those where the problems have been greatest—for example, areas such as Wales, the west midlands, the north and the north-west. I certainly emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that I am not complacent about the matter.
Mr. Keith Raffan: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his statement will be warmly welcomed in Wales. Even though Wales has a surplus of labour, we have a serious shortage in particular skills. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how the scheme will work, especially in conjunction with local authorities, to respond to local needs? My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) has already made it clear that the response to such local needs is crucial. In my area, there are local needs within the clothing industry. There is a need for much improved co-operation with the MSC.
Mr. Fowler: It will be the responsibility of the MSC, soon to become the Training Commission, to devise and oversee the type of schemes that will be put forward. Clearly, one of our purposes will be to involve employers
832
much more than before. I repeat that the crucial thing is to involve local employers and to see that training is relevant to the local demands for labour.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Secretary of State has told the House that, presently, there are 700,000 job vacancies. Will he give us a regional breakdown of that number? Does he agree that the problem of rural deprivation needs to be addressed by the Government? That is a hidden problem. There are still people losing their jobs in the traditional industries such as food processing, and all those allied to agriculture. The problem is that those people are having to leave the rural areas to find work because there is no proper scheme to enable them to acquire skills where they and their families live, which would ensure that they could bring up their children in those rural areas. Have the Government addressed that issue?
Mr. Fowler: Certainly I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some of the biggest differences are not between regions but inside regions. That is one of the problems that the programme will try to address. The survey of vacancies showed that currently there are more than 700,000 vacancies per month. We estimated that there were about 7·5 million vacancies during 1987, two thirds of which were filled outside London and the south-east, 38 per cent. were in the survey area of East Anglia, the west midlands, Wales and the south-west and 29 per cent. were in the north, the north-west and Scotland. Obviously, those are big regions, but they prove the point that the division between north and south is a total over-simplification of the position.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be widely welcomed in my constituency, where, in each of the 18 wards, unemployment has fallen during the past 12 months? Will he note that, although local needs should be met locally, and we have skill shortages in hard-pressed north-east England, it is important that the national job vacancy situation is known to everyone? Will he seriously consider expanding the Oracle scheme that currently operates only in three regions covered by television boundaries to a national scheme which would enable people throughout the country, and particularly in the south of England, to see the vacancies which are available in the north of England where we are seeking to attract people with the skills we need?
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, and I shall certainly look at the details of what he is proposing. Certainly, there are areas outside London and the south-east where there are attractive jobs and an attractive environment in which to work.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the work of centres for the unemployed in various parts of the country —including my constituency, where, despite the national fall, unemployment is twice what it was in 1979? Will he give me an assurance that nothing in that document will prejudice the future of the people who work in those centres?
Mr. Fowler: Inasmuch as such centres provide good services for unemployed people, which clearly is desirable, certainly nothing in the document will change their

833
position. I would need to look a little more closely at individual schemes before giving the hon. Gentleman the total guarantee he seeks.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Exactly how many of those 700,000 vacancies are in the south-east, where more than 600,000 foreign nationals seem to be able to find work and where there are so many skill shortages? Why does my right hon. Friend not toughen up his programme and cut out unemployment benefit for those soft southerners and instead give the money to those from the north to help them with their housing if they are prepared to travel to the south and take the jobs?
Mr. Fowler: The system of unemployment and supplementary benefit is vitally a national scheme. However, my hon. Friend has a point, in that jobs unquestionably are available in the south, where even now there is a great number of long-term unemployed people. We must seek to bring those people into the available jobs.
Mr. Ernie Ross: The Secretary of State has made much of the fact that he has accepted the MSC recommendations. However, when he appeared before the Select Committee on Employment, it was concerned about two issues. First, that particular arrangement does nothing to help the over-fifties. What can the Minister say about them? Secondly, as important as the acceptance of the TUC commissioners, the Secretary of State will know that his scheme largely depends on voluntary organisations. How many of those voluntary organisations have agreed with the scheme as it now stands?
Mr. Fowler: Broadly, I hope that all voluntary organisations will accept and work with the scheme. That is very much in the interests of the people they represent and the work that they are doing. That would be my hope regarding voluntary organisations. I understand and share the concern that over-fifties should not be excluded in any way from training. Anyone who has been unemployed for more than six months is eligible for the programme that I have set out. Clearly there are a number of priorities—the 18-to-25 group and the 25-to-50 group—but we do not intend to exclude the over-fifties from the training programme.
Mr. John Watts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency, a major problem is the surplus of job vacancies compared with unemployed people with suitable skills to fill them? The majority of employers cite the shortage of skilled labour as the major constraint to further expansion. Therefore, there will be a warm welcome for his proposals, which will help my 3,000 constituents who are registered as unemployed to acquire the skills needed to fill the vacant jobs and will help companies throughout the Thames valley by supplying them with the skilled labour that they desperately need.
Mr. Fowler: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. If we can train and provide long-term unemployed people with skills in many parts of the country, there is no reason why those people should not very speedily find jobs.
Mr. Bill Michie: I am glad that the Minister is now coming round to the idea that there is a shortage of skills and a shortage of jobs. The Opposition have been telling the Government about that for many years.
834
We now have a complacent statement congratulating the MSC on its co-operation. Does the Minister realise that, although the MSC top brass, who are nothing but puppets of the Government, may be happy, those who implement the schemes are so distressed that some of them today are taking industrial action?
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman should take up those last remarks with the commissioners, who have endorsed the scheme. Frankly, when he finds out who they are, he will not regard them as puppets of the Government. As for the case for change, there is a need for a unified scheme. The long-term unemployed must now be the priority. More jobs are available: that is beyond doubt. The labour force survey, published today, shows that about half the long-term unemployed have no qualifications, and that many of them are young, half under 35. That is an opportunity and a challenge.
Mr. Graham Riddick: My right hon. Friend clearly wants to encourage employers to be more involved in the .training process. Will he give me more details about how he intends to do that and whether there will be appropriate funding? Will he give me more details about the special provisions that might be made for the long-term young unemployed, the 18 to 25-year-olds?
Mr. Fowler: We shall seek to involve employers in the new adult training programme in a way that they have previously not been involved. Clearly, that will depend very much upon getting the co-operation and help of employers. Secondly, as well as training the unemployed, we need training for those who are already in jobs. Again, employers have the first duty in that. The 18-to-25 group is a priority group, and our major efforts will be directed to bringing those people back into employment.
Mr. Bob Clay: Under the new workfare-plus system, who will be responsible for paying the benefit? Will it be the employers and the agencies, so that there is a pretence or an impression of a low wage, or will that responsibility remain with the Department of Employment and the DHSS, so that the employers and agencies will pay that miserable £10? It is clear that this is nothing more than slave labour-plus.
Mr. Fowler: No, it will come from the Government, but it is a benefit plus premium. We have always said that that was the case. In other words, the principle will be that people will have their social security entitlement, and, in addition, a premium. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that his description of this as workfare is ludicrous and I shall not bother to try to reply to that.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend note that one of the most important aspects of his announcement is benefit-plus? We all know of unemployed constituents who are not looking at schemes at present for fear of damaging the benefit arrangements of their families, so will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that this benefit-plus commitment will be trumpeted from the rooftops?
Mr. Fowler: We shall certainly seek to do that. The whole purpose is to underline the fact that people will be better off on the training programme than unemployed. The incentive will be particularly great for married people with children, who have previously been left out of training in Britain.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Is the Minister aware that, in constituencies such as mine, any reductions in unemployment are due more to how he calculates his figures than to any rise in employment? On Derwentside, since 1980, there has been a rise in employment of less than half of I per cent. Even if we forget the arguments about the figures, constituencies such as mine still have high unemployment; fewer and fewer employers who are prepared to take on young people or trainees because they feel that they are struggling at the edges; a large number of people who are currently engaged in the community programme, but largely through voluntary organisations and the public sector; and a low wage economy.
Together, those factors mean that the right hon. Gentleman's proposals are unfortunate for my constituents and for many others in similar constituencies. How can he guarantee that the money for trainees will not be less than it is at the moment and that the quality of training will be better than it has been, so that we really can re-equip people for the future?
Mr. Fowler: The essence of what the hon. Lady is saying is in her last point, on the quality of training. We are changing from the present system because, although schemes such as the community programme have many good features, they are not providing the full-time training that we want to see. We are building upon the foundation laid by the community programme.
I accept that there are variations in unemployment between constituencies and between cities, but the labour force survey, which is published today, shows that there has been faster growth in the employed labour force than we had thought. There has been an increase of 450,000 over the past 12 months, rather than 400,000, self-employment has gone up sharply, and, as I have said, over 1–5 million additional jobs have been created since March 1983.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much we welcome his bold and imaginative proposal which will give the long-term unemployed the incentive and opportunity to return to work? He said that a large proportion of the training will be on employers' premises, but how does he intend to communicate their responsibility to enough employers, and, in addition, to monitor the quality of such training?
Mr. Fowler: That will be very much a function of the Training Commission. We hope to encourage employers to come forward with such schemes and their quality will be monitored in very much the same way as the youth training scheme, with approved training organisation status and the rest. But, as I said to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), the crux of the matter is that we should provide not only training, but high-quality training.
Mr. Ron Brown: Is not the White Paper a whitewash—a con, even—because when we hear the Secretary of State and the statistics, we are really listening to lies, damned lies and Tory propaganda—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Not in this Chamber, please. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw that?
Mr. Brown: I accept that "Tory" is a four-letter word, and I withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw those comments.
Mr. Brown: If it hurts, okay, I understand why. 1 withdraw what I said—reluctantly, under protest. I say that because back in my constituency of Leith we have record unemployment and youngsters leaving school with no hope, no job and no future, thanks to the Government. To talk about another slave labour scheme is an insult to them and their families and they will resist it. They will resent it, and they will fight back.
Mr. Fowler: That is an extraordinarily silly intervention. It even embarrasses the hon. Gentleman's Front Bench spokesmen. Unemployment has come down not only for one or two months but for 18 months in succession, and it is down by over 500,000 in the year to December. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed that, but that would be to ascribe to him rather more good sense than he obviously has.
Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my right hon. Member aware that his absolute commitment to voluntarism will be widely welcomed throughout Britain, as will his support for voluntary projects and the part that they have played in the community programme until now—and indeed, the part that they will play in the adult training programme in the future? Was my right hon. Friend surprised when he learned, for the first time, that the number of vacancies unfilled in Britain was 700,000? Does he agree that that figure is, frankly, a disgrace, because it represents a waste of human resources—people who should be in those jobs—and a waste of Britain's economic resources, because we are having to support those people in idleness when they could be working? What does he propose to do to reduce that figure drastically, and soon?
Mr. Fowler: We confirm that there are over 700,000 vacancies. We had always believed in the past that the number of vacancies in jobcentres represented about a third of the vacancies in the economy, but the survey confirms, on the latest information that we have, the basis of that previous estimate. As I have said, it means that, during 1987, about 7·5 million vacancies became available throughout Britain. There are certainly vacancies for management and professionals, but 18 per cent. of the vacancies are in non-manual jobs such as clerical work, 33 per cent. in retailing or catering, 21 per cent. in skilled and semi-skilled occupations, and 17 per cent. in unskilled occupations. There are vacancies not only throughout the country but over a range of occupations. The one message that comes through is that, if the long-term unemployed are to take those vacancies, they require training in the necessary skills.
Mr. John McAllion: The Minister said that training agents will need to demonstrate that they can meet the required standards to ensure high quality training. Therefore, will he explain why, when the Scottish Office was asked to supply comparative information on the performance of managing agents under the job training scheme, it responded by saying that it was not the Government's policy to provide such information? Will he assure the House that comparative information on the performance of training agents under the new scheme will be made available to hon. Members so that they can judge whether high-quality training is being given under the new programme?
Mr. Fowler: Training agents are a new concept under the programme. Nothing like them exists at the moment. The idea is that every person entering the programme will be assessed and given suitable training. In other words, people will be given a personal training plan. The training agent may be a chamber of commerce, a voluntary organisation or a training body, but certainly we shall seek to ensure that the standards of the training agents are high and that as much information as possible is given.
Mr. James Cran: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in a contradistinction to the dreary but wholly predictable welcome that his statement has received from the Opposition, it will be welcomed in my constituency, which is in the north of England, because we in Humberside also have skill shortages? Does he also accept that critical to the success of his plans is the involvement of employers and that many hon. Members as well as others believe that employers have not done as much as they ought in the past to secure the training of the work force? Will he outline how he intends to convince them of what is in their interests and those of the country?
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I recognise his experience in this area. We intend, in the Department and in the Manpower Services Commission, to have talks with the employers' organisations and with the employers themselves to point out to them the advantage of being involved in programmes of this kind. The fact is that a good adult training programme is good not only for the long-term unemployed but for employers and for the economy as a whole.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the north of England a high proportion of people already receive training in their first job? Is he aware that the overwhelming need on Teesside at the moment is for skilled people, particularly in the banking and financial sectors, where employment is rapidly increasing? Is he also aware that 76 per cent. of firms on Teesside recently responded to a survey by saying that they expected to increase their employment opportunities in the next year? Is he aware, further, that there are no Cleveland Labour Members in the Chamber at the present time?
Mr. Fowler: I hear what my hon. Friend says on the last point. I pay a tribute to him for the work that he does in the area. As I have said before, the training that is carried
838
out must be geared to providing people with skills, and those skills must be relevant to the local Labour market. That seems to me to be the essence of the approach that we must take.
Ms. Clare Short: May I put to the Secretary of State again the very important question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and not answered? Will he give an undertaking that this scheme will never be designated under clause 26 of the Employment Bill? If he will not say never, will he say at least for the lifetime of this Parliament? Does he understand that, if he will not give that undertaking, he will be breaching the recommendation of the Manpower Services Commission, which said that it was an absolute requirement that the scheme be voluntary? We look forward to the Secretary of State's giving that undertaking.
If the right hon. Gentleman does not, we shall all know what it means. It means that he plans a compulsory scheme. It means that he plans a scheme that will pay people £10 a week on top of their benefit but expect them to pay their own work expenses—and the DHSS says that the average cost of getting to work is £7 a week. It is compulsory work experience, not training, and it is not good enough to call work experience training for the long-term unemployed. It is an insult to the unemployed and it is unacceptable to the voluntary sector throughout the land, which does not want to become a police force for the unemployed but wants to run valuable projects that help the community and the unemployed.
Mr. Fowler: I am not prepared to take lectures from the hon. Lady on voluntary organisations; nor do I recognise her power to speak on behalf of voluntary organisations in this country. I believe that many voluntary organisations — I hope, all of them — will want to cooperate in this programme. The hon. Lady has done her best over the past few months to sabotage and damage the programme—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I very much hope that her efforts will not be successful, because I think that they are against the national interest.
As for the scheme itself, I have made it clear that it is a voluntary scheme; I have made it clear that I have no plans to designate it approved training; and I have made it clear that I accept the Manpower Services Commission's proposals on it. Anyone who has ears to hear will understand what that means.

Points of Order
4.26 pm
Mr. Harold McCusker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For three successive weeks now, very important talks have been taking place between this Government and the Government of the Irish Republic about matters affecting the vital interests of the people of Northern Ireland, matters of life and death for them and increasingly matters affecting people on the mainland as well. I appeal to you as a defender of Back-Bench and minority interests in this regard.
The role of Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland is already very circumscribed. The events of the past 54 minutes prove that. A very important statement was made. It does not apply to me; nor does it apply to my colleagues. In some obscure meeting in Fermanagh, a member of the Northern Ireland Office will tell the people of Northern Ireland what is going to happen to them, and we cannot even debate that. We are legislated for in a manner completely different from that applying to any other part of the United Kingdom, and we cannot amend that either.
If the only role left for me is to come here and try to make the colonial system of government which applies to Northern Ireland at least answerable to the elected representatives from Northern Ireland, will you tell me how I can do that, or can you confirm what Ministers refuse to confirm, that I do not have any role here, that I am now redundant?
Mr. Speaker: That is certainly not the case. I frequently hear the hon. Gentleman take part in our debates in this United Kingdom Parliament, and at Question Time too.
Ms. Joan Walley: I rise again to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you can give me any advice as to how we can do something to make sure that my constituent Claire Wise gets her operation in Birmingham. I have been in Birmingham all morning. There are four beds in the intensive care unit. One child has been prepared for an operation and there is no bed for him because there are no beds designated for intensive care for heart surgery. We desperately need to do something. We have had promises and undertakings from Ministers. Unless we get a statement on the Floor of the House about our individual constituents, and, more important, about
840
immediate provision for that hospital in Birmingham, I am afraid that more children will die. I believe that we really must do something about this.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the same point—
Mr. Speaker: I know it will be the same point. Yes?
Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) has explained admirably what the situation is at the children's hospital in Birmingham. I am very saddened, as we all are, that Matthew Collier, the son of my constituents, died at the hospital on Sunday. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to extend their deepest sympathy to Mr. and Mrs. Collier and that Matthew will be remembered for a very long time in the west midlands.
There is an acute crisis at the children's hospital because of inadequate staffing and funding. My hon. Friend has referred to her constituents' child whose operation has been delayed again. Matthew's operation was delayed three times. Another child—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point for me? It seems to me that these are political issues, which have nothing to do with the Chair. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman, out of sympathy for the loss of his constituents' child, to make those comments but, sad though they are, they have nothing to do with me as a matter of order.
Mr. Winnick: The point I am making is that we have a duty and an obligation to raise these matters on the Floor of the House. I would have wished that, following the private notice question on Friday, which I did not know was coming, the Minister would have made a statement in the House. There is this crisis to which my hon. Friend and I have been referring. There are parents who are desperately afraid that their children are going—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman had been here on Friday when that question was answered, he would have been called. Although I have allowed him to raise the matter under the cloak of a point of order, these are political questions which are not for the Chair.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 2227) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Ryder.]

National Health Service (National Lottery) Bill
4.28 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a national lottery to provide additional funds for the National Health Service; and for connected purposes.
So that there may be no confusion as to the purpose of the Bill, I emphasise that it has nothing to do with Government funding of the Health Service, but seeks to raise funds over and above the record levels of Government spending, to provide equipment such as kidney machines and CAT scanners, to help with building programmes such as the one at the Great Ormond street hospital and to reduce waiting lists.
Comic Relief, Band Aid and many other charitable fund-raising activities on a local level over many years have shown that there is a rich seam of good will towards deserving causes. Many countries which have completely diverse political directions run lotteries. Communist Russia has a lottery, and many of the free-enterprise states of America have lotteries. Socialist Spain and conservative West Germany have lotteries, as does cohabiting France.
To see the potential success of raising additional funds, one has only to look at the record of those lotteries. In 1983, in the 23 states of America that had lotteries, $5 billion was raised in sales revenue. Last year that figure had jumped to over $12 billion. If we assume that between 40 and 45 per cent. of the takings were spent on health, education or senior citizens in those American states, we are talking about a substantial sum of money. The same pattern is reflected in Europe. The French lottery in 1983 raised £1·7 billion through sales revenue; West Germany raised £1·8 billion; and last year the sales revenue in Spain was £3·5 billion.
The development of computer technology is making the running of lotteries infinitely safer and less likely to be the subject of fraud or chicanery. I envisage that we would have between 17,000 and 25,000 retail sales outlets at confectioners and tobacconists, with machines similar to cash registers which are connected to a central computer, so that information and winning numbers can be transmitted instantaneously.
The average price of a ticket, depending on the scheme to be introduced, would be £1, which is within the range of most people over the age of 18. That is less than the price of a pint of beer or a packet of cigarettes. To make the proposition attractive, substantial cash prizes would be offered, with the possibility that if one was successful in one week the main prize money would be rolled over to the next week, as is done in the United States. In that way, people would have the excitement of hoping to win some money and at the same time giving money to a genuine good cause that they want to help.
For too long we have not given thought to organising a lottery; now is the time. While we are debating the review of the Health Service and its efficiency and ways of raising funds, a lottery should be seriously considered as a way of involving the country in a worthwhile exercise. For that reason, I beg the House to approve the motion.
4.33 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) carries the heavy
842
burden of having been described by The Daily Telegraph on 14 December last year as a "cerebral Thatcherite zealot" and one
"to watch when picking the next-prime-ministers-but-three."
The most useful contribution of this short debate is a clue to the direction in which the Tory Right wishes the country to go; that is its only use.
The last major investigation into national lotteries was the Royal Commission on Gambling in 1978, which warned against transplanting lotteries from Europe and America into Britain. The hon. Gentleman quoted some figures from the Peacock report which looked at the financing of the BBC by lotteries. He gave the sales figures of the lotteries, not the revenue figures after deducting the cost of prizes and administration.
In the American states the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the highest amount raised by a lottery was £200 million; in France it was £540 million; in Spain it was £690 million; and in Germany it was £910 million. Those figures are based on December 1987 prices and exchange rates. Even if his harebrained scheme were successful, the money raised would amount to 10 to 15 per cent. of the current underfunding of the National Health Service being met by a lottery.
The biggest caveat is that in all those countries there are no pools or premium bonds—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has said, no bingo, casinos, horse racing or dogs. Vast amounts of money are spent on gambling in this country. Last year, £4·5 billion was spent on horse racing and dogs, £1·6 billion was spent in casinos, £775 million was spent on bingo and £600 million was spent on the pools. If the hon. Gentleman were serious about raising money for the NHS, he should have brought forward a Bill to nationalise horse racing, casinos, bingo and the pools to raise money for the National Health Service. But that would take away some of his mates' profits, so that would be the last thing in this mind.
Does the hon. Gentleman want to promote gambling? Is that what the Prime Minister means when she talks about Victorian values? Are we to have television advertisements promoting gambling, such as the advertisements for BP shares, with a 1980s equivalent of Hughie Green talking about doubling our money? Has he talked to the Treasury about the tax revenue from the pools, which is about £250 million a year?
All the investigations on this issue have concluded that a lottery would be successful only at the expense of the pools, premium bonds and small lotteries run by charities and sports clubs. I assume that that is why Baroness Trumpington said a year ago that her Department's estimate was that at best a lottery would raise £50 million. That £50 million would be less than 3 per cent. of the current level of underfunding of the NHS.
The hon. Gentleman, in his article in The Times yesterday, talked about Band Aid, Comic Relief and telethons, and the generosity of young people. Yet the Government, days after the first Band Aid concert in July 1985, rewarded all those young people by abolishing the wages councils for under-21-year-olds and now intend to abolish supplementary benefit for 16 and 17-year-olds—precisely the same young people who are expected to have money in their pockets to contribute to charities.
The hon. Gentleman talked about computer technology. Did he not watch the "Horizon" programme on BBC2 last year? If he wants to improve computer

843
technology, he should look first at the Civil Aviation Authority at West Drayton, which has a 17-year-old computer and desperately needs money for a new one. We need computers in the NHS for recall systems for cervical cancer screening and to reduce the waiting lists, not to pick out numbers for a lottery.
The NHS has real problems in the west midlands. Those problems have been described graphically today by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). In the past few months, hardly a family in the west midlands has not been troubled by the crisis in the National Health Service. Over this past weekend, we as a region have grieved over the two deaths and the other deaths in recent months which have been caused by the Prime Minister's lottery — whether the raffle system works, whether our bairns get their operations when they need them at the Birmingham children's hospital. This weekend, two children lost their gamble
My region had £30 million cut from its funding this year, and over the past six years, according to the Select Committee on Social Services the nation has lost almost £2,000 million from its National Health Service funding. There is only one source for that finance, and it is not the ideas of the loony Right. On 15 March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will offer a reported £3 billion to £4 billion in tax cuts to the richest 5 per cent. of the population. He should put at least £2,000 million of that into the Health Service to cure the underfunding and £500 million into improving the wages and conditions of those who work in the Health Service.
We are told that there are 21 rich countries in the world. Britain is 17th in the league when it comes to funding the Health Service. What are the consequences of that? I have spoken about the consequences in personal terms. Last year, for the first time since 1970, infant mortality in this country rose. That is light years away from a Tory Cabinet stuffed with BUPA cards in its back pocket and from a Secretary of State for Social Services who could afford £1,000 a week when he was ill before Christmas.
The underfunding has taken its toll on Health Service staff. Twenty-seven thousand nurses join the Health Service each year, but 30,000 leave each year. Sixty nurses a week leave the Health Service. That is not surprising, when nursing auxiliaries start at only £90 a week. That is the problem that needs curing in the Health Service.
According to a local newspaper in my constituency, a state-enrolled nurse in Coventry asked for five light bulbs to be replaced on a ward last November, and she is still waiting. Patients are being treated in corridors because 100 beds have been closed. A geriatric hospital is due for closure, if the Government approve the closure plans. Before Christmas, physically and mentally handicapped people, from children to old-age pensioners, suffered the supreme indignity of being told that there was no more money to supply incontinence pads in Coventry. Some of my constituents and drying out used incontinence pads on radiators overnight so that their parents can use them the next day.
Then the loony Right comes in and says, "Let's solve the problems with raffle tickets. Let's salve our conscience by having a bit of a flutter." We do not need escapism; we need a bit of realism from the Government. We need the £2,000 million which it is estimated is needed to solve underfunding of the Health Service.
844
There is huge, widespread and deep anger among working people in this country about the callous indifference of the Cabinet towards the Health Service. In the past few months, health workers have come out on strike everywhere — today, it is COHSE members in south-east London and Kent. Next Wednesday, Scottish workers will come out on strike. On 5 March, the TUC will hold a national rally in London, which I predict will be bigger than the industrial relations rallies of the early 1970s. COHSE has called for 14 March, the day before the Budget, to be a national day of action in support of the Health Service. That will receive enormous support throughout the country, particularly from young people.
We cannot end the suffering of hundreds of thousands of families or improve the working conditions of Health Service workers through raffles, jumble sales or lotteries. We can do that only through the industrial action of workers on 14 March, nationally and in a generalised fashion, to force the Government to give back the money which they have robbed from working people 'n recent years. The hon. Member for Chelmsford and his hon. Friends should wipe the smiles off their faces. The day that they come forward with a proposal for a lottery or a flag day for Trident, we could think about a lottery for the National Health Service.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 164.

Division No. 180]

[4.45 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

French, Douglas

Arbuthnot, James

Gale, Roger

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Gardiner, George

Ashby, David

Glyn, Dr Alan

Atkinson, David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Hampson, Dr Keith

Boswell, Tim

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Holt, Richard

Bowis, John

Hordern, Sir Peter

Brazier, Julian

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Hunter, Andrew

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

Irvine, Michael

Browne, John (Winchester)

Irving, Charles

Buck, Sir Antony

Janman, Tim

Burns, Simon

Jessel, Toby

Butler, Chris

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Butterfill, John

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Carrington, Matthew

Kilfedder, James

Cartwright, John

Kirkhope, Timothy

Chapman, Sydney

Knapman, Roger

Colvin, Michael

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Conway, Derek

Knox, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Latham, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lawrence, Ivan

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

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Devlin, Tim

Malins, Humfrey

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Mans, Keith

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Marland, Paul

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Forth, Eric

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Monro, Sir Hector

Franks, Cecil

Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

845

Moss, Malcolm

Speller, Tony

Nelson, Anthony

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Stokes, John

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Summerson, Hugo

Paice, James

Temple-Morris, Peter

Patnick, Irvine

Thorne, Neil

Pawsey, James

Thornton, Malcolm

Porter, David (Waveney)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Redwood, John

Tracey, Richard

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Riddick, Graham

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Watts, John

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Wiggin, Jerry

Rost, Peter

Wilshire, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Winterton, Nicholas

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shersby, Michael

Mr. Nicholas Bennett and

Sims, Roger

Miss Ann Widdecombe

Skeet, Sir Trevor

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cummings, John

Allen, Graham

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Anderson, Donald

Darling, Alistair

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dewar, Donald

Armstrong, Hilary

Dixon, Don

Ashdown, Paddy

Doran, Frank

Ashton, Joe

Duffy, A. E. P.

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Eastham, Ken

Battle, John

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Beckett, Margaret

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Beith, A. J.

Fatchett, Derek

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

Fearn, Ronald

Blunkett, David

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

Boyes, Roland

Fisher, Mark

Bradley, Keith

Flannery, Martin

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Flynn, Paul

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Fyfe, Maria

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Galbraith, Sam

Buckley, George J.

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Gordon, Mildred

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Graham, Thomas

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clay, Bob

Grocott, Bruce

Clelland, David

Harman, Ms Harriet

Cohen, Harry

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Coleman, Donald

Haynes, Frank

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Heffer, Eric S.

Cousins, Jim

Henderson, Doug

Cox, Tom

Hinchliffe, David

Cryer, Bob

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

846

Holland, Stuart

Pike, Peter L.

Home Robertson, John

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Howells, Geraint

Primarolo, Dawn

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Radice, Giles

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Randall, Stuart

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hume, John

Reid, Dr John

Ingram, Adam

Richardson, Jo

Janner, Greville

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

John, Brynmor

Robertson, George

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Rogers, Allan

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Rooker, Jeff

Lambie, David

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lamond, James

Rowlands, Ted

Leadbitter, Ted

Ruddock, Joan

Lewis, Terry

Salmond, Alex

Litherland, Robert

Sedgemore, Brian

Livingstone, Ken

Sheerman, Barry

Livsey, Richard

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Short, Clare

McAllion, John

Skinner, Dennis

McAvoy, Thomas

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McCartney, Ian

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

McFall, John

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Soley, Clive

McLeish, Henry

Spearing, Nigel

McWilliam, John

Steinberg, Gerry

Madden, Max

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Marek, Dr John

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Maxton, John

Turner, Dennis

Meacher, Michael

Vaz, Keith

Michael, Alun

Wall, Pat

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Walley, Joan

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Wareing, Robert N.

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Morgan, Rhodri

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Morley, Elliott

Wigley, Dafydd

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Mowlam, Marjorie

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Mullin, Chris

Wilson, Brian

Murphy, Paul

Winnick, David

Nellist, Dave

Worthington, Tony

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Young, David (Bolton SE)

O'Neill, Martin

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Tellers for the Noes:

Parry, Robert

Mrs. Alice Mahon and

Patchett, Terry

Mr. Bill Michie.

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having won three of these debates in a row, may I keep the Mace, or have I to fight the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) for it?

Order of the Day
  Immigration Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Immigration Bill
    New Clause 3

      EXAMINATION OF PASSENGERS PRIOR TO ARRIVAL
      `(1) This section applies to a person who arrives in the United Kingdom with a passport or other travel document bearing a stamp which—

      (a) has been placed there by an immigration officer before that person's departure on his journey to the United Kingdom or in the course of that journey; and

      (b) states that the person may enter the United Kingdom either for an indefinite or a limited period and, if for a limited period, subject to specified conditions.

      (2) A person to whom this section applies shall for the purposes of the principal Act be deemed to have been given on arrival in the United Kingdom indefinite or, as the case may be, limited leave in terms corresponding to those of the stamp.

      (3) A person who is deemed to have leave by virtue of this section shall be treated as having been given it by a notice given to him by an immigration officer within the period specified in paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 2 to the principal Act.

      (4) A person deemed to have leave by virtue of this section shall not on his arrival in the United Kingdom be subject to examination under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the principal Act but may be examined by an immigration officer for the purpose of establishing that he is such a person.

      (5) The leave which a person is deemed to have by virtue of this section may, at any tine before the end of the period of twenty-four hours from his arrival at the port at which he seeks to enter the United Kingdom or, if he has been examined under subsection (4) above, from the conclusion of that examination, be cancelled by an immigration officer by giving him a notice in writing refusing him leave to enter.

      (6) Sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the principal Act shall have effect as if any notice under subsection (5) above were a notice under that paragraph.

      (7) References in this section to a person's arrival in the United Kingdom are to the first occasion on which he arrives after the time when the stamp in question was placed in his passport or travel document, being an occasion not later than seven days after that time.'.—[Mr. Renton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.55 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      It may be helpful to the House if I sketch in the background to the rather long new clause which seeks to achieve a simple point. I do not think that the debate will be as exciting or fundamental as the wide-ranging debate on the ten-minute Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) wished to present.
      The intention of the new clause is to remove any legal impediment to the operation of pre-clearance arrangements. As hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will know, the new clause is related to clause 7, which makes it possible for additional services to be provided against payment at the request of port operators or carriers. One of the most important of these services is likely to be the process known as pre-clearance. It involves immigration officers travelling abroad so that United Kingdom immigration control procedures can be completed either at the port of embarkation or during the journey to this country.
      848
      Such arrangements have featured for many years at certain cross-Channel ports and at Southampton for generations of liners, latterly restricted to the QE2. But as clause 7 holds open the possibility of the extension of such arrangements into wholly new areas, we think it right that we should formalise the position on the face of the statute. That is what the new clause will do.
      Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will undoubtedly know that the Standing Committee on the Bill met for about 62 hours. During its deliberations, the Minister for Sport referred in passing to these arrangements. Although I accept that it is not without precedent for a Government to introduce a new clause on Report, it seems unusual that the Minister did not see fit to bring forward the new clause in Committee. I am sure that this would not be regarded as a welcome precedent.
      Surely the Standing Committee should have been given the opportunity to consider the new clause in detail and to question the Minister about its background. Perhaps before he proceeds with his speech he will explain why he did not present the new clause in Committee rather than here.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I do not think that that is a point of order or a matter for me, but perhaps it is a point for debate which the hon. Gentleman might raise when subsequently he seeks to catch my eye.
      Mr. Renton: I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on one thing. We did sit for 62 hours in Standing Committee; it seemed an interminable length of time to most of us, particularly on the Government side. I hope that I can move the new clause, and that perhaps the House will pass it, in not much more time than the hon. Gentleman took in his intervention.
      It may be helpful if I summarise briefly why we wish to look at possible ways of expanding the operation of the pre-clearance approach into new areas. We must realise that congestion at our major air terminals, which is already heavy at peak periods, is likely to get worse as international passenger movements increase. Congestion and delays have been notably helped at Gatwick and at Healthrow by the introduction, about a year age, of visit visas for five countries, three on the Indian sub-continent and two in Africa, but there remains fierce competition for the early morning arrival slots. This can lead, as hon. Members on both sides of the House know, to the near-simultaneous arrival of a very large number of passengers which the immigration service is extremely pressed to clear within a reasonable period.
      Pre-clearance, particularly for north Atlantic traffic arriving at Heathrow and Gatwick in the early morning, has been shown in a pilot scheme that we ran last year to be a way of mitigating some of the difficulties and delays that result. It also proved to be to the liking of both passengers and carrying companies. I stress, however, that such pre-clearance, if requested by the airlines, could be carried out as well at Delhi, Dhaka and Islamabad, as it has been at Kennedy airport.
      However, it is only right that this kind of special service should be provided against payment by the organisation that requests it. Clause 7 provides for that. I make it clear

      849
      to the House that pre-clearance will not be imposed on any port operator or company, and will be introduced only at the request of one or the other.
      In relation to the practicalities of operating a system of pre-clearance, I stress that in a scheme involving, say, the pre-clearance of transatlantic passengers at Kennedy airport in New York, the immigration officer concerned will have the ability only to grant, and not to refuse, leave to enter. Where he concludes that refusal of leave is the appropriate course, that will take place only on arrival in the United Kingdom. Of course, where a passenger presenting himself for pre-clearance is found to have inadequate documentation—for example, a visa national may not have a visa —it would be appropriate for the immigration officer to point out our requirement and, if the warning is not heeded, advise the carrying company before departure. Allowing a passenger to board in those circumstances and then imposing a penalty on the carrier under the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act on the passenger's arrival in the United Kingdom, would rightly be considered unfair treatment by the company involved.
      5 pm
      Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Would a carrier that avails itself of this service be able to advertise the fact that it had been granted the service? Would it be safe to advertise generally, or would that be done merely for occasional flights or a series of flights?
      Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for asking that question. Once the service has been provided at the request of the carrier and the appropriate charge has been agreed with the Home Office and the immigration service, I see no reason why the carrier should not advertise. I think that some carriers would do just that, because they would regard it as an extra service to their customers.
      The main point of the new clause is that it will apply to people who are examined by an immigration officer, either abroad or during their journey to the United Kingdom. At that time they would have the stamp placed in their passport or other travel document. It will make it possible for the leave to enter granted to such people to take effect immediately on their arrival in this country.
      This is not a major new clause. It breaks no new ground, but taken with clause 7, it will enable us to use the resources of the immigration service more effectively, which I am always most anxious to do. The existence of a system of pre-clearance can bring with it benefits for all concerned, and it seems likely that the next few years will bring interesting developments in this direction. The new clause takes account of such developments, and I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Stuart Randall: The Opposition have listened carefully to what the Minister said about pre-clearance. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said, we regret the fact that we did not have the opportunity to debate the matter in Committee in the way that we would have liked. We have reached the Report stage now, and there has been very little time to debate the matter or to consult trade unions and others who could be affected by the developments. Many of us are still uncertain about how this will grow and be extended, and what will be the terms
      850
      and conditions of those working in the immigration service. Many of them are port-based workers, and it seems that their role will change very much.
      I understand that some of the people involved are worried because they believe that they will move from a port-based operation and become more like aircrew, working on a rota basis and travelling around the world. The scheme will affect many people working in the industry. For this reason, we would have liked more time to consider the matter. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why he did not bring this new clause forward before the Report stage. I cannot understand why he has left it so late. Is it because of sloppy drafting, or is it because he thought of the new clause late in the day?
      The effect of the proposal seems to be that immigration officers will be drafted to various parts of the world, where they will clear passengers at ports of departure, or during flights and sea passages. As the Minister said, the point of the provision is to overcome some of the problems of queues, which we have all experienced at some of our major ports, especially at Heathrow airport. As we all know, during peak periods queues create great difficulties at Heathrow. There is tremendous congestion and there are difficulties in getting trolleys. People cannot get their baggage quickly. It is a shambles there, and something has to be done to improve the position.
      We have some further worries about pre-clearance. We might end up with a three-tier immigration service. The Minister said that the airlines of the relevant countries may make an application to carry out pre-clearance work. We shall see how that develops. Our worry is that one tier of the immigration service could be dealing with the visa countries, which, as we all know, are almost exclusively black Commonwealth countries.
      There might be a second tier of non-visa countries, which are predominantly white, and, of course, there will be the super-privileged countries, whose carriers will be able to use these facilities. This category embraces countries such as Australia and the United States.
      It is important to get it on record that we believe that it would be wrong for the sort of service to which the Minister referred to be arranged in such a way that it was available only for white people, with a second-class arrangement for black people. We are also worried that there could be some losers if there were a multi-tier immigration service.
      Can the Minister tell us how the fees will be recovered? I am not sure how the scheme will work in detail, but presumably when an immigration officer is asked to go overseas to carry out pre-clearance work, his passage fee and living expenses will be met, as well as his salary and pension and all the other things that go with that. How will the charges be spread? Will they be wholly met by the airline, or by the applicant concerned? How will these services operate for Bangladesh and other countries in the Indian sub-continent?
      I want to touch on the working conditions of immigration officers. As I have mentioned, we have picked up their concern that they will be expected to work on a rota basis, rather like airline cabin crews. What discussions has the Minister had with the Civil Service unions, and are they happy with the arrangements? If the arrangement is extended substantially, it will involve moving a considerable number of people around the world. Does that mean that staff will be diverted from their existing

      851
      work to provide the new services and that the establishment in such places as Lunar house may fall, with a further deterioration in services?
      Mr. Keith Vaz: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister's desire to clear up the delays in the posts abroad is in direct contrast to the chaos and crisis in Lunar house, where over 200,000 letters are lying unopened? The new clause may well result in vital members of the service at Lunar house being diverted abroad, leading to further chaos and crisis in Croydon.
      Mr. Randall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Unquestionably, there is a shambles there. It is a public scandal that an Administration should operate in such a way that 200,000 letters are unopened. I understand that letters that arrived in November 1987 are only now being opened.
      Mr. Vaz: It is disgraceful.
      Mr. Randall: It is indeed an appalling situation.
      If the new clause is passed, what will happen to staffing levels? If we take staff away to provide immigration services for the super-privileged, those who rely on services from Lunar house may lose. I should like an assurance that the Minister has taken that point on board and that we will not be providing services for the rich white traveller at the expense of the poor black traveller.
      Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman admits that many Home Office employees are working very effectively and with great dedication in many uncomfortable parts of the world as entry clearance officers. We are not asking immigration officers who go abroad to carry out a very strange and different job.
      Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. Nevertheless, although I am sure that he is right, we are discussing a substantial change in working conditions for many people who have started jobs in the immigration service assuming that they will be port-based, rather than having high-flying, jet-setting lifestyles. That may not be conducive to the interests of some people. It is possible to be frivolous about this matter, but it is important to establish whether the Minister has considered it and has had full consultations with the trade unions to find out whether they are happy. I have picked up some feedback which suggests that there are reservations.
      I also fear that the move towards pre-clearance immigration procedures may be the first step towards the privatisation of the immigration service. In that event, immigration officers would be moved around the world at the behest of the airlines, which would, in fact, be the customers. It does not require much imagination to see how the involvement of an airline in the immigration services could be extended to checking documentation before people enter the aircraft. They already do some of that work, but where is the limit? It appears that the Home Office would have an opportunity to divest itself of those responsibilities and sell off that part of Government activity to the private sector.
      I should like the Minister to comment on those points, which represent our main worries about the new clause.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. John Cartwright: I rise briefly to welcome the aims of the new clause. Anyone who has arrived at Heathrow or Gatwick in the early hours after
      852
      an overnight flight and seen the appalling queues of people trying to go through immigration must welcome any proposals that will make arrival for overseas visitors less time-consuming and frustrating. No doubt some of us have experience of arriving in foreign countries and having to spend a good deal of time trying to go through immigration. I have occasionally taken at least an hour to get through immigration in Dallas, Washington and certainly Miami, so I have some idea of what is involved.
      Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), I feel that the Minister could have given us rather more detail about how the arrangements will operate. Rather than being based in this country dealing with the problem, immigration officers will be based in airports overseas. The Minister told us that the system would not be forced on airline operators against their will, but would apply only where they themselves had requested it. Presumably, that might mean immigration officers being available for perhaps one flight a day, or a couple of flights a week, from one city by one airline.
      If, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West suggested, staff are to be moved from this country to do the job, there must be a question mark over the economics if they are not fully utilised, because a limited number of operators take the opportunity presented by the new clause. If, on the other hand, the Minister intends staff already based at the embassy or the high commission overseas to deal with the problem, they will presumably be taken off work that they are currently doing. Either way, some staffing costs overseas must be involved.
      All that the Minister has so far offered is a superficially attractive arrangement—which I certainly welcome. As we had no opportunity of exploring it in any depth in Committee—we only heard about it, without having the form of the new clause before us—it would be helpful if the Minister now spelled out, in rather more detail, how it will work.
      Mr. John Fraser: Unlike the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), I have not had the advantage of arriving day in, day out, at Heathrow airport from such prestigious places as Dallas and Miami. I must belong to the wrong travel club. Perhaps there is an SDP travel club that makes such experiences rather easier.
      I must say that I see some sense in the Minister's proposal. What worries me is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) pointed out, we shall have a first-class and a second-class service. I can see Pan Am and TWA advertising, and having their own special terminals and immigration offices to make it easier for people to come from, say, the United States. I am not against any sensible kind of clearance, as long as there is an equal standard of performance for all travellers.
      Unlike the hon. Member for Woolwich, I tend to arrive on the ferry from Boulogne, rather than flying from Dallas to Heathrow. I find, however, that the immigration reception at Dover is often disgracefully long. It is possible to sit in a car for half an hour trying to get through the passport facilities. That does not give a very good impression of this country. When travelling from one European country to another, it is possible to get across to customs within seconds. Often, no one wants to look at the passports. However, arriving back at Dover, even a United Kingdom citizen has to queue for half an hour along with other EEC citizens, waiting for clearance. If the

      853
      system is to operate, let it be extended to the Channel ports to make clearance easier not only for overseas citizens, but for our own citizens.
      Mr. Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the delays caused by customs and excise purposes are far greater than those caused by immigration?
      Mr. Fraser: I have made a special note of this matter. I keep saying, "Next time I get the chance to raise it in the House of Commons, I shall do so." Well, now is my chance. The delays are not caused by Customs and Excise. It is passports that cause the often long delays at Dover. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I have made a special note of the fact. I have kept meaning to mention it, and I am mentioning it now.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West mentioned the absolutely disgraceful situation at Lunar house. I was on the telephone to Lunar house a few days ago, and my hon. Friend's comments were confirmed. Letters are only now being opened that arrived in November 1987. That can lead to the most extraordinary problems. The first thing that the Government should do about that is to get out of Lunar house all the applications that have been made for registration for United Kingdom citizenship.
      Great teams of people have opened envelopes for privatisation ventures. I do not see why some of them should not be temporarily recruited at least to open those envelopes at Lunar house. When the Government were selling shares in British Petroleum, British Gas and British Telecom, millions of applications were opened within 24 hours. Why is it that, when people apply for leave to continue their stay in the United Kingdom and send their letters to Lunar house, they must wait three or four months for their letters to be opened, as opposed to those who applied for British Gas shares and who found that their envelopes were opened within 24 hours? That is exactly the point that my hon. Friend made from the Front Bench.
      I should like to give one illustration of the sort of hardship that is being caused. Someone I know made an application to Lunar house to continue his stay in the United Kingdom. He has been here as a business man for some time. It is normal procedure to send in accounts and to ask for a further stay of 12 months. He made the application, but his wife happened to be out of the country in Vancouver, where she had had a baby. She wants to get back into this country to join her husband.
      The husband has made his application, but because his wife is coming back to the United Kingdom to join him as a dependant, it is not possible for her to obtain a dependant's visa in Canada, unless the person upon whom she is dependent has cleared his immigration status in the United Kingdom. That woman has been waiting with her child for three months to get back into the United Kingdom on an application which is bound to be approved. Her passport is now running out in Canada, as is her visa. She is likely to be considered an illegal immigrant there, liable to arrest—with her young child — simply because somebody at Lunar house cannot open the envelope.
      That is just one example of the many problems that are occurring. The Minister must address his mind to the difficulty about mail at Lunar house. He must realise what
      854
      a mess that is making of immigration control. As he knows, as long as one gets an application into Lunar house before leave to be in the United Kingdom expires, and once the envelope is delivered in Croydon, leave is automatically continued. There are many people whose leave is being continued, sometimes against their will. Some people, whose passports are in unopened envelopes at Lunar house, would like to get their passports back so that they can leave the country. However, not even they can escape because it is not possible to identify any case unless one sends the letter by recorded delivery and marks the number of the case on the outside of the envelope.
      Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Although to a great extent I share the hon. Gentleman's feelings, I think that in fairness he would agree that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has acknowledged the problems at Lunar house, which have been caused almost as a direct result of the Government's advertisement of the means by which potential citizens could take up their rights before the deadline—which I believe was 31 December 1987.
      I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, during the debate last month, my hon. Friend the Minister of State made several positive efforts toward reducing that backlog and increasing the efficiency at Lunar house. Those of us who served in Committee on the Bill recognised that there was a problem. We have not been talking in a partisan way; we have been talking—
      Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman did not say anything in Committee.
      Dr. Goodson-Wickes: From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is making an entirely unfair accusation. I shall give way to him, so that he can make a statement publicly.
      Mr. Vaz rose—
      Mr. Fraser rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not have interventions on interventions.
      Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend the Minister of State has dealt humanely and efficiently with all the cases that I have taken up with him on behalf of the nearly 10 per cent. of my constituents who are immigrants. Where there was any doubt about any application, he has always exercised his discretion in favour of the applicant.
      Mr. Fraser: I was not intending to make a partisan speech—I never apologise for making such a speech—I was simply trying to be helpful. I want the Minister to operate the same kind of efficiency at Lunar house as Littlewoods operates in Liverpool and as Rothschild and Barings operate in relation to privatisation issues—to open the envelopes and sort the letters so that the registration applications can be put in a separate pile because people are not greatly inconvenienced by a delay in their registration; although I concede that there will be priority cases.
      On the whole, however, applicants will not be greatly embarrassed by a delay in registration. That would enable the staff at Lunar house, who on the whole are pretty devoted, to get on with the essential job of clearing the backlog of immigration applications that rests there. If the Minister does not do that, he will bring his Department further into disrepute, and, what is more, will create a great deal of unpopularity, frustration and anger with his own staff who operate in Lunar house.

      855
      Let us give the people who make legitimate applications to Croydon the same privileges as people who post their pools or apply for shares.
      Mr. Hanley: I welcome the new clause. I am surprised that any Opposition Members should seek to create some sort of synthetic indignation in trying to oppose it, albeit with their voices and not their votes.
      The new clause not only facilitates travellers coming to this country—for that reason, I should have thought that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) would welcome it because it means that clearance is that much easier before a person comes here— but it reduces the pressure at our ports of entry. I should have thought that those who claim to represent trade union members would welcome that as reducing the work load and pressure on their members at our ports of entry. It seems an extremely sensible idea. I hope that it will catch on and that many carriers will avail themselves of the excellent opportunity.
      While talking about Lunar house, one should remind hon. Members that Labour Members voted against an initiative that my hon. Friend the Minister of State put forward to reduce the cases at Lunar house by about 40,000 per year. Those clauses benefited five times more people than they hindered. Therefore, I find it surprising that Opposition Members should harp on this matter when we know full well that my hon. Friend is facing this serious problem constructively in trying to review the manning levels at Lunar house.
      Mr. Madden: The number of questions that have been asked in this short debate and the number of bits of paper that are fluttering towards the Minister from the civil servants' Box highlight the fact that he would have been much wiser to table the new clause in Committee. That would have enabled all the questions that have been asked today to be put then and would have enabled the Minister to give some explanations.
      I should like to ask three questions. I agree entirely with hon. Members who have said that the inevitable consequence of the pre-entry clearance arrangements will be the establishment of another category of entry. It will be primarily for white people and although in some cases it will be for black and Asian people, in all cases it will be for people who are well off, because clearly there will be a fee for arrangement. Therefore, only the well-off will be able to take advantage of it.
      My first question is, what happens to the predominantly white and in all cases well-off passenger who seeks to pay a fee to get a "grant to leave" entry stamp in his or her passport, but does not get such a stamp put in his or her passport overseas? The carriers — the airlines—may well refuse to take such a person because she or he has not got the "grant to leave" put in his or her passport. However, it would be a breach of natural justice if they did that, because they would be presupposing that the passenger would not be given a grant to leave when he or she arrived in the United Kingdom.
      I assume that the Minister will turn his face against any right of appeal—he turns his face against all rights of appeal—and I therefore ask him what will happen to a passenger who is refused a grant to leave under the pre-entry clearance arrangements and therefore a seat by the airline. I see the piece of paper going to the civil servants' Box, so I hope that by the time I have finished my remarks the Minister will he able to answer me.
      856
      5.30 pm
      Secondly, what will be the estimated annual cost of the arrangements—in net and gross terms— to the British taxpayer? I assume that the Home Office has made estimates to ascertain the revenue implications of the arrangements. It would be very helpful if we could be given some idea of those implications.
      Thirdly, what consultations have taken place with organisations representing immigration officers about the terms and conditions under which immigration officers will be expected to fulfil their responsibilities under the pre-entry clearance arrangements? Will the same requirements apply to those responsibilities as currently apply to transfer directions to immigration officers? I understand that immigration officers cannot refuse transfer directions and that a refusal to comply with such a direction is a disciplinary matter. Will the Minister assure us that refusal to accept a direction to participate in the proposed overseas pre-entry clearance arrangements will not be regarded as a disciplinary matter? What consultations have taken place over the terms, and conditions that will apply under the new arrangements?
      I agree with my hon. Friends who have criticised the present administrative chaos at Lunar house. Home Office Ministers talk as though there was something surprising about the large number of applications for registration. They had seven years to plan for those applications. They had almost a year to plan for them in considerable detail. We know that they did their best to keep the arrangements secret and to dissuade people from applying, but it is brass-necked of the Department and the Minister of State then to keep telling us that the words across the entrance of the Home Office are, "We are here to please."
      The Minister says that he wants to provide a good consumer service and that that is the objective of the Home Office, yet customers who are being asked to apply for registration and pay £60 for it are being kept waiting month upon month while their applications are dealt with. It is an administrative disgrace that the Government did not appoint sufficient staff or make sufficient resources available to deal expeditiously with all the applications that they expected months and months ago at Lunar house. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to explain what action is being taken to deal with the chaos at Lunar house.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I understand that the new clause was not discussed in Committee and that we are therefore discussing something new. I do not want to make a long speech, but I should tell the Minister that at one stage in my life I had great difficulty with immigration authorities—the immigration authorities of the United States of America.
      I happened to win a scholarship to the United States. I made my application, and everything seemed fine, but then the authorities discovered that in my youth I had been a member of the Communist party. I received a letter saying that I would not be allowed into the United States of America—luckily, before I arrived there. Then I had to get, as I put it, a letter from the holy ghost. I needed a letter from the theological college at Birkenhead, at which I lectured fairly regularly, and the general secretary of the TUC had to vouch for me as a fine upstanding young man who was no longer a member of the Communist party. I

      857
      was damned annoyed, because I thought that Communists or anyone else should have the right to go to the United States of America.
      I make that point because I am worried about the provision that an individual who gets his card stamped and comes to this country can be refused entry if he is examined and an immigration officer decides that he may not be the person he purports to be. What happens at that stage? Surely the stamp on the passport should not be given before a person leaves unless it is absolutely clear that he is the individual concerned. Surely that can be ascertained from the photograph and so on. The provision could lead to all sorts of difficulties.
      I am very much in favour of a provision that speeds up entry into this country. I have had many difficulties with the present arrangement. For example, my wife has a cousin who is a Baptist minister, responsible for quite a large circuit in the south of England. Two young Baptists from Poland came to stay with him. The House has no idea of the difficulties that they encountered. I might add that they were white. Imagine the difficulties that they would have had if they had been black. A young girl in my constituency has a Moroccan boy friend. He proposed to visit for only two weeks, but nevertheless there were letters and everything else.
      I will welcome the new clause if it helps to get people in more quickly. We will send immigration officers abroad to examine the individuals concerned, and if they are satisfied and stamp the card, the individual will come in quickly. No one objects to that. It is fine; it is an improvement. However, I should like some further explanation of what will happen if the immigration authorities here decide that the person seeking entry may not be the person whom he purports to be. I should like a safeguard, so that if the individual concerned knows people in this country, he will have the right to get in touch with them immediately and appeal to them for help without further difficulty. Such a safeguard is not included in the new clause, which says nothing about appeals or the right of the individual. That is an important matter.
      Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has finished."] I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman had finished his speech. I shall answer his question in my reply.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) concluded his speech?
      Mr. Heffer: Yes, I have.
      Mr. Vaz: I should like to speak briefly and raise two matters with the Minister.
      First, we welcome any proposals that will result in a reduction in delays in the immigration service. We are concerned about the delays that have occurred at Lunar house in Croydon. I visited Lunar house last Monday and saw a number of the 200,000 letters that have remained unopened there. The Minister visited Lunar house on Friday of last week. I hope that he will tell the House what he saw on his visit and what proposals he has to reduce the delays there.
      Secondly, the Minister is prepared to send immigration officers all over the world to reduce delays. We know that he is prepared to send his immigration officers to Leicester,
      858
      because we understand that a meeting is taking place there this evening at which an address will be given by five senior officials of the Home Office. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who is present, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and I were not informed of that visit until 11 February. That was 24 hours after I had tabled a question asking the Minister why immigration officials were visiting Leicester without its Members of Parliament being informed. A better approach would have been to keep the five senior officials at Croydon and put them to work opening those 200,000 letters.
      Mr. Renton: I shall answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but first I should like to thank him and my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for their support for the proposal in the new clause.
      The new clause deals only with giving immigration officers, in laymen's terms, new powers to tackle preclearance matters. It does not concern appeals, which we shall discuss shortly. We carried out a pre-clearance trial at Kennedy airport at the end of last year. I should stress to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that no one has to go through pre-clearance. It is a voluntary operation for passengers.
      Those who went through pre-clearance at Kennedy airport had their passports and landing cards stamped with the suitable stamp for entry into the United Kingdom. When they entered the United Kingdom, they were required to show the passport and the landing card with the appropriate stamp on it so that the immigration officer here could link the two and ensure that the person carrying the passport, by virtue of the landing card, was the person concerned. That was the system used for the trial. Whether we shall use it if we set it up more generally remains to be seen.
      I should stress to hon. Members who have queried the matter that this is only an enabling clause. We have not had discussions with trade unions representing the immigration service, and as yet it has not been fully costed. We intend that this operation should wash its face completely, but we did not think it appropriate to cost it until we had received agreement to this enabling power from the House.
      Those who say that we did not discuss the matter in Committee, such as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), are wrong. We discussed it in Committee — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes we did. We did not discuss this clause, because it was not tabled, but we discussed the principle of pre-clearance entry during the debate on 21 January. I accept that hon. Members were running out of steam by that time. They had gone on for 62 hours and were not very interested in this process.
      5.45 pm
      We discussed the matter in relation to clause 7, and I shall quote two of the remarks that I made during the debate. I said:
      "Since then, we have received requests for additional immigration officers from commercial operators who will be prepared to pay for an enhanced service. Additional services might be provided when an operator seeks a greater number of immigration officers on the control at particular times and places than would be justified by the overall traffic pattern, or when an operator seeks special control arrangements for a particular flight."

      859
      That was a broad outline of what we had in mind. I continued:
      "But in order to introduce those arrangements on a more permanent and routine basis it is necessary to extend the powers of immigration officers. We shall table an amendment at a later stage to facilitate pre-clearance arrangements. It is right that the Committee should be made aware of that potential arrangement." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 January 1988; c. 724–25.]
      I appreciate that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and the hon. Member for Walton will not be aware of that matter because they did not serve on the Committee. I would not expect them to have read the minutes of our Committee proceedings. For those hon. Members who served on the Committee to pretend that they did not know that we had this in mind is to stand the facts on their head. It would be far better to agree that, in broad terms, this is a good idea and that it is intended to facilitate movement through our airports to prevent congestion.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West referred to a shambles at Heathrow. It must be encouraging for immigration officers who work at terminals 2 and 3 to hear the Labour party's Front-Bench spokesman use those words. He should at least give credit for the fact that the shambles is very much less now—
      Mr. Vaz: It is the Government's fault.
      Mr. Renton: No. There has been less of a shambles since we introduced the visa system for countries of the Indian sub-continent. Anyone who has visited terminals 2 and 3 will know that that is so.
      Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware that since the visa system was introduced there have been no improvements for people going through Heathrow or in the number of people detained there? The Minister must recognise that there is a shambles at Heathrow. It is a modern airport, providing supposedly modern facilities. If he accepts what is happening at Heathrow, his appreciation of an effective airport must be limited.
      Mr. Renton: This is straying rather far from the purpose of the new clause. The hon. Gentleman may fly down from Hull in a local British aeroplane. I do not know how he is treated when he arrives at Heathrow. Since I took over my responsibilities I have visited Heathrow many times. I have visited terminals 2 and 3 during the busy periods of the day. I know that the difficulties with congestion—immigration officers will bear this out—are nothing like what they were in the autumn of 1986 when we introduced the visa arrangements. The hon. Gentleman should visit Heathrow when the trans-continental aeroplanes land, and he would see the truth of what I say.
      Mr. Greville Janner: Recently, I visited a terminal and found a queue of people waiting to enter. I was told that some of them had had to wait for over two hours because there were not enough immigration officers. The amount of time that people had to wait depended on the number of jumbo aircraft arriving at the time. Nothing could be done about it. It was entirely the Government's fault, because there were not enough immigration officers. It was a shambolic chaos. It is a disgrace that visitors have to wait in such queues. Matters have not improved, because the rules have been used as an excuse for keeping down the number of immigration officers, instead of improving arrangements for our visitors.
      Mr. Renton: I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who is normally reasonable and accurate, should talk in that manner. What he said about queues at terminals 2 and 3 is incorrect. If there are delays of two hours during the difficult early-morning slots, I can only say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that they would have been much worse in the autumn of 1986. That, in any event, is precisely why we are introducing these arrangements in clause 7 and in the new clause. That is the last time that I shall give way.
      Mr. Madden: Will the Minister take it from me that we have received a number of reports that people at terminal 4—I notice that he has not referred to this terminal— are regularly required to sleep on the floor overnight because of continued delays since the introduction of visas? I ask again: what will happen to passengers who volunteer for the pre-clearance arrangement and are not granted leave to enter? Will they have rights of appeal against a refusal by a carrier to bring them into the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Renton: I stress again that this system has had only one trial experiment. This is an enabling clause and we have not yet gone into lengthy discussions with the trade unions or carriers about it.
      I pointed out two things to the hon. Gentleman a few moments ago. First, no one is required to go through preclearance—it is a voluntary business. If someone went through pre-clearance and was refused by the immigration officer, I assume that the officer would think it appropriate to point that out to the carrier, because the carrier would not want to have to pay a potential fine of £1,000. There would be no appeal in this country in that circumstance. In a country in which a visa was required, however, the applicant would have every reason to go back to our consulate to find out what had gone wrong and to discuss the matter with the immigration officer. This is, as I said, a voluntary business.
      Have there been discussions with the trade unions? Not yet. This is an enabling power, and pre-clearance will take place only if requested by the operator and if the immigration service agrees. If the House agrees with the clause and we go ahead with it, we shall discuss any arrangements with the trade unions before they are introduced.
      To hon. Members who asked about costs, I say clearly that the intention will be to recover the full costs, including those of the staff involved in operating a pre-clearance system. In each case it will be for the carrying company that requests the service to decide whether the charges we will require it to pay are reasonable or acceptable. Our intention will be to recover the full costs. The carrier will then have to decide whether it wants to go ahead with preclearance. That also answers the point made by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), who has now left the Chamber.
      To answer the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, who asked why we did not mention this in Committee — we did. I have already quoted from Hansard to show that. To go further than that, the trial in New York was conducted last October. The evaluation was not completed until after Christmas. The policy decision on whether to go forward with this was not decided until the trial had been evaluated, when the new clause had to be drafted. That is why I gave the Committee

      861
      a clear idea of our intent on the matter, so that there should be no surprise when we brought the matter before the House on Report.
      The hon. Member for Bradford, West implied that the pre-clearance arrangement might have something to do with the financial status of the passenger. If he meant that, he was not correct. The service will be provided at the request of the carrier only. The passenger will not pay, and that will be the end of the matter. As I have already said, the passenger does not have to present himself for preclearance—he can decline to do so.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West said that he had heard some rumbles from the trade union side of the immigration service to the effect that it was worried about this provision. The immigration service has an active trade union side—that is good—but I have heard no such rumbles. If we go ahead with this, we shall consider and discuss it in full with the immigration service.
      The question of the delays at Lunar house was raised by the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), for Bradford, West and for Norwood. The hon. Member for Norwood raised the issue in moderate terms. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will allow me to deal with that matter straight away. I want to put a few points about it on the record.
      First, it is typical of the hon. Member for Leicester, East that the first thing he did in the debate was to get up and talk about the chaos at Lunar house. He asked my Department to arrange a visit for him to Lunar house on Monday 10 days ago. We arranged it at considerable expense of management time. He arrived 45 minutes late, spent only one and a half hours there and the first thing we knew of it was that he had left and told the home affairs correspondent of The Independent about the chaos at Lunar house and about how we are proposing to privatise the operation.
      What did I hear at Lunar house on Friday? I heard great concern from the trade union side about whether the remarks made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East were justified. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that was a helpful way to deal with the problems at Lunar house, which certainly exist, I suggest that it would have been much more helpful — I can see the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West nodding in agreement with what I am saying—
      Mr. Janner: I am agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).
      Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Leicester, East must be an uncomfortable neighbour for the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West.
      Mr. Vaz rose—
      Mr. Janner: He makes a change from Bruinvels.
      Mr. Renton: "Bring back Bruinvels; all is forgiven," is the cry from the House, I am sure.
      I do not often speak about my meetings with hon. Members. In fact, I make it a habit not to. However, I must say that the hon. Member for Leicester, East came to see me the following day about a constituency case. It would have been more helpful and appropriate, given that my Department had arranged his visit for him, at his request, the day before, if he had talked to me about the
      862
      difficulties and asked me about our proposals for solving them, rather than running—publicity-seeking, as always —to a national newspaper to air his worries.
      Mr. Vaz: The Minister was in Committee for more than 62 hours. On every occasion during every sitting of the Committee this matter was raised with him. It is high time that the matter came before the public, rather than being covered up by the Minister and his officials at the Home Office. What proposals does he have to end the delays? He should tell us that, rather than indulging in a personal attack on another hon. Member.
      Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman's lack of courtesy is typical of him and disturbing to the staff at Lunar house, who did their best to show him everything that he wanted to see on Monday.
      I come now to our proposals and to a little background. I fully accept that the delays that are experienced by applicants at Lunar house are unacceptable, and I shall detail the steps being taken to remedy them.
      I stress to all hon. Members that the backlog is largely due to the great surge in applications for registration for citizenship that we received in the last two months of last year, particularly in December. In 1986, we received 37,900 applications for registration, and 19,000 for naturalisation. We estimate that in 1987 we received six times that number of registrations for citizenship, and three times as many applications for naturalisation. That came to a total of 291,000 applications, in contrast to the 57,000 that we had received the year before.
      It is ironic that the Labour party, which castigated us throughout the autumn of last year for not advertising the deadline for registration well enough, should now castigate us—by implication—for having advertised it too well. We put out many advertisements and forms, and as a result we received a large number of applications.
      Before I detail the specific steps that we will take, I hope that the House, including the hon. Member for Leicester, East, will pay tribute to the magnificent efforts of the staff in the immigration and nationality department at Lunar house in coping with the huge influx of citizenship applications before the deadline on 31 December last year.
      6 pm
      The staff worked under sustained pressure, including long hours of overtime before Christmas and between Christmas and the deadline of 31 December. They dealt with many thousands of last-minute requests for application forms, and a very large number of requests for advice about citizenship status in letters and from personal callers. But the scale of the increased flow of work is so large that those measures, and the efforts of the available staff to serve the department's customers, would be insufficient to process the cases through the initial stages —sending acknowledgements, accounting for fees paid and so on—within a reasonable time within the present method of working. Therefore, after detailed discussions with the trade union side, we have introduced, as an emergency measure, a large-scale redeployment of staff to undertake those initial stages.
      Mr. Madden: Ha!
      Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Bradford, West laughs, but I should have thought that he would be pleased. However, as always, he is a constant surprise to me.

      863
      About 160 staff have been redeployed from a significant part of their normal duties to open unsorted applications, to account for the fees, and to acknowledge receipt. As part of this process we are returning to applicants any passports and other documents that were submitted with applications. This is to avoid the inconvenience to applicants of their being deprived of travel documents— I appreciate the inconvenience that that causes — while the applications are under consideration.
      We are also going to recruit more full-time staff for the post room, registry and nationality division, and we are carrying out an urgent examination of the means and resources that will be required to process the applications in a reasonable time. As I have said—it was especially acknowledged by the hon. Member for Norwood—the primary objective at this stage is to acknowledge applications as soon as possible and to return documents and passports submitted with applications. It is my hope that these processes will be complete within several weeks.
      Mr. Vaz rose—
      Mr. Renton: I shall not give way to the hon. Member any more.
      I assure the House that if we bring in such arrangements for pre-clearance it will not be at the expense of any standard arrangements or standard level of service at United Kingdom ports and airports. We will do it simply as a service to any airline that requests it, no matter where a flight may have started from. Therefore, it will not be a service for whites rather than for blacks. It will be available for anyone who wishes it, provided that the request comes from an airline, we agree a fee and we are able to work out the details. I believe that these are thoroughly sensible arrangements, and 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 1

      VARIATION OF LEAVE: APPEAL PROCEDURES
      `In subsection (2) of section 19 of the Immigration Act 1971 all the words after "based" shall be omitted.'.—[Mr.Randall.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Randall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This matter was discussed at length in Committee. There was considerable concern about the way in which the Minister attempted to describe how certain procedures, particularly those associated with variation of leave, worked. As a result of the dispute in Committee, we felt it necessary to introduce the new clause.
      The purpose of the clause is to give the appellate authorities powers that are outside the existing rules. This would enable the authorities, during variation of leave appeals, to take compassionate circumstances into account. On numerous occasions in Committee—I could present all the Official Report quotations to the House, but I shall not do so because we have a lot of business to get through — the Minister described how he thought the arrangements for the appeal procedures worked. Frankly, I believe that the Minister either failed to understand how the system worked, or he was given bad advice.
      864
      Without doubt, great concern was created by the Minister's inability to get things right. On 28 January a letter was sent to the Minister from the general secretary of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the director of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service and the president of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. The letter set out their deep concern over the effects of clause 4 and said the Minister's justification for its introduction was based upon a fallacy.
      The Minister suggested that there was no reason to think that when deportation cases were heard com-passionate circumstances would no longer be taken into account. He said that during earlier stages of variation of leave appeals such matters were fully taken into account.
      We now know that that argument is utter tripe. The people who are involved with immigration matters have categorically demonstrated that the Minister is wrong. It is clear that the Minister does not know what he is talking about. I believe that clause 4 should be withdrawn because of the way in which it removes certain basic rights from people when appeal procedures are operated.
      In Committee on 17 December, the Minister said:
      "The decision to refuse further leave to remain, and the hearing of the appeal against that decision, provide the proper opportunity for compassionate factors to be taken into account … That is the point in the appeal procedure when facts, merit and compassionate circumstances should be considered."
      Mr. Renton: That is right.
      Mr. Randall: Let me prove why I believe that the Minister has got it wrong.
      In Committee we talked about what happens in practice. We know that section 19(2) of the principal Act precludes the appellate authorities from making any decisions on matters outside the immigration rules that involve compassionate circumstances. Therefore, the appellate authorities are forbidden to make a decision involving compassionate circumstances.
      I believe that the Minister recognised that, because he said:
      "it is open to the adjudicator to take account of the compassionate circumstances of the case. When he regards the compassionate circumstances as compelling … he may, even while formally dismissing the appeal, recommend that the Home Secretary should exercise his discretion in the appellant's favour and allow him to remain." — [Official Report. Standing Committee D, 17 December 1987, c. 388–923.
      In other words, an adjudicator who is compelled by the immigration rules to make a decision against an applicant may, if he or she chooses, temper that by recommending that the Home Secretary should exercise his discretion outside the immigration rules and allow the appellant to stay. The Minister acknowledges that the appellate authorities do not have a formal responsibility, although anyone can make recommendations. The crucial point on which the Minister's argument is so misleading is that representations are never made.
      I have spoken to people in the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service who deal with such cases daily. One gentleman told me that in three years of case work he had come across one recommendation. I am surprised that the Minister is not aware of the reality.
      There is only one means whereby that information can be conveyed to the Home Secretary, and that is on the determination of a case,. When the appellate authority reviews a case, it produces a determination which is sent to the Home Office and to all the agencies, which make

      865
      representations on behalf of the person concerned. Everyone is aware when a recommendation is made to the Home Secretary to take into account compassionate circumstances. Of course, the Minister, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) who is grinning, and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) were party to that.
      Mr. Renton: I shall deal with whether adjudicators make informal representations to the Home Secretary in my reply if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. However, I wish to make it clear to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that there was no contradiction between what I said at column 391 of Hansard and what I said at a later sitting at column 759. Both those comments say precisely the same thing, at column 759 at greater length. At column 391, I said:
      "The adjudicator may have to dismiss an appeal on the facts, but can, if he chooses, make a recommendation for compassionate consideration to the Secretary of State." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 17 December 1987; c. 391.]
      At column 759, I said:
      "If he judges that the compassionate circumstances are such as to merit exceptional treatment, he can informally recommend to the Secretary of State that he should allow the person concerned to remain by the exercise of his discretion outside the immigration rules. Any such recommendations are considered seriously." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26 January 1988; c. 759.]
      I stand by both those remarks. They fit each other and they are accurate.
      Mr. Randall: The Minister knows that hon. Members and those involved in the provision of services to immigrants know that in Committee, he got it wrong. The Minister quotes parts of the Official Report where he was reading from a brief, but at other times he was freewheeling.
      Mr. Humfrey Malins: Come on.
      Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman speaks from a sedentary position, but he was not there. One can distinguish between the times when the Minister was speaking from a brief and when he was not. That is why we are so concerned about the way in which the Minister is dealing with these matters.
      Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman should be concerned. When I said in Committee that adjudicators could, if they dismissed an appeal, deal with compassionate circumstances through recommendations to the Secretary of State, the hon. Gentleman said that I was talking nonsense. That proved that he did not know the first thing about immigration. That was a statement from an Opposition spokesman new to his portfolio—within a week. He was saying that I did not know what I was talking about after I had served for years on the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. Now he must admit that he was wrong and that I was right.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Randall: That is absolute nonsense. During a variation of appeal proceedings, compassionate circumstances are no part of any decision made by the appellate authority. That is a fact.
      Mr. Hanley: It is official.
      Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman says that it is official. It is not at all official. In reality, any of the members of the appellate authority could write whatever they wished on a determination. They could write that, if the case were to lead to deportation proceedings, they would recommend that the Home Secretary takes into account compassionate circumstances. However, in reality, they do not do that. The chief appellate officer has put it on record that he believes that the variation of appeal procedure is not the time and place to raise compassionate circumstances. He believes that they should be reviewed as part and parcel of the deportation procedure, which is a separate procedure, with different criteria.
      First, the appellate authority may not, by virtue of the rules, make any decision taking into account such matters. Secondly, although anyone could recommend to the Home Secretary that, later on, compassionate circumstances might be taken into account if deportation is involved, in reality that is not done. That is a fact which has been substantiated to me by the people involved.
      Mr. Hanley: It is hearsay.
      Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman says that it is hearsay. Is he suggesting that because the chief appellate officer is saying what I am saying it is hearsay—when it is a comment by a man in that position?
      The Minister cannot get away with it. He has suggested that compassionate circumstances are involved in the appeal procedures, and he used that argument to justify clause 4 and say that it would be acceptable. Clause 4 removes the appeal procedures from those who have been in the United Kingdom for fewer than seven years. The justification for doing that was that compassionate circumstances do not need to be taken into account at this stage because they will already have been taken into account. That is nonsense. It is a disgrace that the Minister did not make it perfectly clear. He has not done the proper research and made it clear that in Committee he was wrong.
      I suggest that the Minister should admit that he was wrong and apologise from the Dispatch Box. If he admits that he did not understand what he was saying, or that he now understands what he is saying, he should support the new clause, which provides that compassionate circumstances should be taken into account and be made part and parcel of the decision-making process by the appellate authority. If the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes believes that that happens anyway, what is his reason for not voting for the new clause? Let us put into the statute what the hon. Gentleman and the Minister have said happens already. I suggest that they put their votes where their mouths are. This is a chance to test whether they genuinely support this idea.
      I am confident that Conservative Members will fail to vote for the new clause, because they will do what their Whip says, and because, if they were to support the new clause they would be accepting that during variation, or even refusal to enter appeals, compassionate circumstances should be taken into account. Therefore, clause 4 will go on to the statute book when it should have been withdrawn by the Government because of the way in which it takes away basic rights of appeal. It is wrong, and it is a measure of how uncivilised and uncaring our society is.

      867
      To deport people without taking all the compassionate circumstances into account is deplored by Opposition Members, and that is why we believe that it is crucial that the House should support new clause 1. It is a good clause, which is worthy of support. If the Minister believes what he has said in the past, he too should support it. It seeks only to do what the Minister has claimed is already happening, but he will vote against it because he does not want such appeal procedures to be put into the statute. He should be straight with the House, come clean, admit that he made a mistake and vote for new clause 1.
      Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said—
      Mr. Randall: Here come the insults.
      Mr. Renton: No, I shall not insult the hon. Gentleman. I shall deny that we had a dispute. I shall simply say that there is a complete lack of understanding between us. There is a complete lack of understanding on the hon. Gentleman's part of the procedure of adjudicators when they are looking at cases within the rules and decide that, on the facts, they will not allow the variation of leave, but do make a recommendation, informal or otherwise, to the Home Secretary, suggesting that he might exercise his discretion.
      I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's lack of understanding—
      Mr. Randall rose—
      Mr. Renton: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman lets me finish this point.
      Mr. Randall: The Minister never answers my questions.
      Mr. Renton: I am about to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I suggest that he gives me a chance to do so.
      I realise that the hon. Gentleman's lack of understanding was stoked by a letter that I received, signed by Michael Barnes of UKIAS, Ian Macdonald of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and Ann Owers of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. However, I replied to that letter and, in all fairness, the hon. Gentleman should have quoted from my reply. I clearly said:
      "Moreover. the Home Office's experience is that the appelate authorities do make use of their freedom to recommend the use of the Secretary of State's discretion. If a recommendation is made on compassionate grounds the instructions to the immigration department's case workers are quite explicit in stating that the normal practice should be to comply with that recommendation. Such matters are treated very seriously indeed and any decision not to accept an adjudicator's recommendaton must be taken at senior level."
      In Committee the hon. Gentleman asked me whether we kept statistics of the percentage of recommendations that were made on that basis which were and were not accepted. I said that we do not keep such statistics. However, I did ask Home Office officials to dig out a few recent cases where the adjudicator made a recommendation within the rules to the Secretary of State and where the recommendation was considered and, in most cases, accepted. I have them here and, if time permitted, I would gladly read them to the House. However, I do not think that that would please the House.
      There are one or two examples here of where a recommendation was made which the Home Office did not accept—
      Mr Hanley: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the House that the adjudicators are independently appointed?
      Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. They are appointed by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Therefore, they are quite independent of the Home Office.
      If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West will allow me to take a little more time, I shall refer to four examples. I shall refer to the people involved simply by initials, because it is inappropriate to name names in this context. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to come to my office and look at the cases, he is welcome to do so.
      In July 1984, Mrs. D was refused indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a dependant of her stepson. Her appeal was dismissed, first by the adjudicator in August 1986, and finally by the tribunal in February 1987. The tribunal took the view— I am abbreviating this — that the circumstances were such that the Secretary of State could properly consider exercising his discretion in favour of Mrs. D outside the rules. It considered that if she had to return to Barbados it seemed that it would not be very long before she became dependant on her stepson. The Secretary of State accepted the tribunal's recommendation and in July 1987 Mrs. D was granted indefinite leave to remain.
      The same applied to Mr. R, who arrived in the United Kingdom in August 1978. That was a case in which the arguments for accepting the recommendation from the adjudicator that he should be allowed to remain were far from clear-cut. But, after the adjudicator's view was subsequently endorsed by the tribunal, Mr. R was granted indefinite leave to remain in July 1987. I could continue ad infinitum—
      Mr. Stuart Holland: It is striking that the Minister cites cases from 1978 and 1984. In what sense do those rare cases meet the points made in the letter by Michael Barnes, Ian Macdonald and Ann Owers that
      "The Deputy Director (Legal) of UKIAS estimates that, of the many hundreds of appeals he has dealt with over the last three years, in only one such appeal did an adjudicator make a recommendation"?
      The Minister will realise how important this is to many of us in our constituency casework.
      Mr. Renton: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in this. He has many immigration cases himself. However, I stress that the cases that I have just mentioned are only two out of a bundle. Mrs. D's case started in July 1984 and finished in July 1987. I said that I had asked for recent cases. Mr. R arrived in the United Kingdom in August 1978, applied in September 1980 for the extension of stay to continue in work-permit employment, and in July 1987 was granted permission to stay.
      As the hon. Gentleman will know, one of the problems about Britain's treatment of immigration cases is that the superstructure of appeal upon appeal—the number of safeguards that we have given those who come here—to which we have added a Member of Parliament's representations, means that we arrive at a thicket within which the immigrant is well protected. He goes from one appeal to the next while the years drag on; at the end, after eight or nine years, it is almost inevitable that he be given leave to remain in Britain. That is one of the problems of our system and one reason why one must seek clarity and simplicity in it.

      869
      I could go on at length. The next case, which I did not mention because I wanted to save the time of the House, concerns a Miss M, who arrived in the United Kingdom in July 1986. The written determination of the adjudicator formally dismissed her appeal, but he recommended that the Secretary of State should exercise his discretion in her favour exceptionally outside the rules. That recommendation has been accepted.
      That is the common working practice in the Home Office. Recommendations come up from cases within the rules to the Home Office. They are seriously considered and, in many cases, are accepted. As for the particular reference to one case only in the UKIAS/JCWI letter, there is, I think, a mistaken reference to the chief adjudicator's comments in giving his opinion in the case of Mostashari, because the letter implies that that was intended to be a general recommendation, but I think that it was a particular recommendation in specific regard to the case of Mostashari.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. David Winnick: Bearing in mind that adjudicators are hardly likely to agree outside the immigration rules unless the compassionate circumstances are very compelling indeed, is there not a case for considering giving adjudicators and the tribunal, as this new clause would, the power in certain cases — they would be very few indeed—where the appellant would not qualify under the immigration laws because of the strictness of those rules, but where there is an overwhelming case on compassionate grounds, to allow the appeal; not simply to make a recommendation, but actually to allow the appeal? Adjudicators are hardly likely to act in an irresponsible manner.
      Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the real point of this new clause, upon which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West did not touch. As I see it, the real point of the new clause is not on the question of adjudicators making more recommendations to the Home Office on cases that fall within the rules, but to give them the power to make recommendations, or indeed to decide, on cases that are outside the rules. That is precisely the point to which I now want to refer, because I think that this would be giving far too great a power to the appellate authorities. The hon. Gentleman, with his customary acuteness in these matters, has put his finger on the real problem or challenge that this new clause implies.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West was quite wrong in thinking that if this new clause were accepted it would in any sense bite on the question of appeal rights of persons subject to deportation orders. That was implicit in his remarks, but it would not be so. The new clause does not bite on clause 4, because section 19 of the 1971 Act is subject to any restriction on the grounds of appeal.
      The real problem regarding this new clause is that it would vastly extend the powers of adjudicators in cases that fall outside the rules. This would be a fundamental change of policy which would not be acceptable to us. It may help if I make it clear from the outset that in determining appeals, adjudicators are provided, under section 19 of the Act, with the ability to review the way in which the Secretary of State has exercised his discretion under the rules.
      870
      This discretion is available in a number of categories, the principal exclusion being visitors seeking extension of their stay beyond the maximum permitted by the rules. Where there is discretion under the law, account will be taken of any compassionate or other circumstances which may make a decision to refuse inappropriate. In reviewing the way in which the Secretary of State's discretion has been exercised, where it is available under the rules, adjudicators will in turn hear arguments about compassionate and other factors.
      Section 19 sets out clearly that the jurisdiction of an adjudicator at an appeal is to dismiss an appeal unless he considers, first, that the decision or action against which the appeal was brought was not in accordance with the law or with any immigration rules applicable to the case; or, secondly, where the decision or action involved the exercise of a discretion, that the discretion should have been exercised differently.
      The new clause would place upon the appellant authorities the task of reviewing the exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion not only where the rules provided for this but also in all other cases where compassionate or other circumstances had been put forward in support of exceptional treatment outside the applicable rules.
      The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that this would happen very rarely, but we can have no possible knowledge that that would be so. It would be a very great incentive to people who were refused their variation of leave by the adjudicators, in any circumstances outside the rules, immediately to bring in the full breadth of compassionate circumstances, however ridiculous, because, if this clause were accepted, they would know that the adjudicators would have to consider those circumstances.
      Mr. Winnick: As perhaps the only Member in the House, or one of only a very few Members, who at one stage appeared before adjudicators regularly on almost a daily basis on behalf of clients, I found that adjudicators very rarely took the view that they should take into consideration other matters. Therefore, if the Minister has a fear that the adjudicators—who are now appointed, as I understand it, by the Lord Chancellor, but used to be appointed by the Home Office—would go out of their way to allow appeals on compassionate grounds unless the circumstances were very compelling, I can assure him from my experience of adjudicators that he has very little justification for his fear.
      Mr. Renton: But it would be permissible under this new clause for appellants to bring forward any type of compassionate circumstances even if the case was outside the rules. That would have to lead to far greater delays in appeals and to much lengthier appeals, which is precisely what all hon. Members wish to avoid.
      It would also mean—and the hon. Member, with his expertise, will take this on board — that there would never be mandatory immigration rules, because however the rules were worded the exercise of discretion outside the rules would always be a significant arguable factor which the appellate authorities would be required to take into account. That puts into more elegant language the point that I have made to the hon. Member. There would obviously then be scope for abuse of the appeal system by those who see it solely as a means of prolonging their stay in the United Kingdom.

      871
      It would, for example, extend the rights in visitor appeals from a hearing on the facts of the case considered against the applicable immigration rule to a hearing of all the circumstances, exceptional or otherwise, which might have a bearing or an influence on the possible exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion outside the rules. It would thus leave the final decision on the exercise of discretion outside the rules not with the Secretary of State but with the appellate authorities. That is at the heart of my opposition to this new clause.
      The new clause, in extending the jurisdiction of the appellate authorities, would also place upon them a far greater burden, increasing both the cost of the appeal system and delays in all types of cases being heard. It would also place them in an anomalous position whereby, under section 19(1) and (2) as amended by this new clause, they would be required to dismiss an appeal because the decision was in accordance with the law or the immigration rules applicable, or allow an appeal because in the adjudicator's opinion the Secretary of State's discretion outside the rules would have been exercised differently. This would be an unacceptable state of affairs and could be attractive only to those who seek to undermine at any cost the Government's commitment to fair but firm immigration control.
      For all these reasons, I cannot possibly recommend the new clause to the House. I feel that it would undermine the effectiveness of immigration control as a whole, and 1 invite the House to reject it.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 272.

      Division No. 181]

      [6.40 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cohen, Harry

      Allen, Graham

      Coleman, Donald

      Anderson, Donald

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cousins, Jim

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Cox, Tom

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Crowther, Stan

      Ashton, Joe

      Cryer, Bob

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cummings, John

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Battle, John

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Beckett, Margaret

      Darling, Alistair

      Beith, A. J.

      Dewar, Donald

      Bell, Stuart

      Dixon, Don

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Doran, Frank

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

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Blair, Tony

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Blunkett, David

      Eadie, Alexander

      Boyes, Roland

      Eastham, Ken

      Bradley, Keith

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Buckley, George J.

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Caborn, Richard

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

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Flannery, Martin

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Canavan, Dennis

      Foster, Derek

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Foulkes, George

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Fraser, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Clay, Bob

      Galbraith, Sam

      Clelland, David

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Garrett, Ted (Wailsend)

      872

      George, Bruce

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Morley, Elliott

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Graham, Thomas

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Murphy, Paul

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Nellist, Dave

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Grocott, Bruce

      O'Neill, Martin

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Parry, Robert

      Haynes, Frank

      Patchett, Terry

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Pendry, Tom

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Pike, Peter L.

      Henderson, Doug

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Holland, Stuart

      Radice, Giles

      Home Robertson, John

      Randall, Stuart

      Hood, Jimmy

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Howells, Geraint

      Reid, Dr John

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Richardson, Jo

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Robertson, George

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Rogers, Allan

      Hume, John

      Rooker, Jeff

      Ingram, Adam

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Janner, Greville

      Rowlands, Ted

      John, Brynmor

      Ruddock, Joan

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Salmond, Alex

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lambie, David

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Lamond, James

      Short, Clare

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Skinner, Dennis

      Leighton, Ron

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

      Lewis, Terry

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

      Litherland, Robert

      Soley, Clive

      Livingstone, Ken

      Spearing, Nigel

      Livsey, Richard

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Stott, Roger

      McAllion, John

      Strang, Gavin

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McCartney, Ian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      McFall, John

      Turner, Dennis

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Vaz, Keith

      McKelvey, William

      Wall, Pat

      McLeish, Henry

      Walley, Joan

      McTaggart, Bob

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      McWilliam, John

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Madden, Max

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Marek, Dr John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wilson, Brian

      Martlew, Eric

      Winnick, David

      Maxton, John

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Meacher, Michael

      Worthington, Tony

      Meale, Alan

      Wray, Jimmy

      Michael, Alun

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Mr. Frank Cook and

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Mr. Allen Adams.

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Alexander, Richard

      Ashby, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Atkins, Robert

      Amess, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Amos, Alan

      Baldry, Tony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      873

      Batiste, Spencer

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Benyon,W.

      Hannam, John

      Bevan, David Gilroy

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

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Harris, David

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Body, Sir Richard

      Hayes, Jerry

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hayward, Robert

      Boswell, Tim

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Heddle, John

      Bowis, John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hill, James

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hind, Kenneth

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Brazier, Julian

      Holt, Richard

      Bright, Graham

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Howard, Michael

      Browne, John (Winchester)

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

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Burns, Simon

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Butcher, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Butler, Chris

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Butterfill, John

      Irvine, Michael

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Irving, Charles

      Carrington, Matthew

      Jack, Michael

      Carttiss, Michael

      Jackson, Robert

      Cash, William

      Janman, Tim

      Chapman, Sydney

      Jessel, Toby

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Colvin, Michael

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Key, Robert

      Couchman, James

      Kilfedder, James

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Curry, David

      Kirkhope, Timothy

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

      Knapman, Roger

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Devlin, Tim

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knowles, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knox, David

      Dover, Den

      Lang, Ian

      Dunn, Bob

      Latham, Michael

      Durant, Tony

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lightbown, David

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lilley, Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Forth, Eric

      Lord, Michael

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Franks, Cecil

      Maclean, David

      French, Douglas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gale, Roger

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Gill, Christopher

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Malins, Humfrey

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mans, Keith

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gow, Ian

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Mates, Michael

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mellor, David

      Gregory, Conal

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Miller, Hal

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Grist, Ian

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Ground, Patrick

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      874

      Moate, Roger

      Speller, Tony

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Steen, Anthony

      Mudd, David

      Stern, Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stevens, Lewis

      Neubert, Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Stokes, John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

      Sumberg, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Summerson, Hugo

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Paice, James

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Patnick, Irvine

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thorne, Neil

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Portillo, Michael

      Tracey, Richard

      Price, Sir David

      Trippier, David

      Raffan, Keith

      Trotter, Neville

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Redwood, John

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Renton, Tim

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Walden, George

      Riddick, Graham

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Waller, Gary

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Ward, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Warren, Kenneth

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Watts, John

      Rost, Peter

      Wells, Bowen

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wheeler, John

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Wilkinson, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wilshire, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Woodcock, Mike

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Yeo, Tim

      Shersby, Michael

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Sims, Roger

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Mr. Richard Ryder and

      Speed, Keith

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 2

      REFUGEES' RIGHTS OF APPEAL
      `At the end of section 13(3) of the Immigration Act 1971 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(3A) The limitation in subsection (3) above on the exercise of the right of appeal against refusal of entry shall not apply in any case in which a person is to be removed to a country where he claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group of political opinion.".'.—[Mr. Hattersley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This new clause aims to deal explicitly and specifically with the need to establish an appeals procedure which will protect entrants to Britain who claim political asylum. The removal and reduction of rights of appeal in other circumstances were debated a moment ago, and no doubt my hon. Friends will wish to turn again to the general

      875
      subject of appeal when we come, as I hope we shortly will, to Third Reading. They will want to debate appeal procedures as restricted by clauses 4 and 5.
      The new clause deals with a point which is narrow, but nevertheless crucial in terms of the operation of immigration control. It seeks to meet an obvious need—the protection of asylum seekers from arbitrary removal to the country in which they fear persecution.
      At present, the right of asylum seekers is exercisable only after removal. For some refugees — for example, Tamils returned to parts of Sir Lanka or opponents of the Khomeini regime returned to Iran — an appeal after return is obviously too late. Indeed, it is only necessary to describe the proposal of the immigration officer to see that the procedure is clearly absurd. The officer would say, "You claim to be an opponent of the regime. You claim to be in danger of your life. You have supplied insufficient evidence to convince me of that contention. Therefore, return to the country in which you say that your life is in danger and appeal from there."
      The defence of the Home Office against the absurdity of the present situation falls under two headings. First, it states that there will be a referral procedure under which some asylum seekers will be examined by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. Secondly, it states that a full and automatic appeal system—appeal by right while in the United Kingdom—would produce a flood of applications, and, by implication, the Home Office means a flood of bogus applications.
      If the Minister of State is to reply to the debate, he might do so with more capacity if he listened to the proposal. On 11 February, the Home Secretary said that there might be as many as 800,000 appeals—as many as there are currently in the appeals procedure of West Germany—if an automatic system were introduced. The fear of flooding which, in all circumstances, is an unhappy expression, is clearly nonsense.
      Before the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 came into operation, the total number of applications for asylum in Great Britain was about 4,000. Clearly, carriers' liability will considerably reduce that number. As a continuation of our long and honourable tradition of helping refugees and supporting applicants for asylum, the burdens on the system, which our proposed appeal procedure would certainly create, could easily be borne by the Government and the Home Office.
      The referral procedure is clearly inadequate. At best, it provides access to legal representation and advice about how to proceed with the appeal. More important, it is available only to those appellants who obtain permission from the Home Office to go through that process. The objective of an appeals system is that it should be independent, not least to avoid the political bias which, in part, is bound to creep into the application of asylum laws.
      The new clause would allow the setting up of a procedure which was independent and quick. Under our proposal, a tribunal would be able, almost immediately, to uphold a Home Office decision, in which case the man or woman would be returned to the place from which he or she had come; or to overturn that decision, in which case he or she would be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom. If the claim was complicated and uncertain, the Home Office could call for a more detailed examination of the full merits of the case and of the justification for a fuller appeal.
      876
      The provision of such a system would be wholly in line with the traditional attitude taken by this country towards those who have applied to come here because they are being persecuted and their lives are put in danger by the regimes under which they suffer. Such a system would avoid the many bad decisions in respect of asylum which have occurred in the recent past. It would enhance Britain's reputation in the world. I hope that the Minister of State will tell me that, as it is such a modest proposal, the Government are prepared to accept it.
      Mr. Stuart Holland: Under present legislation, anyone who arrives in the United Kingdom without a valid visa can be refused leave to enter, without access to the immigration appeals authority. A right of appeal is exercisable only after removal.
      There is widespread concern that that situation violates basic natural justice. All the organisations concerned with the protection of refugees are calling for a right of appeal to be exercisable before removal. As the Minister is well aware, that is the basic policy of both the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and of the British Refugee Council and its member agencies.
      I support the new clause. A review board would provide a quick and independent review of decisions to refuse asylum. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that the West German situation is quite exceptional, partly because the reference in the Grundgesetz, or basic law of West Germany, to appeal rights is itself exceptional, and partly because of the division of Germany into the Federal Republic and the Democratic Republic.
      7 pm
      A review board and review procedure could help, especially in the kind of cases on which I have recently made representations and of which I know the Minister is aware. The danger is that, without such a procedure, representations by Members of Parliament may not succeed in securing natural justice for asylum seekers in this country.
      The Minister of State is well aware that a few weeks ago I made representations on behalf of two Iraqi Kurds, that I did so on a Saturday afternoon and that I gained an assurance that my representations would be accepted. In this very tragic case, early on the Monday morning the couple concerned were removed from this country back to Yugoslavia, which had been the intermediate point of transfer for them on their way to this country.
      The position was unsatisfactory on the following grounds. A Minister of State in the Department works with officials who cannot necessarily be fully apprised of the details of cases in claims of political asylum in the very short time in which those claims are frequently rejected. It stretches the credibility of the use of the Minister's name in such a case that, when he was not in London, officials should choose to say that he had been able personally to approve the removal of these two persons. I do not want to make political capital out of that; I want simply to say that there are administrative problems. There would be problems for Ministers from parties on either side of the House if this were the basis on which decisions are taken to remove.
      In the specific case of removal to which I have referred, because of the lack of a relevant alternative body or a review board to which such matters could be referred, the couple went back to Yugoslavia, where the wife slit her

      877
      wrists. The United Nations was involved. I made representations to the Yugoslav authorities by telephone, asking that the couple should not be automatically referred back to Iran. The United Nations intervened and declared the couple to have the status of mandate refugees. The mandatory status should be such that the Minister should be able to accept the couple back into the United Kingdom.
      It is an on going matter on which I have made yet another representation to the Minister. I trust that he will be able to consider it sympathetically because, without elaborating on that case, yet another case has occurred of Iraqi Kurds. The woman in a different couple has also cut her wrists from fear of being returned and tragically, as I am sure both sides of the House will appreciate, has tried to smother her child. These are cases in which a procedure of individual representations by Members of Parliament is not adequate in addressing the issues.
      Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is setting out details of tragic cases. I hope that the question which I ask him will in no way reduce my horror because of the words that he has uttered. Is it not the case that a refugee should claim refuge in the first country to which he travels after leaving the country where he feels frightened?
      Mr. Holland: There is an inadequacy in the present rules and legislation. The fact that in this case the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees gave mandate status to these refugees shows that in his view there were exceptional circumstances which should have resulted in the refugees being able to stay in this country.
      Mr. Renton: I know well the case to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. Doubtless we will be in further communication about it, either by correspondence or by a meeting. If the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees gave these people mandate status, surely that meant specifically that Yugoslavia, which was the safe third country for them—as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) has just said—as a signatory to the United Nations convention, was bound to give them, as mandate refugees, full consideration of their refugee claim.
      Mr. Holland: Although the Yugoslav Government have recently deported several Iraqi Kurds, they have not deported this couple, precisely because of the mandate status. I will move off this case shortly, but surely the most appropriate country for this couple is the United Kingdom, not Yugoslavia.
      I should like to refer to the general principle of the new clause proposed by my right hon. Friend, and deal with refugees are escaping from a country. We have been talking about Iraqi Kurds so I shall use them as an example. Iraqi Kurds tend to come out via Turkey or through Iran. A refugee may have great difficulty getting travel documents; he may not have valid documents and he may be at risk of his life, as is the case with many Iraqi Kurds.
      In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), such a person does not hang around at the airport to get the optimum flight which would take him to the country of his primary choice, despite the fact that he may speak only, for example,
      878
      English or French. I submit to the hon. Gentleman that many fewer people in the Middle East speak Serbo-Croat than English. That does not mean that this country has an obligation to accept anyone claiming political refugee status, but it should be possible to have a review procedure which does not depend upon a Member of Parliament responding to a telephone call from an airport at a time —at the weekend as in this case—when officials are not in the Minister's private office.
      Cases slip through the cracks and procedures do not always work perfectly. Indeed, in far too many cases, the procedures work very imperfectly. If the new clause were accepted, immigration officers would recognise that in such a new review procedure they had a safety mechanism to which they could refer cases in which there was serious, but not in their view definitive, merit.
      I have an anticipation, which I trust is unfounded, that the Minister may not accept the new clause. If that is to prove the case, I hope that nonetheless he will consider seriously this procedure and the terms in which it has been put forward.
      Mr. Winnick: I should like to praise the efforts made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) in his constituency cases. I have read about some of those cases and I am sure that all hon. Members, certainly on this side of the House, have the utmost admiration for the manner in which he has pursued them. It does him credit.
      In the new clause, we are dealing with the most sensitive cases. It is difficult to imagine more sensitive cases than those which come before the immigration authorities. This country has a long and honourable tradition, which goes back centuries, as a place of asylum. It would be a bad day for us if that ever ended. We know that in the past many people who have had difficulties under their own regimes have settled here. I hope that the fact that Marx was among them will not be a reason for the Government not to look favourably on the new clause.
      Unfortunately, there remain in the latter part of the 20th century far too many tyrannical regimes. The reputation of this country is at stake, as well as the very lives of some people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall pointed out. What is vitally important is that no one should be sent back to a country where that person could face persecution or worse on grounds of race, nationality or, in some cases, of politics.
      I may be anticipating wrongly what the Minister will say in reply, but I imagine he will tell us that negotiations are taking place between the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service and the Home Office on an agreed procedure. I am aware of those negotiations, as chairman of UKIAS, and I know that considerable progress is being made.
      There is a feeling, certainly among organisations dealing with refugees, including the refugee unit of UKIAS, that the agreed procedure being negotiated between the Home Office and UKIAS is not a substitute for an independent review system. That is essential. If the Minister rejects the new clause, as I suspect he will, in my view — I am speaking personally on this matter—it is better to have procedure whereby passengers can be referred to the refugee unit of UKIAS than to have no system at all. I consider that the type of procedure being discussed by the Home Office and UKIAS is not as good as an independent review body.

      879
      Again, the Minister is likely to say that, if the new clause were accepted — I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) raised this point, although I was not in the Chamber then — we would be flooded out with many thousands of cases. I do not believe that that would be the position. Indeed, before the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 was introduced, fewer than 4,000 applications for asylum were made on average in the United Kingdom each year. That does not suggest that immigration authorities or a review body would be flooded out with cases on a daily or weekly basis.
      The other point I wish to make absolutely clear concerns the new clause not being accepted. I hope that it will be accepted, but I am not one of nature's optimists. I see that the Minister is smiling, but I know very well what he will say to the House.
      Mr. Vaz: I cannot believe that.
      Mr. Winnick: That is an understandable view, but my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has not been in the House as long as I have. He has a more optimistic nature than me, but I have known Tories well for so many years that I have become very pessimistic. I am afraid to say that my hon. Friend, in the many years that he will no doubt represent Leicester, East, will probably come to the same view. But, with any luck, we will be in government and the Minister will be in the Conservative Opposition.
      In any event, the point that I particularly want to make concerns the new clause not being agreed to. In that event, we hope that a procedure can be agreed between the Home Office and UKIAS, giving an assurance that the right of hon. Members to make representations should not be taken away. I hope that we shall not reach a position where the Minister will say that passengers have been referred to UKIAS and the Home Office has dealt with the recommendations, and therefore there is no reason for Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall to make representations.
      It is my long-held view that if we are to make representations, which we do almost daily, on both sides of the House, on behalf of our constituents, about housing, social security and other matters, where passengers or their close relatives are making representations to us, those should be dealt with in the same way. We have a right as Members of Parliament to make those representations, and no Government should try to take that away from us.
      I hope that the Minister will bear those points very much in mind. What is at stake here, certainly with regard to representations by Members of Parliament, are the very privileges and rights of Members of Parliament. I think that the Minister will find, like some of his predecessors who tried it, not very successfully, that we shall resist all such attempts, as we have done in the past. We have a right to make representations, and we shall continue to make them where we consider it is appropriate.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Renton: I thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for the quiet and considerate way in which they supported the new clause. I am sorry that they
      880
      have all anticipated my speech. I might just say "No" and then sit down. I would have immediate support from the Government Whip.
      Nevertheless, I should like to go into these matters a little further. I understand the reasons that led Opposition Members to table the new clause. I understand, too, and share their concern about the cases of those who come here claiming that they are refugees and have a well-founded fear of persecution, in United Nations convention terms, in the country from which they have come, and who are seeking asylum. Those cases must always worry very deeply all of us who become concerned with them. If we accepted the new clause, I should be the person whose work load and burden of anxiety would be most relieved. Clearly the new clause would remove a very great load from the shoulders of the Minister with responsibility for immigration, and would in essence pass the responsibility to an in-country appeal system.
      I know, without seeking tears of sympathy from anyone, that in the eight months since I took over responsibility for refugees at the Home Office, one of my major worries has been those very long and complicated files about refugee claims, which come to me virtually every night of the week and every weekend. Clearly, if there were an in-country appeal system, it would relieve much of that burden because we would be putting in an umpire, or arbitrator, to take it over. I had to disagree with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, however, when he said that he regarded the new clause as a modest proposal. I fear that it is not modest, for reasons that I shall explain shortly.
      Before I deal with that, I shall deal briefly with the case of the Iraqi Kurds that the hon. Member for Vauxhall has raised with me. It has been the subject of much agonising correspondence between us, and 1 use that word on purpose. It is true, as I said when I intervened in the speech by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, that Yugoslavia is a signatory to the United Nations convention. It falls to that country, therefore, to consider their asylum claim under the convention of 1951. There is no reason why those people should be sent to another signatory country, such as the United Kingdom, to make their claim.
      The hon. Member for Vauxhall made a very interesting comment, when he added that he thought the United Kingdom was the most appropriate country in which those people's refugee claim should be considered. The hon. Gentleman has much experience in these matters. and he will recognise that if we accepted that principle it would go to the heart of, and destroy, the principles that lie behind the 1951 United Nations convention on the status of refugees. It is an intrinsic part of the convention that the first safe third country to which a refugee goes after leaving his own country is the one that will consider the refugee claim.
      Clearly, that goes back in history to the time when the refugee convention was written, and it was essentially dealing with people moving across land frontiers, for example from parts of eastern Europe into Turkey or Germany, or later from Vietnam into Cambodia. Such refugees were moving across land frontiers to get away from an enemy of whom they were fearful and it was thought that the first safe country to which they came should therefore be the one that considered their refugee claim.
      The convention including all that detail was written and designed long before the days of 747s and mass travel,

      881
      which, sad to say—although we have to accept the fact — enable people to be moved about the world by ruthless "travel agents", who take their life savings, give them false passports or visas, and say that they will get them into, say, the United Kingdom or Canada. "There," they say, "you must claim refugee status. Your claim will be considered, and it will take so long to be resolved that in the end you will be able to stay there."
      The hon. Member for Vauxhall must think through that point. If we accepted that those who claim refugee status should end up in the most appropriate country for them, it could only add stimulus to what is already a worrying movement—aided by the ruthless travel agents whom I have described. There would be an increased tendency to move around the world people who, for wholly understandable reasons, seek to improve their economic conditions elsewhere, and who are advised that the best way to do that is to claim on arrival that they wish to seek asylum because they are afraid to go back.
      Mr. Holland: Clearly, times have changed. The cross-border movements between east and west Europe as well as those from Eastern Europe, to, say, Turkey, have been superseded by jet air travel.
      Taking that into account, surely the Minister will recognise that there are appropriate differences which should be taken into account in determining whether someone should stay in one country rather than another —for example, whether that person has relatives here, as well as whether he speaks the language. It may well be the case that we should be looking at the United Nations code, while preserving the crucial principle that, to prevent refugees from being bundled back into the country from which they came, the first country should be the prior country.
      Mr. Renton: When we consider a refugee claim to this country and there is no safe third country, we always take into consideration whether the person has relatives here, particularly if we give exceptional leave to remain.
      I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's wish for a reexamination of the United Nations convention. I do not feel that it is working very well at present. One of the problems is that other countries are not as honourable as we are — I name no names — in living up to their obligations, although they are signatories to the convention.
      One of our difficulties is that, because Heathrow is such a major airport and aeroplanes call there in transit throughout the world, it is easy for an immigration service in another country to plant refugees that it does not wish to look after on an aeroplane that will land in transit at Heathrow. While the passengers may be ticketed through from Heathrow, there will be no firm booking. Those are the people who leave the aeroplane at Heathrow and whom we find wandering around terminal 2 or 3. Their passports and air tickets have been destroyed, and it falls to us to consider their refugee claims — although it is clear that they have been in a safe third country on the way.
      I fear that, if we open up the UN convention, given the pressures on economic migration throughout the world, it will be extraordinarily difficult to reach a definition of a refugee that is even as satisfactory as the present
      882
      definition. If the hon. Member for Vauxhall can prove me wrong, I shall be delighted to listen, because I share his view that there are problems in the present convention.
      Before I move on to the argument of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, let me say to the hon. Member for Walsall, North that I recognise his position as chairman of UKIAS, and I agree that Britain has a long and honourable reputation for looking after refugees. Where we may differ, however, is in my belief that we have nothing to be ashamed of in our present treatment of those seeking refugee status in this country.
      It is not only that, over the past eight years, we have given refugee status to some 8,000 people, and have taken 20,000 Vietnamese. We have also given 7,000 exceptional leave to remain. It is a great pity that such organisations as Amnesty International, for which I have a great respect, occasionally put out circulars that give the impression that we are not living up to our obligations. I wholly reject that.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook described the new clause as a modest proposal. I do not agree, for the reasons that he himself predicted. It is not, of course, a new proposal; the Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration made such a recommendation in 1985, and the issue has been taken up since by the British Refugee Council and by Amnesty. Each time that it has been raised, we have considered it very carefully.
      The basic argument is, as I have said, persuasive. But, as SCORRI recognised—and as the experience of other Western European countries amply demonstrates—the proposed solution carries the potential for considerable abuse. At present, a person who arrives at a United Kingdom port seeking entry and is refused has no in-country right of appeal, unless he has an entry clearance or work permit. In that respect, asylum seekers are in the same position as anyone else who seeks to enter the country. If, however, we were to introduce an in-country right of appeal for asylum seekers, it takes little imagination to guess what would happen.
      Some 23,000 people were refused leave to enter the United Kingdom in 1986, the last full year for which statistics are available. If all that they had to do to delay their removal was claim asylum, there is little doubt that many — indeed, probably most — would do so. They would simply say the magic words, "I fear persecution in the country whence I have come" — whether that country was Iran, Iraq or the United States. They would then be within our appeal system immediately, with all that that involves—including lengthy consideration and, it must be said, excessive delays. That certainly seems to be the experience of other European countries.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to the West German experience, which is certainly the most dramatic. It may not be entirely typical, as the right hon. Gentleman said, because of the Berlin gap which has now been closed. It is a fact, however, that West Germany has some 800,000 outstanding applications for asylum, of which, from experience, only 8 per cent. of which are likely to prove well-founded. Because of the delays involved, the majority — perhaps as many as 90 per cent. — will ultimately be allowed to remain in West Germany. But it is taking years for their cases to be considered.
      I know that full well, because a constituent came to see me about her brother, who was in one of the camps in West Germany and was seeking refugee status in that country. He had already been there for three or four years, and had no prospect of even getting out of the camp or of

      883
      learning German. My constituent's purpose in coming to see me was simply to ask whether there was any chance of his being able to come to the United Kingdom, because his future in the refugee camp was so bleak and it would take so many years for his claim to be considered.
      Mr. Hattersley: The Minister's logic puzzles me. He tells us that Germany is always untypical, and agrees with my contention that there is no comparison. He then goes on to say that our proposals cannot be implemented by comparing what may happen here with what is happening in Germany. That does not make sense to me.
      Mr. Renton: Very well. I will read the statistics for other continental countries.
      The same enormous increase has occurred in virtually every other west European country. The total number of asylum seekers in west European countries, including Austria, went up from 92,000 in 1984 to 184,000 in 1986. Denmark is in many ways a much more interesting example than West Germany, because it has no Berlin gap. Denmark introduced an in-country appeal system no different from that pressed on us by Opposition Members. Within a month, 3,000 people applied for asylum there. As a result, Denmark did what a number of other countries are now beginning to do, and introduced a system much closer to ours—in which, I understand, there is no in-country appeal system.
      Mr. Madden: I can understand why the Minister of State is taking so long defending the status quo when I gather that the Home Office is shortly to announce a new referral system for refugees, whereby UKIAS will be the referral agency. I understand that the Minister is quoted extensively in New Society this week as saying that the arrangements have been agreed and that UKIAS will receive additional funding to enable it to carry out that referral work. May we have some information about those arrangements, rather than the tedious defence of that existing situation?
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Renton: I should like to think that the hon. Gentleman found my defence of the present position extremely conclusive. Whatever the superficial and emotional attractions of the in-country appeal system, we do not want to fall into the same trap and the same pitfalls as some of our western European neighbours, from which they are now having to resile, with all the unhappiness and the inconvenience, not least to the asylum applicants in their own countries, that has occurred from going down the wrong route.
      The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) made a point about IKIAS and I shall come to that in my closing remarks. Unfortunately, I am not like the hon. Gentleman and do not receive my copy of New Society three days early. I do not get it until the weekend, so I have not yet had the benefit of reading what will be written on Wednesday or Thursday of this week.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook argued that the scope of his new clause would be limited to those travelling directly from the country in which they fear persecution. I think that the right hon. Gentleman said that it would not be possible for a person to use the safe third country and claim that he feared persecution in that country. That is certainly in the new clause as drafted. Surely that is incorrect, because all that a person would have to do to
      884
      achieve an in-country right of appeal would be to claim to fear persecution not only in his country of origin, but in whichever country he has travelled from.
      Thus, an Afghani, travelling to the United Kingdom via Pakistan, would claim to fear persecution in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and would then have an automatic right to remain in the United Kingdom while his appeal against refusal was heard. Even in cases that are clearly absurd and even abusive — where, for example, the third country was the Netherlands or Sweden—there would be no denying an in-country right of appeal.
      Therefore, I am afraid that the new clause would, as I have said, substantially increase the number of applications made at ports in the United Kingdom. It would thus introduce lengthy delays in the determination of such applications and that, frankly, would be to the disadvantage of genuine refugee applicants coming here. I hope that the Opposition Members who have tabled the new clause will, on second thoughts, see its great intrinsic disadvantages.
      I return to the point raised by the hon. Members for Walsall, North and for Bradford, West. I accept that some form of independent input in the refugee determination procedure is desirable. That is why I and my officials have been discussing revised referral arrangements with UK LAS and UNHCR, whereby the majority of cases arriving at ports will be referred to UKIAS, which will be able to consider the cases and offer observations on them. They will then be carefully considered and if there is any difference of view between UKIAS and officials in the refugee unit, I shall look into the case personally.
      Although that does not go as far as a full appeals procedure, I hope that hon. Members will agree that it will be a useful safeguard. We are not there yet and, contrary to anything that New Society may say, the hon. Member for Walsall, North knows that we have not yet reached full agreement with UKIAS on all the details. 1 understand that a further meeting is planned shortly and, for the reasons that I have stated, I hope that we will reach agreement soon.
      Mr. Winnick: I do not want to comment on the negotiations as that would certainly not be in order. However, I should like the Minister to confirm a point that I was making a few moments ago. Does he accept that any agreement reached between UKIAS and the Home Office must not and cannot take away the right of hon. Members to make representations when they consider that that is appropriate?
      Mr. Renton: On Third Reading, I propose to make a few comments about hon. Members' representations, on which Opposition Members have aired their views. I should like to leave the hon. Gentleman's comments until that debate.
      Although as I said, the UKIAS procedure is not yet finalised, I hope that that will be so in a matter of a few weeks.
      I appreciate that the treatment of refugees is an emotional matter. It is important that all refugees—that is, all those who come here claiming asylum — should have their cases deeply considered, but, for the reasons that I have stated, I do not believe that Opposition Members have thought through the consequences of their new clause. I hope that on consideration they will riot seek to press it to a vote.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 263.

      Division no.182]

      [7.35pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Fraser, John

      Allen, Graham

      Galbraith, Sam

      Anderson, Donald

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      George, Bruce

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Ashton, Joe

      Gordon, Mildred

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Graham, Thomas

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Battle, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Beith, A. J.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Bell, Stuart

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Henderson, Doug

      Blair, Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

      Blunkett, David

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Boyes, Roland

      Holland, Stuart

      Bradley, Keith

      Home Robertson, John

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Howells, Geraint

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Buckley, George J.

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Caborn, Richard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Ingram, Adam

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Janner, Greville

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      John, Brynmor

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Lambie, David

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Lamond, James

      Clay, Bob

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Clelland, David

      Leighton, Ron

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cohen, Harry

      Lewis, Terry

      Coleman, Donald

      Litherland, Robert

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Livsey, Richard

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McAllion, John

      Cousins, Jim

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cox, Tom

      McCartney, Ian

      Crowther, Stan

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Cryer, Bob

      McFall, John

      Cummings, John

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McKelvey, William

      Cunningham, Dr John

      McLeish, Henry

      Darling, Alistair

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dewar, Donald

      McTaggart, Bob

      Dixon, Don

      McWilliam, John

      Doran, Frank

      Madden, Max

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Marek, Dr John

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Eastham, Ken

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Martlew, Eric

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Maxton, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Meacher, Michael

      Fatchett, Derek

      Meale, Alan

      Fearn, Ronald

      Michael, Alun

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Fisher, Mark

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Flannery, Martin

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Flynn, Paul

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Foster, Derek

      Morley, Elliott

      Foulkes, George

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      886

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mullin, Chris

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

      Murphy, Paul

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

      Nellist, Dave

      Soley, Clive

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Spearing, Nigel

      O'Neill, Martin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Stott, Roger

      Parry, Robert

      Strang, Gavin

      Patchett, Terry

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Turner, Dennis

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Vaz, Keith

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wall, Pat

      Radice, Giles

      Walley, Joan

      Randall, Stuart

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Reid, Dr John

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Richardson, Jo

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Robertson, George

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Rogers, Allan

      Wilson, Brian

      Rooker, Jeff

      Winnick, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Rowlands, Ted

      Worthington, Tony

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wray, Jimmy

      Salmond, Alex

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Mr. Allen Adams.

      Short, Clare

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Butcher, John

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Butler, Chris

      Alexander, Richard

      Butterfill, John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Amess, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Amos, Alan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Arbuthnot, James

      Carttiss, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cash, William

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Ashby, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Colvin, Michael

      Atkins, Robert

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Atkinson, David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Couchman, James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Baldry, Tony

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

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Devlin, Tim

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dover, Den

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dunn, Bob

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Durant, Tony

      Benyon, W.

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Forman, Nigel

      Boswell, Tim

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Forth, Eric

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Franks, Cecil

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      French, Douglas

      Brazier, Julian

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bright, Graham

      Gill, Christopher

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Glyn, Dr Alan

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

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Gow, Ian

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Burns, Simon

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Burt, Alistair

      Gregory, Conal

      887

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Miller, Hal

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Grist, Ian

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Ground, Patrick

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Moate, Roger

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mudd, David

      Hannam, John

      Neale, Gerrard

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

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Neubert, Michael

      Harris, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hayward, Robert

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Page, Richard

      Heddle, John

      Paice, James

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Pawsey, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hill, James

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Price, Sir David

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Raffan, Keith

      Holt, Richard

      Redwood, John

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Renton, Tim

      Howard, Michael

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

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

      Riddick, Graham

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rost, Peter

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rowe, Andrew

      Irvine, Michael

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Irving, Charles

      Ryder, Richard

      Jack, Michael

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Jackson, Robert

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Janman, Tim

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Jessel, Toby

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Key, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Kilfedder, James

      Shersby, Michael

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Sims, Roger

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Knapman, Roger

      Speed, Keith

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Speller, Tony

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Knowles, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Knox, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Stern, Michael

      Lang, Ian

      Stevens, Lewis

      Latham, Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Stokes, John

      Lilley, Peter

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Sumberg, David

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lord, Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Maclean, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Tracey, Richard

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Trippier, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Trotter, Neville

      Mans, Keith

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Marland, Paul

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Walden, George

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Waller, Gary

      Mellor, David

      Ward, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Warren, Kenneth

      888

      Watts, John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wells, Bowen

      Wood, Timothy

      Wheeler, John

      Woodcock, Mike

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Wilkinson, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wilshire, David

      Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Mr. David Lightbown.

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Question accordingly negatived.

    SCHEDULE

      MINOR AMENDMENTS
      Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 7, line 2, leave out from 'words' to end of line 6 and insert
      '"and the immigration officer does not at the same time give him indefinite or limited leave to enter, he shall be deemed to have been given leave to enter for a period of six months subject to a condition prohibiting his taking employment and the immigration officer shall as soon as may be give him written notice of that leave."'.—[Mr. Renton.]
      Mr. Randall: Opposition Members fully support the amendment because, essentially, it is the amendment that we tabled in Committee. We claim full credit for it and expect all hon. Members to support it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      7.48 pm
      Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Bill has now been considered fully in the House. In Committee alone, some 62 hours were spent examining its provisions in detail. That reflects the importance that the House rightly attaches to immigration matters. It also reflects the loquacity of the Opposition. On one occasion, they spent two hours complaining that the telephone number at the Home Office had been changed. That showed their determination to waste the Committee's valuable time rather than get down to the important matters of immigration policy that concern us all.
      On the whole, the Committee was very amicable in its approach to the problems. I am pleased that — as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said — we were able to accept on the last morning an Opposition amendment to substitute the word "six" for the word "three". It was an important amendment, and I am pleased that, in the typically moderate manner that characterised Conservative Members' conduct throughout the proceedings in Committee, we were able to agree with the Opposition on this matter.
      As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have said, the Bill does not make major alterations to the structure of immigration control. The Immigration Act 1971 will continue to provide the overall framework within which immigration control will operate, but the Bill does make important changes, and it is therefore right that it should have been subjected to close scrutiny.
      The Bill has stood up to that scrutiny very well. I do not propose to take up the time of the House by rehearsing in detail its contents and the effect of its provisions. Hon. Members who served for 62 hours on the Committee will be well aware of its detail. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) nodding in approval.

      889
      I shall mention briefly the parts of the Bill that will have perhaps the greatest impact in improving the fair and efficient working of immigration control. Clause 1, which repeals section 1(5) of the 1971 Act, will make control fairer by removing the discriminatory advantage that the 1971 Act confers on just one group of people —Commonwealth male citizens who were settled here before 1 January 1973.
      Clause 3, by making universal the wholly sensible requirement that people claiming the right of abode in this country should establish that right from abroad before travelling here, will close an avenue of possible abuse and will therefore be fairer to all those who wish to come here.
      Clause 4 will enable action to be taken more effectively against overstayers and those who breach the conditions of their leave. In effect, clause 5 will ensure that prosecution action can be taken against those who knowingly remain in this country after their leave has expired. As the Committee found, those are wholly reasonable provisions. They protect the interests of those who are already lawfully settled here, while being fair to those who wish to come here from overseas. Their intentions and effects have been examined thoroughly in the House, and they now go forward for further scrutiny in another place.
      Mr. Dave Nellist: I understand that earlier the Minister referred to the mountain of almost 250,000 applications for registration under the various nationality proposals and that he made an announcement about the redeployment of staff to deal with that. In the past hour, I have received a written reply from the Minister, in which he refuses to give the grounds that will be considered acceptable to justify a late application for registration as a British citizen made by Commonwealth and Irish citizens resident in the United Kingdom since 1 January 1973.
      The Minister says that the circumstances of each case will be considered. Will he explain what those circumstances are, so that Members of Parliament and bodies such as the Coventry community relations council can advise people whether a late application is likely to be heard by his Department? The answer that I have received today, like those that other hon. Members have received in recent weeks, leave us in the dark.
      Mr. Renton: I cannot take that intervention from the hon. Gentleman. He did not serve on the Committee and he was not present during the debate. To go on Third Reading into the detailed circumstances in which every application for variation of leave will be considered at Lunar house would be a terrible waste of time. I have given the hon. Gentleman a written answer to his point about the circumstances in which late applications will be considered. If the hon. Gentleman has not been sent a copy of it, I shall ensure that he is sent one.
      Mr. Nellist: I have it here.
      Mr. Renton: That gives the hon. Gentleman the answer that he requires. I shall mention briefly two subjects and then broaden my remarks before concluding. Although, strictly speaking, they are not relevant to the Bill, I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will allow me to do so, because they have been the subject of comment by, and interest among, hon. Members in recent months.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I must remind the Minister that Third Reading is very narrow. What he has to say must be confined to the Bill.
      Mr. Renton: I shall try you out, Madam Deputy Speaker, and hope that you will forgive me. If you do not, I shall move on immediately.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not forgive easily.
      Mr. Renton: The two issues are Members' representations in immigration cases and DNA testing. As hon. Members will know, these matters were discussed at length in Committee.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: In that case, it is part of the debate on the Bill.
      Mr. Renton: You are generous, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that your decision will be welcomed by hon. Members.
      The House will recall that we are reviewing the system by which hon. Members can make representations. I mentioned this earlier in answer to a query from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The review is not yet complete, and I do not wish to anticipate what we shall put forward by way of detailed proposals. However, I should stress that we shall not take any action without full consultation. It will be some little time before the review is completed, but we shall bring our proposals before the House at the earliest possible date, and I remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already confirmed that there will be an opportunity for a debate.
      Mr. Winnick: With regard to hon. Members' representations, is the Minister saying that that review could lead to the rights of hon. Members to make representations being undermined?
      Mr. Renton: No. The hon. Gentleman cannot lead me down that path. I said clearly that I did not want to anticipate what we would put forward by way of detailed proposals. It would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman to ask me to do so by giving hypothetical answers in response to one particular category of proposals or another. The hon. Gentleman will have to be patient.
      Hon. Members will be pleased to know that the report of the DNA pilot trial that we have been running has been drafted. I do not want to say anything yet about its conclusions, because we are consulting the scientists who have been concerned with the trials to ensure that the report—this will be of particular interest to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz)—is accurate and complete. The report will be published as soon as possible after those consultations.
      Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm a recent parliamentary answer from the Attorney-General, in which he made it clear that legal aid is available to cover the costs of DNA applications where the issue of a relationship is central to the application, and that guidance has been issued to local legal aid committees in the hope that they will adopt a consistent approach in this matter?
      Mr. Renton: It is not for me to confirm an answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I have seen that answer, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to query any detail of it, doubtless he will do so by writing to my right hon. and learned Friend.

      891
      The Labour party has consistently tried to make a major issue out of the Bill.
      Mr. Vaz: It is a major issue.
      Mr. Renton: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It started with the excessive denunciations of the Bill by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on Second Reading, and it continued for 62 hours in Committee. We heard the cries of the hon. Member for Leicester, East, who is always seeking publicity and headlines in the Asian Times, that the prime purpose of the Bill—I remember the headline well—was "to divide families". To that was added the implication of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that we were completely removing the right in all appeals to argue on compassionate grounds. Much though I enjoyed listening to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, he often showed an astounding lack of comprehension of the Bill. Labour's determination to make a major issue out of this surprised me.
      When most people see a bonfire smouldering in a potentially dangerous spot, they tend to run to it with a bucket of water, but on immigration issues Labour Members approach the bonfire with a large can of paraffin. Unfortunately, on their way, they usually trip on some great rock of misunderstanding or lack of comprehension and spill the paraffin on the ground. That is just as well, because if they reached the bonfire with their load of fuel they could and would cause a lot of damage.
      Labour's whole approach has been foolish and wrong. It has been foolish, because no one should approach race relations other than with great care, having first thought the matter through very carefully—
      Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman should know.
      Mr. Renton: I do know. That is why I say that no one should approach the subject without thinking carefully what is the wise minimum that can be said that will enhance the stability of our mixed community.
      Race relations are calm in Britain at the moment—thank God for that. They were not an issue at the last election, and the Government have embarked on many positive steps to improve the integration of the ethnic minority into our community, not least in the difficult inner-city areas. To mention only a few examples, we are continuing to support the work of the Commission for Racial Equality in countering unlawful discrimination with an £11 million grant in 1987–88. We are providing grants to local authorities, under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, to meet special needs. Ten thousand posts that are currently funded, mainly in education, cost the taxpayer £100 million. The police force is—I hope— becoming more responsive and representative. There are now more than 1,000 ethnic minority officers, and vigorous action has been taken to combat racial attacks, and to improve training in community and race relations. That is all as it should be, and the Home Office, in which I am a Minister, will continue to do its best to achieve greater harmony.
      If people keep crying, "Racist, racist," often and long enough, someone will believe them. That works to the benefit of no sensible person, yet the speeches of the hon. Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) in Committee harked on the racist theme and, in the process, served the interests of
      892
      no one who believes in good community relations. Opposition Members lectured us in Committee, saving that only they knew the minds of the ethnic minority and that we did not — a presumptuous and self-seeking attitude. How did they use their knowledge? They sought to destroy stability, to arouse disharmony and to excite fear by attributing all sorts of changes to the Bill that it did not contain.
      I am pleased to see the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) and for Leicester, East in their places tonight. I had thought that they would bring an insight to our discussions, but they did not. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington declaimed to the Committee, not from the head, but from the stomach, the seat of all passion; but passion is not the best emotion for the sensible consideration of race relations. Calm, shrewd judgment and wisdom are needed. The hon. Member for Leicester, East, a solicitor who specialises in immigration cases, might have given us—I thought—those qualities, but he did not either. From him we heard long-winded exaggeration and torrents of hyperbole that drowned us in a mixture of boredom and nausea.
      The Labour party was foolish and wrong, because, as the Home Secretary has said all along, this is a modest Bill —no more and no less. It reinforces our immigration code in a few areas in which gaps have appeared since the 1971 Act. The ethnic minority in Britain—
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell rose—
      Mr. Renton: I am coming to the end of my remarks, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak later, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      The ethnic minority in Britain have much to fear from the Labour party, with its ill-thought-out promises completely to repeal the Immigration Act 1971 and the British Nationality Act 1981. Opposition Members have never given any thought—[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West is waking up. They have never given any thought to the effect that repeal of those important measures would have on race relations in Britain or on the greatly increased numbers that would then come for primary settlement in this country.
      Mr. Bidwell rose—
      Mr. Renton: Despite what Opposition Members have said, the ethnic minority have nothing to fear from the Bill. Stopping abuse of our immigration system will lead to better and more harmonious community relations, because no one, whatever his background or racial origins, likes to see evaders who are illegally here getting away with their evasion. I commend the Bill to the House.
      8.4 pm
      Mr. Randall: One thing has been clear on Second Reading and in Committee: there is uncertainty about why the Government have introduced the Bill, which is restrictive. Essentially, it has to do with taking rights from people. The scope of the restrictions is considerable, and I shall briefly summarise them.
      Clause 1 is about the breaking of a promise made by a Tory Government in 1971. It will have the serious effect of preventing the reunification of families. From now on,

      893
      I do not see how the Government can claim to be called the party of the family. The Government's actions in this clause can only be described as anti-family.
      For example, as a result of clause 3, children will lose their chance to be present at an appeal in the United Kingdom when they wish to exercise their rights to settle here and there is dispute about their relationship with their parents. Much of the anguish experienced by some of those people could be overcome if the Government stopped dragging their feet over their decision to introduce DNA testing, which can prove family relationships and which should be free of charge, particularly for poor families.
      We are emphatically opposed to clause 4 and believe that the Government should have withdrawn it. It will remove the appeal procedures that take compassionate circumstances into account when those who have overstayed are to be deported. The Labour party does not condone breaking the law, but it is vital for hon. Members to recognise that overstaying can happen for all sorts of technical and seemingly trivial reasons, sometimes outside the control of the person concerned.
      For instance, a student may become an overstayer because his college registrar persistently fails to deal appropriately with certain forms and documentation to do with the student's courses, in conjunction with the Home Office. Deportation is such a serious matter that, before it happens, the merits of a case should be considered in an appeal procedure. However, the Government have decided to strip people of these fundamental appeal rights, and we deplore that.
      In clause 5, the Government have decided to use the unnecessarily heavy-handed approach of the criminal law to deport overstayers, rather than the perfectly adequate and effective administrative procedures that are currently in force. Clearly, there is a serious risk that race relations —especially in our inner cities—could be impaired by the unnecessary use of the police in deportation cases. The police are already overstretched, attempting to deal with the record levels of crime that have arisen under this Government, without having also to become involved in immigration control. It is wrong and unnecessary for the Government to have recourse to the criminal law in this way.
      Why have the Government introduced this unnecessary and highly restrictive Bill? They have two motives. During the general election last year, the Tory Party decided to play the race card in an attempt to save the rapidly sinking Conservative candidate for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, Mr. Piers Merchant. As we know, Mr. Merchant lost his seat and the Tory party was landed with a number of commitments, which essentially meant placing restrictions on black people and their families.
      The emphasis on polygamous marriages during the election campaign—there are only about 20 cases a year —was one element of the Tory party's obscene tactics. The Government are now expected to deliver a Bill that meets the commitments made during the election campaign, but which will do nothing for race relations. Clearly, the Bill is a wasted opportunity.
      The second Government motive is to reduce the administrative burden in the immigration and nationality department, at a time when the demand for its services is growing. Currently there is an administrative shambles at
      894
      Lunar house, Croydon, with roughly 200,000 unopened letters. Those received in November 1987 are only now being opened. The Minister has told us of some of his plans to deal with that absurd situation, but it is remarkable that he failed to take action before to prevent that chaos arising. He should have pre-empted the demands that arose as a result of the registration system and its deadline of 31 December 1987. That failure makes the Minister look quite inept.
      The Government's obsession with cutting public expenditure means that the Home Office is attempting to tackle the chronic problems at Lunar house with what could be called "efficiency improvements". Such measures require the staff to do less work on certain types of case, and that is achieved by removing fundamental rights—for example, the appeal rights that we discussed earlier. Those rights have been taken away from immigrants or would-be immigrants. Clearly, one way of protecting those rights would be to provide more building space and staff at Lunar house, but that would cost money.
      I believe that a parallel can be drawn between the National Health Service crisis and the administrative crisis that exists at Lunar house. In the NHS, services are being withdrawn from some of our hospitals because there are not enough nurses, as a result of cash shortages, to provide them. The consequence is hardship or, in some cases, death. The evidence from our hospitals unequivocally demonstrates that problem.
      Cash shortages in the immigration service also mean insufficient staff and other resources to cope with the current work load. As a consequence, the Government are reducing vital services, and that in turn is causing delay, worry, stress and hardship for immigrants and their families.
      It is clear that the Government's second motive is to reduce service levels to the users to save money, irrespective of the effect on families and individuals. That is a ruthless and inhumane strategy and it deserves total condemnation. That policy shows—as in the case of the NHS — that the Government have no scruples in attaching greater value to money rather than to the wellbeing of people. For that reason, the Labour party strongly condemns the Bill.
      The Government's credibility on improving the cost-effectiveness of the administration of the immigration service must surely come into question when one considers the visa system that was introduced in 1986. On that occasion, the Home Secretary said:
      "Changes have been made … because of the pressure on Heathrow airport in particular … changes will improve conditions for all passengers arriving at our ports and for all those in this country who come to greet them.—[Official Report, 27 October 1986; Vol. 103, c. 86, 91.]
      It is clear that the Home Office has failed— the blame must rest with the Minister — to meet its objectives. There are still serious delays at our ports, especially for non-British and non-EEC passengers. Indeed, serious delays are still being encountered at Heathrow.
      One objective of the visa system was to improve things for visitors to our country. However, it should be noted that there has been no improvement in the condition of detainees at Heathrow. People are having to sleep on benches or on the floor, without food, blankets or even drinks. Reports suggest that some immigration officers are so appalled by the treatment of detainees that they pay for

      895
      tea and sandwiches out of their own pockets. In 1987, one of the detainees who was kept in such unacceptable conditions was a pregnant woman.
      That is a disgraceful way in which to treat visitors to our country. It shows that the Government's attempt to contain staff costs as a result of efficiency improvements has, at best, resulted in no improvement in service levels for visitors to this country and those people who go to Heathrow to greet them.
      Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is always extremely critical of our decision to introduce the visa system for five countries a year ago. If he were ever in office, would he cancel that system?
      Mr. Randall: I believe that the Minister has completely missed the point—
      Mr. Renton: Answer the question.
      Mr. Randall: I am. The fact is that the visa system had the aim of improving the services for visitors to this country with regard to delays and detention conditions. However, I have reports from the Home Office that show that those conditions have not been improved satisfactorily. We must consider the treatment of people and how their treatment reflects on the credibility of the Minister. The Minister has missed the point— I am talking about the administration of his Department.
      If the introduction of the visa system is anything to go by, it is difficult to feel confident in the Minister's ability to resolve the administrative crisis in the immigration service. There is an obvious mismatch between the demands on that service and the resources needed to meet them.
      About a week ago, the House debated the latest changes in the immigration rules. The main purpose of those changes was to reduce the work load at Lunar house for particular types of case work—for example, foreign nationals wishing to extend their stay in the United Kingdom. Although I said then that I accepted that some of those changes were welcome, it is a matter of considerable concern that the so-called "improvements" in cost-effectiveness could result in a deterioration of services for some visitors.
      The new rules state that, on arriving in this country, all visitors will be granted the right to remain for six months. However, it is important to note that many people currently entering the country as visitors are granted a two or three-month stay because immigration officers are suspicious about their motives, but do not have the information needed to substantiate their suspicions. According to the new rules, such suspicious people will now be granted six months leave to remain in this country. However, what happens to those people in practice is unclear. The discretion available to an immigration officer to deal with such cases will be included in the manual "Instructions to Immigration Officers", which, as we know, is unpublished.
      We are extremely worried that many of those so-called "suspicious" people will be refused entry altogether by immigration officers. I hope that the Minister can allay our fears. If such refusals were to take place —in our debate, the Minister said nothing to suggest that that would not happen, although I asked him to do so—it would be another example of how the Government's
      896
      efforts to contain costs will result in a deterioration in the service levels for the users, in this case visitors to this country.
      That worries Opposition Members. I should be grateful if the Minister will tell the House what discretionary powers he intends to grant to immigration officers through the "Instructions to Immigration Officers" manual to refuse entry to those suspicious people, and whether he expects the number of people refused entry to increase. I hope that the Minister will answer that question.
      The Government are making continuing efforts to reduce the rights of Members of Parliament in immigration cases, which the Government clearly view as extra work for the Home Office. Unquestionably, Members of Parliament play a vital role in protecting the interests of constituents and their families. I should like to make it absolutely clear that Opposition Members will strenuously oppose any further attempts by the Government to reduce the influence of Members of Parliament in immigration cases. Clearly, if the Government were to get their way, there would be a serious deterioration in the services provided to immigrants by the Home Office through Members of Parliament. I hope that the Minister will comment on the latest position with regard to the Government's discussions and considerations.
      On the face of it, there would appear to be no reason for the Government to restrict the intervention of Members of Parliament in immigration cases, except for the cost of servicing the inquiries of Members of Parliament. The service is so important to our constituents and to their families, and adequate resources must be provided so that the Home Office can deal with that vital work.
      In conclusion, the structure of this highly restrictive Bill has been influenced, among other things, by the totally inadequate administrative systems—not the people, but the systems—at Lunar house and in other parts of the Home Office. Those inadequacies are related to the fact that there are insufficient staff and other resources available to cope with the demand. The current situation at Lunar house proves that beyond any reasonable doubt. Clearly, the root cause is the Government's obsession with reducing the levels of public expenditure, irrespective of the effect of that policy on people and families.
      However, there are other considerations. The Government showed their attitude towards black people during the general election. That attitude, which has manifested itself in the Bill, was condemned by the British Council of Churches, black Church leaders and the Quakers. When I asked the British Council of Churches for a theological statement on the immigration policy in Britain, it referred me to Leviticus 19: 34:
      "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you a native among you, and you shall love him as yourself for you too were strangers, when you were in the land of Egypt."
      The Bill should have emerged from such a basis. Instead, we have something different.
      The British Council of Churches seems to sum up the Conservative Government's attitude to immigration in its letter to me when it referred to the Prime Minister's predilection for the good Samaritan. The letter said:
      "a Government supporter coming down the road from Jerusalem to Jericho would presumably have asked the beaten man if he was an overstayer seeking the right to remain in the

      897
      country on compassionate grounds. Had he answered yes, he would no doubt have been rolled off the road down into the ditch; or if he were seeking to bring his wife and children in from another country, he would have been denied all assistance because of the drain on public funds—less of a problem if he died."
      That is what the British Council of Churches think, about the Bill. For those reasons, the Labour party will be voting against this dreadful Bill tonight.
      8.25 pm
      Mr. Michael Jack: I shall not detain the House for long. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we have already spent 62 hours considering the Bill in detail in Committee.
      I start by taking great exception to the words used by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). I strongly resent being tarred as a racist, which was the import of his remarks.
      Mr. Randall: I never used the word "racist" in the whole of the Committee proceedings or in today's debate. I said that the Government have played the race card. All hon. Members know that the Government played the race card during the general election. One has only to look at the newspaper reports to see the way in which polygamy was pressed during the later stages of the election campaign.
      Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Member for slightly clarifying the situation.
      Mr. Renton: In regard to the word "polygamy", my hon. Friend will remember, as I do with pain, that Opposition Members debated polygamous marriages for six hours, but failed to vote on the relevant clause. That is a typical example of their determination to waste time.
      Mr. Jack: I accept my hon. Friend's point. I shall make some remarks about polygamy in a moment. I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West for at least clarifying the words that he used. Many Conservative Members would take exception to his remarks, as we have great concern about race relations and harmony between ethnic groups in Britain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that one letter in the general election campaign tars the entire Conservative membership with the same brush.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which he conducted the Bill and I compliment him on his humour and patience. Indeed, it was with great patience that we had to listen to many of the comments from Opposition Members.
      On the issue that Opposition Members put to the House, I live next to Preston, where there is an immigrant community, from which I have received no representations whatever on the matters contained in the Bill. I made inquiries because hon. Members representing constituencies which do not have large numbers of immigrants within their boundaries, have been chastised and told that we do not know or care about these issues. I made inquiries about whether it was a local issue. I was put firmly in my place by those involved in race relations in Preston, who told me that the Bill was not an issue; it had not been discussed, nor had it appeared in the local newspapers. I was available for comment and nobody came to see me.
      We have heard a great deal about the operation of the visa system. I note from a letter that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
      898
      Office—an interesting letter dated 11 January that was sent to a number of hon. Members. On the subject of visas and their operation, the Minister drew my attention to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants' report "Out of Sight". The letter states that that report
      "acknowledges the success of our aim to provide a quick service for the majority of applicants."
      It goes on:
      "Ministerial colleagues and officials visiting the Indian Sub-Continent have heard expressions of general satisfaction with the new visa regimes and a recognition that for bona fide travellers it offers a good service and a trouble-free passage through immigration formalities on arrival."
      That underwrites the effectiveness which is demonstrated by one figure for the period 1 November 1986 to 31 October 1987 when in Islamabad, 31,950 visa applications were received and 24,340 visas were issued — a considerable amount of work most effectively and efficiently done.
      I comment on the Bill from the background of a constituency which does not have a large immigrant population. I make that point specifically because some Opposition Members, for good reasons, have approached this subject with something akin to tunnel vision. They have not seen the wider issues and concerns of those who live in areas without large-scale immigrant population.
      Much of the Bill has to do with tolerance and good race relations. In many clauses and many ways it seeks to tighten and amend the law and certain regulations where they have been abused or found wanting. The Bill will do much to reassure people that their concerns have been properly addressed.
      There is a real worry about people who come to Britain without the necessary bona fide credentials. It may surprise Opposition Members to know that, despite the Bill, some people in Britain still feel that our regulations are extremely lax. [Interruption.] If hon. Members want to contribute, I am sure that they will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Many people do not understand the enormous range of opportunities that exist for various forms of appeal and our immigration facilities. For them, somebody either has the right to come here or not. It may interest hon. Members to know that, in the course of reviewing clause 1, and some other clauses, I made some inquiries about how other countries view their visas. It may surprise Opposition Members to hear that Britain is extremely tolerant and fair and that our waiting lists are short.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: If entering Britain is as easy and fair as the hon. Gentleman thinks, why did the family of a constituent of mine have to wait 12 years for entry clearance to come to this country from Bangladesh as perfectly legal immigrants and dependants of my constituent? They have suffered the most appalling indignity, family disunity and poverty as a result of the Home Office's inefficiency and incompetence and its deliberately understaffing the High Commission in Dhaka to reduce the number of people who come here.
      Mr. Jack: That is an individual interpretation of the situation. Had the hon. Gentleman been present in Committee for our debate on this subject, he would have found such an accusation thoroughly repudiated, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond

      899
      and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) who had visited the Indian subcontinent and had reported to us on the improved situation in the various queues that he had seen. Therefore, I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
      I have here the United States' official visa bulletin dated January 1988. I recommend that Opposition Members should read that document, because they will find that, in certain cases, unless application has been made before 1971, certain categories will not be able to enter the United States. That is not the case in Britain.
      Mr. Hanley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, should America relax those visa requirements, it would be as a tribute to our own strong system of immigration control?
      Mr. Jack: I accept that valid point.
      A similar situation also applies to appeals. I checked whether the United States, Australia and Canada had any form of compassionate appeal. When it came to technical infringements of their immigration regulations, I was staggered to find that the decision was either yes or no. In other words, a person who transgressed the regulations left, and, once having left, could not reapply to enter the United States for five years. I make these points because they put the Bill in perspective. We are not imposing such draconian measures on appeals and visas as already exist in other countries.
      Polygamy is not acknowleged by the majority of people in Britain. They will be extremely pleased that this minor measure has been included. The length of the debate that we had to suffer on this matter in Committee was a great surprise, since the Opposition then agreed.
      Overstaying is dealt with in clause 5. Many people in Britain will not understand that, before this Bill, the law gave little opportunity to prosecute those who were found to have overstayed in Britain. They will have been profoundly worried by some of the implications of stories appearing in The Sunday Times this weekend about people who were clearly here on some dubious pretext in pursuit of some kind of college education. Whatever the reason for such people being induced to come here, such stories undermine confidence in our immigration policies. Our measures on overstaying seek to plug that important gap.
      There is much in a Library note on overstaying which underpins my support for clause 1. It refers to the evasion of immigration control printed as an annex to the Commission for Racial Equality's report on immigration control procedures in 1985.
      Mr. Corbyn rose—
      Mr. Jack: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I have some information to give and only a little time in which to give it.
      Mr. Corbyn rose—
      Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to contribute to the debate, I am sure that he will have an adequate opportunity to do so.
      The report to which I referred said:
      "Overstaying constitutes a greater problem than illegal entry because of the large number of people involved."
      Clause 5 seeks to address and tighten the legal loopholes on overstaying.
      I have a relatively simple view of the matter. Someone who comes to Britain must abide by our regulations. It is not just a matter of coming here for six or 12 months and then finding some way around the regulations. The Bill
      900
      makes it relatively easy for those with bona fide reasons to come to Britain for various lengths of time, but it tries to tighten up on those who seek to abuse our regulations.
      The tightening-up measures in the Bill will do much to reassure the bulk of the British people that the Conservative party takes immigration control seriously, but couples that with a deep concern for good-quality race relations.
      8.38 pm
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I shall be brief because I know that my hon. Friends want to have a good innings, having sat patiently through the Committee stage of the Bill. I was unable to serve on that Committee, and I apologise to the House for not having been present earlier. It was because I was engaged in other parliamentary duties. Many of us suffer from the fact that we have to be in two places at the same time.
      At this late stage of the Bill, I want to reflect on some of its provisions, because I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that it seems to have had something to do with the general election. As I said on Second Reading, in order to secure a majority in Parliament, the Tories had to try to make out that they would do much better on immigration control. They tried to make out that they would be much tougher on immigration control — which meant keeping black people out of Britain—than a Labour Administration would be. That has been underscored, and it is right that it should have been.
      Secondly, what is proposed is intertwined with the mess that the Home Office has got into administratively. It has not been prepared to employ sufficient additional staff to overcome that difficulty, and things are still in a mess.
      The rules that followed the 1971 Act are of extreme importance and are debated in the House from time to time. They have for a long time been much too harshly drawn. The immigration Minister, because that is what he is, is not, he tells me, also the race relations Minister. It is a matter of some consequence that the two jobs in the Home Office seem to have been separated. I assumed in the Second Reading debate that the hon. Gentleman was the race relations Minister as well as the immigration Minister. All through the years, those two jobs have been intertwined, because they are, in conscience and in administration, inseparable.
      The immigration Minister is thus now protected from having to visit from time to time the areas that are most concerned with these problems. He goes to the Indian subcontinent, and I do not know whether he also goes to the West Indies and Africa, and he would gain from such experiences, but he is not able to gain from visiting the areas most concerned. Former Ministers, whether Labour or Tory, have so gained. It was because I wanted to question him on the separation of the duties that I sought to intervene in his speech—and he can intervene now, if he so wishes.
      I will tell the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) why the attitude to which he referred exists in the black community in Britain. The mood is that this is the Tories at it again. They expect to get harsher immigration restrictions from the Tories. That is why, by and large, they vote Labour at general elections.
      There is no reason why the present immigration Minister should go down this road. He could emerge as the most humane and the sanest immigration Minister of all

      901
      time. I believe that he is a man who is capable of listening, and above all of listening to me, a Member with the experience that I have had over the years. I pay tribute to the Home Office staff for the co-operation that I have always had from them. I hardly miss an opportunity of saying that, because I think that I owe it to them. Their courteous attitude to me is something that I cherish. They have been of enormous assistance to me over the years, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree about that.
      In the light of these additional restrictions on immigration and the removal of the differences between those who came after the operation of the 1971 Act in 1973, and those who were here before that, and in the light of the visa restriction on visitors, which is a harsher control than hitherto because it has cut out the temporary admissions that hon. Members were able to arrange, I do not believe that everything in the garden is lovely. There have been many refusals to grant visas for visits to this country, and there have been special pleadings through me and others to the control overseas. Once that decision is made, appeals are invited, but if someone wishes to visit Britain for family purposes, or even to play Kabbodi in a tournament here, and a blank refusal has been given in Delhi, it is not much good appealing when the appeal will be heard long after the application and when the tournament is over. The appeal system has not coped with the consequences of the restrictions imposed overseas.
      We need more flexibility. We were challenged to say that we would remove this element of immigration control. I do not know whether we would, but we would certainly go very deeply into the administration of the whole system. The present system is very rough justice and, if we could achieve justice only by chucking out the visa system altogether, we would do so.
      Our policy is to review substantially the British Nationality Act 1981, which took away the right of children born in this country whose parents were not British citizens automatically to be regarded as British citizens. There was no need at all for that, and as a result of one of the hon. Gentleman's predecessors going to Southall that was to some extent mitigated. That is the sort of thing that the hon. Gentleman will be missing. As a consequence of that visit, a change was made for children who were resident in Britain, regardless of the status of parents, and that still prevails as far as I know.
      The Minister could have come to the House and said that there was such a terrible mess in the Home Office that he wanted to cut down the administrative activities; that they had promised in the election that they would be tougher than a Labour Government but that he would look again at the immigration rules. We have not finished with him yet. He is going to come back and tell us how they propose to change the immigration rules. We shall be looking anxiously for the details of that.
      One thing that the Minister could do is relax the restrictions on the widow who wants to come to Britain to join her offspring, on the grounds that she is emotionally attached to her children and grandchildren here, instead of applying the harsh rule that she has a close relative to turn to and is not wholly dependent on her offspring in this country. He could ease that considerably, and he would be the pin-up boy in the areas affected by these problems.
      902
      I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to be a good immigration Minister. When his colleague at the Home Office comes to areas such as mine to have a powwow and go into the realities of these matters, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come along as well. He will not get eggs chucked at him, as immigration Ministers are said to have had in other areas. He will get a constructive agenda for the discussion of the nitty-gritty matters that could not be sewn up in the 1971 Act.
      The rules need continuous review, especially over the $64,000 question of husbands and wives and their purpose in wanting to come here. There are women now waiting for their husbands to join them, or perhaps they are over in India with their husbands who are trying to get them back here to settle, as is their right. This is what the Government's policy is supposed to be about, and it is what the European convention on human rights is supposed to be about.
      Even when a child is born to a couple, it is still said that their marriage was one of convenience. All marriages are a matter of convenience. My marriage was a matter of convenience. What is a marriage of convenience? A marriage is an agreement between two people, and they have to see each other, but that is not enough. There may be a delicate balance as to whether the young man or woman wants to come to Britain simply for economic purposes after the marriage, but that should be good enough and the rules should be changed accordingly. I give the Minister those two tips so that he may be seen in a better light than at present in the eyes of the black community.
      8.50 pm
      Mr. Jacques Arnold: I speak in support of the Bill because it represents an intention to tighten the regulations on immigration and to ease the considerable pressure on Lunar house. I represent 7,000 Sikh constituents in Gravesend and Northfleet. Every week at my surgeries I come across cases involving immigration and I deal with them as any other Member would. Some cases cause considerable concern and it is clear that the regulations must be improved. The Bill represents improvement, but at each stage of the recent improvement we have had the same scaremongering from Labour Members, which worries vulnerable people in the community.
      I refer to a case in point. The Government wisely introduced visas for visitors from India and elsewhere, in the light of the terrible scenes that used to occur at Heathrow, where people came to this country from India and elsewhere to visit their families and did not know until they got here whether they would be admitted. This put unreasonable strain on the traveller and on my constituents who went to meet their families, so the Government sensibly arranged for the clearances to be done in India through the visa system.
      How was the new regulation received by Opposition Members? I noticed that when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) was asked whether Labour would repeal the visa requirement, he wriggled on the hook and did not give a clear answer. Opposition Members are concerned only to cash in and play on the fears of people.
      The House should be told how the visa operation is progressing. I quote from a report of the community relations officer in my borough, a Sikh gentleman who is

      903
      also a Labour councillor, by the name of Mr. Gurdev Singh Talwar. He travelled to New Delhi and visited the high commission to see how the issuing of visas was being handled. Councillor Talwar said:
      "I went there to find out for myself how the new regulations were working. I was sceptical before my visit, but now I think everything is being done fairly."
      He said that while at the high commission he sat in on interviews, and added:
      "I was quite satisfied with the treatment given to the applicants."
      That is from a Labour councillor who is concerned with the real issues affecting the Sikh community in my town. That contrasts remarkably with the emotive claptrap and the kind of comment I heard earlier from Labour Members.
      Mr. Madden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, since the introduction of visas more than 1,000 men, women and children per month have had their visas refused and that, if they choose to appeal against refusal, they must wait 12 months for an appeal? Has he had representations from his constituents, as I have had from mine, about the unfair way in which the visa regime is working?
      Mr. Arnold: For the information of the hon. Gentleman, I can do no more than quote from Labour Councillor Talwar, who looked at the number of visa applications processed and the number refused—looked at the facts and figures—and said:
      "That's certainly less than under the old regulations."
      Mr. Madden: That is not true.
      Mr. Arnold: This comes from a Labour councillor who is concerned with community relations. If the hon. Gentleman says that that is untrue, perhaps he can sort out another internecine dispute within the Labour party. I am concerned that the immigration controls, which we all accept must be tightly exercised, should be exercised in a humane manner and must be brought up to date. That is what the Bill attempts to do.
      8.55 pm
      Mr. Vaz: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on the issue. I have the good fortune of having spent nearly 62 hours in Committee, watching the Minister sitting across the table with a smile like an operation stretch mark, waiting to stab the black and Asian communities in the back with further legislation designed to damage relations between the black and white communities.
      Conservative Members opposite have spoken of compassion. All Labour Members who have spoken against the Bill have argued on the ground of compassion that the Bill should be amended substantially.
      Mr. Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Vaz: No, I will not give way.
      We face the intellectual inflexibility of the Minister and some of his silent colleagues. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) had a habit of jumping up and down in Committee and claimed that he was an expert on race relations because he once visited Bangladesh and he was able to speak with some authority on the needs of the black and Asian communities.
      The Bill will not, as the Minister says it will, foster good relations between the communities. It will damage
      904
      relations, specifically between black and Asian communities and the police. The front line in immigration matters is not Karachi, Dhaka, Calcutta, Bombay or Nairobi; the front line in immigration control has become Coventry, Southall, Bradford, Birmingham, Leicester and London. Family after family come to our surgeries every week and show us that the existing immigration rules and legislation are racist and unfair.
      The Bill seeks to limit and restrict the rights of black and Asian people and to truncate the rights of appeal. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) today and previously has highlighted the various clauses of the Bill. It goes beyond the rights that are described. Clause 1 goes beyond restricting rights of appeal and breaks a promise made in 1971 by a previous Conservative Government, a promise that was accepted by successive Labour and Conservative Governments. It affects especially, but not exclusively, the Bangladeshi community in Britain and, because of the crisis in local government and the pressure on housing and local government expenditure, it removes the possibility of men settled here bringing in wives and children from abroad.
      Clause 3 removes further rights. Clause 5 makes the offence of overstaying a continuing offence, thus involving the police yet again in immigration control. Clause 4 imposes an arbitrary restriction and time limit of seven years. We were not clear why the Government had introduced that seven-year limit. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes told us that it was because of the legislation relating to limitation—
      Mr. Hanley: I did not.
      Mr. Vaz: —but, of course, the Minister was able to rebuke him on that occasion, as he did on previous occasions.
      Mr. Hanley rose—
      Mr. Vaz: The purpose of legislation was to alter the decision made by members of the Court of Appeal and the other place in a number of immigration cases. It was referred to in an interview which the Minister gave to The Guardian the week before Second Reading, when he described the Bill as
      "an attempt to close loopholes and to stop judicial activism."
      The Bill sought to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal and the other place in such cases as Grant v. Borg.
      In the schedules, we find new provisions which will mean that people who apply for indefinite leave to remain in this country will for the first time be charged a fee. Those who have experience of dealing with immigration cases will know that it requires only one letter to be sent to Lunar house. The Government are proposing to add to the £6 million profit that they have made on previous nationality and citizenship matters by charging people.
      All the appeals to the Minister from organisations outside the House to try to change or amend the provisions of the Bill fell on deaf ears. Appeals have been made by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and members of the World Council of Churches. A special delegation of black Church leaders went to see the Minister and were treated by him in a patronising way. Other organisations, numerous trade unions and individuals have written to the Minister to complain about the legislation.

      905
      The legislation will seek to divide families. It will prevent the unity of families. Those who come to me and to my hon. Friends to complain about the unfairness of the immigration legislation will know what it is like to be caught in the spider's web of immigration control. Organisations in Leicester, such as the Asian Youth Project, Belgrave Bheano, the Self-Help Project, Leicester rights centre and the Highfields advice centre, deal hourly, daily, weekly and monthly with those immigration matters. A constituent of mine, Mrs. Joghirs, has been waiting nine years to be reunited with her husband. It is a long delay when it takes nine years to be reunited with one's family.
      In his speech on one of the previous clauses, the Minister made great play of my visit to Lunar house, and said that I arrived 45 minutes late. I wish to correct him, because that is yet another fact that he has got hopelessly wrong. I arrived at 10.30 am last Monday morning, having got up at 4.30 am and driven from Leicester to go to Healthrow airport, where I met members of the immigration service, who told me unanimously that they needed more members of staff at terminal 4.
      I arrived at Lunar house to view some of the 200,000 unopened letters which arrive at the rate of 2,000 a week. I saw extraordinary shortages of staff. Out of a full staffing complement of 66, only 30 people were present that morning. Out of the 22 people who should have been answering telephone calls in the public inquiry office, only 11 people were present that day. Out of the 26 people who were sitting in the public inquiry office, not one was able to speak Punjabi or Urdu. That is the state of the crisis at Lunar house.
      We should make one point clear. We are in no way criticising members of staff at Lunar house or in the immigration service. They are working under intolerable conditions which have been created by Government policies and the bad management of one person — the Minister on the Treasury Bench. If the Minister had any decency he would resign. If any other Department of Government had 200,000 unopened letters, I think the Minister would have proffered his resignation.
      Mr. Renton rose—
      Mr. Vaz: I will give way when I have finished this point.
      Hon. Members: Give way.
      Mr. Renton rose—
      Mr. Vaz: I will give way in a moment. I do not know why the Minister is getting so excited.
      The Minister has talked about the waste of taxpayers' money on me being shown round Lunar house. I am a Member of Parliament who has dealt with over 2,000 immigration cases since my election. The Minister recently went to the sub-continent. The cost of his trip was £10,600. I think that the exependiture involved in one morning on one person being shown round Lunar house by one official is quite proper for a Member of Parliament who deals with the number of immigration cases that I deal with.
      Mr. Renton: For the record, the timetable that I have from Lunar house of the hon. Gentleman's visit is that he arrived at 10.45 am, 45 minutes late and not 30 minutes late; perhaps his watch was wrong. He departed at 2.20
      906
      pm. During that time he spent one and a half hours at a local engagement. The time spent in Lunar house was two hours five minutes precisely.
      The question I should like to ask him is: what does he think he achieved? All the figures that he has given about unopened letters have been dealt with already by me in answers to questions. When he came to see me at the Home Office the next day, why did he not discuss the problems and suggest solutions rather than run off to tell his story to The Independent as quickly as he could?
      Mr. Vaz: The Minister has a nerve to tell us that we have not raised these matters before. We have raised them every day in Committee. We have proffered examples. My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) and I have come forward with solutions, but he chose not to take those solutions.
      Four days after I went to Lunar house and released my findings to the press, the Minister got on his broomstick and went from Queen Anne's gate to Croydon, where he had discussions with the unions. [Interruption.] I am delighted that, four days after my well-publicised visit to Croydon, the Minister made a visit himself to meet the unions and to come up with his proposals. It is important to show the Minister — —[Interruption.] The Minister should not interrupt so much; he should listen to what I am saying, and I will explain why his proposals will not work.
      The Minister tells me that the crisis occurred at Lunar house because he was so successful; he was the victim of his own success and his own public relations exercise. He says that because, the week before the deadline on 31 December, he made a broadcast, which we heard on Radio Leicester, urging people to apply for citizenship, and everyone decided to apply.
      I can tell the Minister something that he has not told the House: there are 72,000 passports in Lunar house at present. He nods his head. I am surprised that when he went to Croydon he did not get that information from the officials. Perhaps they were terrified of him. I asked this very question of the officials; I asked, "How many passports do you estimate are at Lunar House?" Their estimate, which they have not told the Minister, was 72,000. Therefore, 72,000 people have been waiting for their passports to be returned by the Minister.
      The Minister came to the House, not before time, and apologised for the delay. He agreed that the delay was unacceptable. He said that the work load had risen because of his marvellous public relations. He proposes that there will be an emergency deployment of 160 members of staff—that is, 160 members of the existing staff. On Monday morning of last week, the head of the post room was in negotiation with the trade union for three and one half hours; I do not know whether the Minister knows that. When the Minister went to Croydon on Friday, I am sure that he spoke to officials and to members of the trade unions.
      The proposals of the officials to send back the 72,000 passports and to acknowledge the receipt of 200,000 letters will cause further delay for people, because the Home Office is not even considering photocopying the passports before they are sent back. That will mean that, at a later date, Home Office officials must write back to applicants and those seeking a variation of leave, to ask for the passports to be returned. That will certainly create further

      907
      delays. I hope that the Minister will take this suggestion back to his officials, that those passports are photocopied before they are sent back to people, and kept in appropriate places in Lunar house.
      The second suggestion I have to make is that, instead of redeploying staff, the Minister should take on additional staff immediately. One way to ensure that this mail was opened would have been to send some of these hard-working officials, whose time he has wasted tonight sitting in this useless Report stage, back to Lunar house today. If they had been sent back there today, each of them would have been able to open at least 1,000 letters over these six hours of debate.
      Not only that but, in relation to a question I raised earlier but which was not answered by the Minister, at 7 o'clock tonight in Leicester there was a meeting of five of the most senior Home Office officials from Lunar house, who were meeting community organisations. Neither myself, the Member of Parliament for Leicester, East nor my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) who is sitting in the Chamber, nor my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) was informed of this visit by Home Office officials.
      It was only after I tabled a Question on 9 February that, two days later, a letter arrived from the Minister informing me that the officials were to visit Leicester the next day. The parliamentary Question was replied to on Monday 15 February, and the meeting was tonight. How was it possible for my colleagues and myself to be in Leicester to hear what the Home Office officials say, when we are supposed to be here in the House opposing this squalid legislation?
      If those five officials, instead of being sent to Leicester, were added to the nine officials who are sitting here, and sent to Lunar house in Croydon, that would be one way to solve the crisis of understaffing at Lunar house.
      Mr. Renton rose—
      Mr. Vaz: No, the Minister can take up this point in his wind-up. He will have plenty of time.
      Mr. Renton rose—
      Mr. Vaz: I will not give way.
      When the Minister spoke earlier, he gave us no new information about the way in which representations by Members of Parliament operated. All he said was that he was seeking consultation.
      I will give way to the Minister in a minute if he hangs on, when I have developed this point. I would like the Minister to tell us in his wind-up speech, if he is proposing to wind up, why Members of Parliament who represent areas such as Leicester, London, Birmingham, Bradford, Coventry, Manchester and Glasgow, who take up many immigration cases, are not being consulted about these new proposals. The Minister may grimace, but I have not received a letter from the Minister asking my views about representations in immigration cases. I will give way to the Minister now.
      Mr. Renton: The hon. Member is not yet speaking for the Opposition on immigration matters. That may be his ambition, but he is not yet in that position.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on this matter. I believe that the right
      908
      hon. Member for Sparkbrook still speaks for the Opposition on immigration matters. Perhaps he will give a copy of his letter to the hon. Member for Leicester, East.
      On the hon. Gentleman's specific point about advising him about Home Office officials visiting Leicester. I know very well that I signed that letter to him and to other hon. Members representing Leicester constituencies on Thursday 11 February. We did not know until Thursday that the debate was to be today. I wrote to the hon Member on 11 February. I should have thought that he would congratulate the Home Office on sending senior officials to Leicester, as they have been to Blackburn, to explain to his community leaders what is happening about the Immigration Bill. The Home Office officials are there at the invitation of Leicester county council.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. This Third Reading debate lends itself to fairly wide discussion, but I should like to hear a little more about the Bill.
      Mr. Vaz: I am only introducing matters in the same way that the Minister did when he moved the Third Reading. His point is wholly frivolous. The meeting was planned two months ago. It was planned because Home Office officials wrote to the county council two months ago and requested a visit to Leicester. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West and I were not informed until 12 February. The letter was signed 11 February, and received the following day. My parliamentary question was put down on 9 February, when I requested information on why the meeting was taking place without the Members being informed. Before the Minister comes back to the House with the details of his consultation, the Opposition would like to see a list of the individuals and organisations whom he will be consulting.
      I am pleased that the Minister has now accepted that the DNA report is completed, and Opposition Members would like to pay tribute to the work of Doctor Alec Jeffreys from Leicester university, who pioneered the scheme. I hope that the Minister will not come to us at a later date and cast doubt on the authenticity or the authority of the report, because Opposition Members believe that it should be accepted. I also believe that the test should be made freely available, and that the cost of £105 is absurdly high.
      In conclusion, let me say that the Opposition Members who sat on the Immigration Bill Committee realise one thing—
      Mr. Renton: It was a waste of time.
      Mr. Vaz: The Minister says that it was a waste of time. I believe that immigration issues are of great importance to many people in this country. However, we cannot see a single clause or even sentence in the Bill that will relieve the hardship and misery of the many thousands who wait in queues—not just those waiting for applications in this country, but those who are confined to the misery of a queue in Karachi, Dhaka, Bombay and Calcutta.
      The Minister now has his one opportunity to say firmly that he will withdraw the Bill. Otherwise, he will have the greif and misery of millions of people on his conscience for the rest of his life.
      9.17 pm
      Mr. Hanley: I merely want to put on record three or four facts that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr.

      909
      Vaz) would not allow me to mention in the middle of his speech. The gross discourtesy with which he refused to allow me to intervene was not something that I should like people to imitate, either inside or outside the House. It is sad that someone who, as we know, has better manners was so frightened and shaky that he had to deny me the chance of making a comment during his speech.
      The hon. Gentleman said that immigration law was, by its very nature, racist. He said that the Conservative Government, in the way that they have introduced changes to immigration law since 1979, were also racist. But how can a Government be racist when since they came to office they have allowed in, for permanent settlement, more than 600,000 people, over half of whom have come from the Indian sub-continent? How can a Government be racist when, since 1979, they have allowed in more than 25,000 refugees—and, of course, 20,000 Vietnamese boat people?
      This cannot be a racist Government. True racism is choosing to exploit race for one's own purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: "For political purposes."] For political purposes— indeed. Racism is choosing to manufacture fears where they do not naturally exist. It is true racism to use those from a particular racial background for political purposes, and to whip up their anxieties to manufacture —as the hon. Member for Leicester, East has shown today—fears based not on a law that is ultra-restrictive and aimed specifically at people of a particular colour, but on a minor administrative law tightening loopholes that have been exploited by those who, I should have thought, have caused as much shame to the hon. Gentleman as to others in the House.
      Too many people try to exploit immigration. As I have said, more than 600,000 people have patiently applied to settle in this country by using the immigration rules that were set down by the party of the hon. Member for Leicester, East when in government, and by our own Government. However, there are those who cannot bear to wait and who decide to push ahead. Many are helped by those who exploit them financially and mercilessly, as I have seen in Bangladesh. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have more respect for a law that has been democratically passed by this Parliament, but no, he looks for loopholes so that they can be exploited. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will live to regret that. One day, in some far distant future, he might have some responsibility for immigration in this country—although I doubt it—and perhaps he will then live to regret some of the words that he has used tonight.
      Good race relations are essential. Firm immigration control is a part of society's framework that leads to good race relations. Unrestricted immigration will lead to bad race relations. I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, East, and his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), who made long contributions in Committee, will realise that there is considerable passion, concern and affection for those in our community who make up our multiracial state.
      We believe that orderly immigration is essential for an orderly society. The Labour party—especially some of its newer and younger Members—seems to think that exploiting the race issue will bring them favour. It will not do so, even among the communities that they claim to represent. Let them listen to their wiser brethren, and
      910
      perhaps eventually they will understand that playing the race game for political purposes is cheap, cynical and disgraceful.
      9.21 pm
      Ms. Diane Abbott: The Minister accused me of speaking on this subject, and specifically on the Bill, with passion. He made that accusation as if it was entirely negative. I advise him that I plead guilty, and I hope that I will always speak with passion in this House on issues about which I feel strongly. That is what my constituents, both black and white, would expect.
      Conservative Members have implied that the number of hours that we spent on the Bill in Committee was, in some sense, a waste of time. I beg to differ. Although it is a relatively short Bill, it will have wide-ranging effects on the civil liberties of thousands of people. My hon. Friends believe that it was right to spend as much time on the Bill as we did.
      I wish to pick up two specific points that the Minister made. He started by saying that the intention of the Bill was to make control fairer. I cannot see how that will happen. Hon. Members have referred—as I do—to the plight of the Bengali community in Tower Hamlets. This is the single largest community that will be affected by clause 1, which takes away rights that were promised to Commonwealth citizens way back in 1971. The Minister knows perfectly well that the Bengali community is the largest single community that is still attempting to reunite its families.
      When the Bill becomes law, the Bengali community and other affected groups will find that the promise that was made to them by successive Conservative Governments and their Ministers that they could bring in their families without let or hindrance will be taken away. They will find themselves in double jeopardy. They cannot bring their families in unless they can provide housing, but they cannot get local authority housing because their families are not with them. I suggest to the Minister that to the average Bengali resident of Tower Hamlets it is not at all clear how the Bill will make immigration control fairer. On the contrary, it will inevitably lead to separated families.
      The Minister talked about the Bill protecting the rights of people who are already here. On the contrary, in many instances all that the Bill will do is take away peoples' rights. The Minister talked about the Bill making controls fairer, yet the Bill will put overstayers in double jeopardy. [Interruption.] Anyone in the Gallery listening to Conservative Members' comments would believe that the Government had no recourse against overstayers. That is quite wrong. There are already clear and effective administrative procedures for deporting overstayers. By adding a criminal sanction to the administrative procedures that already exist, overstayers are being put in double jeopardy quite unnecessarily.
      The Bill is supposed to make control fairer. One of its most unfortunate aspects — as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and I said in Committee—is that in certain cases it will limit the right of appeal. I realise that to the Minister and Conservative Members anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and I say about immigration is in some sense invalid. Perhaps the 1957 Franks report will carry

      911
      some credibility with Conservative Members, and I therefore quote what that report said about the right of appeal:
      "The existence of a right of appeal is salutary and makes for right adjudication."
      The Wilson committee report of 1967 said:
      "It is fundamentally wrong and inconsistent with the rule of law that power to take decisions affecting a man's whole future should be vested in officers of the executive from whose findings there was no appeal."
      Conservative Members may sneer at my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and me when we raise these matters, but they have been fundamental matters of public procedure for many many years and the limitation of the right of appeal is just one of the issues on which the Bill ought to give right-thinking people cause for concern, and just one of the ways in which we believe that, far from making control fairer, the Bill will make control less fair.
      Mr. Renton rose—
      Ms. Abbott: If the Minister will allow me, I shall develop my argument.
      The Minister claimed for the Bill that, as well as making control fairer, it would enhance stability and the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) talked very generally about immigration controls promoting good race relations. I put it to the Minister that the Bill will not enhance stability. Quite apart from the general atmosphere of uncertainty that it will create, there is the specific question of the way in which it will widen the role of the police in immigration control. By virtue of the clause that makes overstaying a criminal offence for all time, the Government are necessarily extending the role of the police in immigration control.
      I am aware that what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and I say on this matter carries no credibility with Conservative Members. I would hope that what William Whitelaw, the then Home Secretary, said in 1980 carries at least a little credibility with them. He said:
      "The enforcement of the immigration laws is among the most delicate of the tasks which the police have to perform."
      The 1984–85 report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs said:
      "The involvement of the police in the administration of immigration control has sometimes harmed their relationship with ethnic minorities".
      The Commission for Racial Equality has said:
      "The police should not participate in immigration control work as a matter of routine."
      Public policy in the early 1980s was moving away from the routine involvement of the police in immigration control because it was recognised that it did nothing for community relations. By criminalising overstayers, the Government are widening the role of the police in immigration control. We believe that that is not in the interests of stability in the community. The Government have ample administrative sanctions against overstayers. Day in and day out, my constituents are caught in that net. There is no need for these criminalising provisions. Their wider ramifications for community relations give us cause for concern.
      The Minister accused us, with more vehemence than he showed in Committee, of exciting fear and promoting disharmony. Perhaps it would help him if I explained what excites fear and promotes disharmony. What excites fear and promotes disharmony among my constituents is the case of Marion Gaima. She has been in this country since 1973, she is aged nearly 40, she is frightened to return to
      912
      her country of birth for political reasons, she has twice had the police knock at her door, and twice she has spent time in police cells, accused of overstaying. For many months she has lived in fear of her future and the threat of deportation. That is what excites fear and promotes disharmony.
      I should tell the Government that what most excited fear and promoted disharmony in the early 1980s were fishing raids on factories, shops and restaurants, when dozens of black people were taken away, but in the end perhaps a handful of overstayers were found. People had their homes raided in the middle of the night. It was those midnight fishing raids that excited fear and promoted disharmony. Even without this criminalising clause in the Bill, my constituents are stopped in the streets or while driving their cars and asked for their passports. When they visit hospitals for treatment, they are asked for their passports. That is what excites fear and promotes disharmony.
      Every week in my surgery, I see constituents whose elderly relatives are humiliated at Heathrow and Gatwick when they try to come here for a holiday. The atmosphere surrounding registration for nationality and all the problems and troubles connected with it—many of my constituents had to get forms and find the money to register—excites fear and promotes disharmony.
      In 1987 Conservative Members returned from the subcontinent and said that 25 per cent. of wives seeking entry to this country were polygamous wives. That matter made the front page of The Times, but later those Members had to retract that remark. We have now found that there are about only 20 cases per year of polygamous wives trying to enter this country. Such ill-considered remarks promote fear.
      The casual remarks of the Prime Minister about swamping excites fear and promotes disharmony. The proposals that are being introduced to limit the rights of Members of Parliament to speak and act for their constituents will promote fear. Many Opposition Members can speak —
      Mr. Hanley rose—
      Ms. Abbott: With the greatest respect, I have sat through the entire debate without speaking. The hon. Gentleman has spoken many times, and he must allow me to develop my point.
      The Minister spoke of inciting fear and disharmony, and I was trying to tell him that it is not I, or my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, or Opposition Members, who promote fear and disharmony. It is the nature and implementation of our immigration legislation, and the atmosphere created by the remarks of some Conservative Members—
      Mr. Renton rose—
      Ms. Abbott: If the Minister will only allow me—
      Mr. Renton rose—
      Ms. Abbott: I would dearly love to give way, but I have sat through the entire debate and I wish to draw my remarks to a close.
      Mr. Renton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been sitting here watching the Minister's behaviour. If all Tory Ministers were to act in the way that he has acted this evening, they would be an utter disgrace.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman leaves that to the Chair.
      Ms. Abbott: The Minister has accused us of creating fear and disharmony. We beg to differ. We are merely trying to act as responsible representatives should and reflect the genuine fears of our constituents. The Minister has claimed that the Bill will bring about no major changes, but we believe that the Bill, and its legacy if it becomes law, will mean that British residents who happen to be black will have fewer rights than EEC nationals to bring in their children, parents and grandparents.
      The Minister referred to the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and myself in Committee. To give him credit, he did so with only the merest hint of condescension in his voice. We plead guilty to feeling strongly about immigration and to being new hon. Members. However, we believe that history will show that it was no bad thing that the Committee that examined the Bill for so many hours genuinely reflected, for the first time, our multiracial community.
      We have been accused of tunnel vision and, explicitly and implicitly, of reflecting the views only of black and ethnic minority people. Opposition Members think that immigration control is not a matter only for black and ethnic minority residents of this country—or only for white residents. The nature, implementation and administration of immigration control is a matter for anyone who is concerned about fairness, justice and equity in public administration. It was in the spirit of concern for fairness, justice and equity that we kept the Minister and Conservative Members considering the Bill for so many hours and came here to fight on Third Reading. We do not apologise for our passion, because if the issues that the Bill covers are not worth being passionate about, few issues that come before the House are.
      9.39 pm
      Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I must admit that, after listening to Opposition Members rehearse the same arguments time and again for 62 hours, it is difficult to remember exactly what we are discussing. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) for referring to equity, and I am particularly keen to dwell on that notion.
      I believe that remarks made on both sides of the House about fear and disharmony are not beneficial to immigration matters and are certainly not beneficial to race relations. I believe that it was positively harmful to racial harmony when the Leader of the Opposition said, in India, that he would repeal the Immigration Act 1971.
      I hope that Opposition Members — I especially address this remark to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)—will remember that DNA testing is- not in any way a carte blanche entry system that will enhance their political positions. They should not use DNA testing for that purpose. Such testing can prove extremely harmful to family relationships in ethnic communities—I ask them please to be aware of that. I make the same appeal to my hon. Friends.
      I have had a number of representations on this subject and it is distinctly clear, especially among the Asian community, that the test is something to which they do not look forward. It needs careful treatment and I beg Opposition Members to remember that fact and to
      914
      remember that serious family consequences may ensue if it is mishandled. That matter was aired at length in Committee, so I will not detain the House by discussing it further.
      Mr. Jim Marshall rose—
      Mr. Hargreaves: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, later.
      In the interests of racial harmony, I also hope that Opposition Members remember that Conservative Members, including those of us who served on the Committee and who listened to the arguments put forward by Opposition Members, also represent the interests of true racial harmony. No matter what the disparity which may exist between the numbers of immigrants whom we may represent, Opposition Members must not instantly dismiss what we say as either meaningless or unrepresentative. Conservative Members who served on that Committee, as well as others of my hon. Friends, care very greatly about racial harmony in this country. Therefore, we ask the Opposition to take our remarks seriously. I support the Bill.
      9.42 pm.
      Mr. Pat Wall: The Bill is unnecessary. It does not arise from any great social upheaval or any threat of mass immigration to this country. It would appear to follow proposals made by senior Home Office civil servants some years ago. In essence, it serves much the same purpose for immigration as the think tank conducted by the present Secretary of State for the Environment when he was considering trade unions.
      Most of the Bill's provisions affect a relatively small number of people and therefore its harshness is particularly repugnant. However, it affects a substantial number of people in relation to the abolition of the right of men, settled here before January 1973, to bring their wives and children to this country without first having to satisfy the various marriage tests, including the notorious primary purpose test, and the various accommodation and needs tests.
      The Bill arises from the Government's peculiarly warped attitude to sexual equality or, indeed, to any form of equality. The Government were brought before the European Court of Human Rights for discrimination against women in the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971. The Bill, instead of giving women the same rights as men, brings men down to the same level suffered by women. On shift work and night work in industry, the Government take the opposite tack, but with a similar result. Women have been brought up to the same level of exploitation as men regarding such work. No doubt in future the Government will equalise the retirement age at 65 on the grounds of equality.
      As has been pointed out, the last major influx of immigrants into Britain were Bangladeshis who arrived in the 1970s, fell victims to the recession of 1974–5, and suffered even more from the worse recession in 1981–82. They did not come here in the same way as earlier immigrants, who were enticed here as a source of cheap labour at at time of full employment and relative boom. They came during a recession in which they suffered greatly.
      That meant that it was much harder for them to gather together the material needs to bring their wives and

      915
      children to settle in Britain than it was for the people who arrived in more prosperous times. They have had to compete for jobs in a declining market in the manufacturing industry, heavy industry and certain sections of plublic service. As they were the last major group to come here, their mastery of English is less good and that has made it even more difficult for them to compete for jobs.
      I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) the representation of an area in the city of Bradford called Manningham. A housing survey was conducted by the Bangladeshi youth organisation on the Cornwall road area in my constituency. The housing needs of Asian residents in Manningham are entirely relevant to the Bill as it relates to the repeal of section 1(5) of the 1971 Act.
      A higher proportion of Bangladeshis than other ethnic groups have not been able to bring their wives and children to Britain because they have lacked the economic means to do so. Home Office figures show that in 1986, 30 per cent. of wives given entry clearance to come to Britain were coming to live with people who came from India before 1973. The comparable figure for Pakistan was 55 per cent. and for Bangladesh was 70 per cent.
      If the Bill is passed, unlike Common Market citizens who have no such tests and old Commonwealth citizens including white South Africans who rarely suffer such tests, all new Commonwealth citizens and citizens of Pakistan will have to satisfy the accommodation and needs test. That is discrimination on the basis of colour, class and material wealth. The poorest male immigrants take the longest to bring over their wives and children, and they will suffer most through the repeal of section 1(5). They are most likely to fail the needs and accommodation tests, and they and their families will be permanently divided.
      I should like to quote one section from Manningham housing report:
      "The existence of owner occupation cannot be taken as an indication of high standards of housing or indeed wealth. Owner-occupation has become the only alternative to over-occupied scarce rented housing. In order to meet the economic burdens of mortgage repayments and housing maintenance, the sharing arrangements by large Asian families alleviates to some degree the serious level of poverty.
      High percentages of home ownership have therefore been achieved by economies of scale in the presence of relatively larger numbers of persons per house. The cost of homeownership in social terms is revealed by cramped and severely overcrowded conditions within the Asian community. The largely held assumption of home ownership being linked to prosperity is therefore deceptive. Whilst there undoubtedly exists a greater inclination and desire for owner-occupied housing within the Asian community, the availability of large rented houses is non-existent."
      In that survey, out of 772 people old enough to take up employment, only 117 were employed. In large numbers of extended family houses, no person had a job, and in the vast majority, only one person had a job. That happened against a background in the city of Bradford of a backlog of £60 million in housing repairs and cuts in housing improvement grants which has meant that in the past few years, 10,000 people have been refused those grants.
      Those are not the clever schoolboy words, jokes and remarks of Conservative Members. This is the real world in which Asian working people in Bradford live. They have appalling housing conditions with little chance of a job. They are directly affected by the Bill because they have virtually no chance of bringing their children and wives to Britain to unite their families.
      916
      The removal of the right of appeal for overstayers, whether they deliberately flout the immigration laws or overstay or because they face severe domestic or personal problems, is a draconian and inhuman act. Overstaying is a summary offence and summary offences attract only moderate penalties under our law. The maximum penalty is usually six months in gaol and a relatively limited fine.
      Deportation is much more serious than six months in gaol or a fine. Deportation means the break-up of families, losing a job, depriving children of a parent, and, for refugees and those seeking political asylum, it can mean imprisonment, torture and death. Therefore, our consistent demand on Second Reading and in Committee for an independent system of adjudication and appeal for deportation cases is a most modest, reasonable and humane demand. The Minister's refusal to accept that demand is a real condemnation of the Bill.
      I want to add one point to those made so clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott). There will be police intervention because of the criminalisation of overstayers. One would think that the Scarman report on the Brixton riots had never been written. To return to a situation where people can be stopped in the street on the basis that they are overstayers or illegal immigrants will create enormous problems for Britain's black community. Anyone who is really serious about race relations will have to think about that.
      My hon. Friend is right. We are moving towards the pass laws so hated in South Africa. People already have to produce their passports in hospitals or in DHSS offices. They will now have to carry them everywhere in case they are stopped in the pub, the club, the street or their place of worship by the police for questioning about whether they are illegal immigrants or overstayers. That is exactly the same situation as in South Africa at present.
      The only liberal, reasonable part of the Bill is the clause that deals with the Common Market. It gives 230 million citizens in the EEC the right to come here freely, to bring their spouses, their children, their parents, their grandparents, and, in some cases, their grandchildren. It gives them the right to take a job without restriction, to use our social services without restriction and to set up in business without the sort of financial penalties imposed on Asian business men coming to Britain. I welcome that— I am no little Englander; I believe in internationalism—but that is a sharp contrast to the position of black people coming to Britain.
      When the first immigrants were attracted and enticed to Britain, it was in the hope that they would provide a source of cheap labour in heavy industry, manufacturing and the public services at a time of full employment. The economy has now moved away from those industries and that is why black unemployment is twice the average level of unemployment in Britain. We have now moved more into service industries.
      I predict that the rights of Common Market citizens will mean that the Portuguese, Spaniards and Greeks, who earn even less than British workers, may well be attracted to Britain's hotels, restaurants and service industry. Anti-trade union employers in those industries may hope that they will provide another source of cheap labour. If they come, they will learn, like the Caribbean and Indian subcontinent workers who came here in the past, how to join trade unions and how to fight.

      917
      I will make another prediction. If the Conservatives are faced with electoral defeat in the future, there will be a new immigration Bill, an anti-EEC bill aimed at those workers, because that is precisely the role that the Tory party has played in immigration throughout its history.
      9.55 pm
      Mr. Alun Michael: I confess to some trepidation in speaking from the Dispatch Box for the first time, but I have no such doubts about the need to speak out vigorously against a Bill that will do enormous damage to family life, community relations in the United Kingdom and Britain's reputation abroad as a country which values justice and humanity.
      In Committee, Opposition Members sought earnestly, repeatedly and at length even to persuade the Minister of the damage that the Bill will do if it becomes law. We have tried again tonight, and hon. Members who were not in the Committee will now appreciate the contrast between the points made by Opposition Members, based on considerable practical experience, and the bureaucratic incantations with which the Minister has replied.
      Tonight, in opening the debate, the hon. Gentleman sought to insult my hon. Friends in order again to avoid the real issues at stake in the discussion of the Bill. Simple logic has exposed the Bill as a hollow sham. On the one hand, the Minister has told us that it is a simple, modest measure that will have minimal impact on genuine applicants. On the other hand, the Government have pushed it through with a vigour that owes more to the electoral calculations of Conservative Central Office last May and June than to knowledge and experience of immigration practice. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) cannot dissociate himself from those electoral calculations as he tried to do tonight except by voting against the Bill, and I hope that he will do that.
      We believe that the numbers involved as a result of the Bill may be small, but the damage to family life for those involved and to community relations generally will be enormous. The questions are simple.
      The first is how, in any logical sense, it can be compassionate or humane to extend the separation of families as the Bill will do. I received a letter, as many of us in the Opposition do today, saying, on behalf of the family concerned:
      "Please will you help this family and rescue them from worry and despair. They want to be back together again as a family."
      That is just one example, but the Minister today has been anecdotal as well, and it is an example of the sort of thing that has been brought up by Opposition Members continually in Committee. My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall), for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) have given example after example which one would have expected to persuade the Minister, had he been willing to respond to the arguments being put forward.
      The Minister sought tonight to lecture us on community relations, but how can it help community relations to make it more difficult for families to be reunited? The Minister has claimed that the Bill will help community relations. This week I spoke to the community relations people in my constituency and they responded
      918
      with disbelief, disquiet and anger that the Minister should make such a suggestion. On the other hand, the Minister has produced no evidence at all for his contention that community relations will be helped.
      The anger of the Opposition and the anger in the immigrant communities is based on knowledge and experience. If right hon. and hon. Members doubt me, I suggest that they listen instead to the voice of the British Council of Churches as quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). The Minister doubted the authenticity of that voice, so a group of distinguished black Church leaders met him and have raised their voices passionately in opposition to the Bill, but in tones of reasonableness and patience. He has not listened to them either.
      Will the Government listen to no one who seeks to help by trying to remove their blinkers on this Bill? Compassion has been talked of a great deal in Committee and today. I am sure that the Minister is compassionate when circumstances allow him to be himself, but he has sought to tell us that the removal of statutory appeal rights will do no damage because appellate authorities would draw his attention to any compassionate grounds so that he could consider them. He has repeated that argument today.
      On this matter he will not listen to Labour Members, who pointed out that the appellate authorities are ruled out of making such considerations and that they stick to the rules and refuse to hear argument on compassionate grounds. They say that they do not have to pass on compassionate grounds to the Minister, and the chief appellate officer thinks that they should not do so in any event.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Immigration Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Ryder.]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Mr. Michael: The Minister was so confident in suggesting that compassionate grounds would be considered by him that we thought we might be wrong and that all the lawyers who are experienced in immigration case law and those involved in immigrant welfare were mistaken, so this week I gave the Minister a chance to prove his point. I asked him two written questions. The first was
  "in what proportion of cases in which he received a recommendation from the appellate authorities in respect of individuals appealing against refusal to vary leave to remain in the United Kingdom the adjudicators have (a) refused to hear or consider compassionate grounds and (b) made no recommendation that he should exercise his discretion to consider compassionate grounds".
  Even more tellingly, I asked him
  "how many recommendations he has received from the appellate authorities in respect of individuals appealing against refusal to vary leave to remain in the United Kindom during each of the last three years; on how many of those cases the adjudicator recommended that he should consider compassionate circumstances; and in how many of those cases he did exercise discretion in compassionate circumstances."
  They were detailed questions which the Minister should have found it easy to answer, but what was the answer? In both cases it was:

  919
  "No central record of these recommendations is held." —[Official Report, 15 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 439.]
  In other words, the Minister, on a central point in his justification of the Bill, does not know, and the Government do not know. He may not have known at the beginning of the debate in Committee and he may not have known at the Second Reading, but he has had time to find out. The Minister and the Government do not want to know.
  We have yet to see the true extent of the Government's rush to minimise humanity in this field of law. The Bill is bad enough, but its administration will be in accordance with immigration rules which have yet to be published. On 3 December, the Minister promised in Committee that he would give us those details. He did not promise to give us some vague outline or just to talk about them. He said:
  "I shall present the changes that are consequential on the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I shall gladly do so at the earliest opportunity, for example, next Tuesday."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 3 December 1987; c. 138.]
  The Minister promised to tell us what would be in the rules. That was clearly greeted with horror and panic by his ministerial colleagues and officials and he has chosen to be more economical with the truth than he intended. Instead of draft rules, he gave us meaningless gobbledegook. Instead of withdrawing his promise, which would have been the honest thing to do, he withdrew all meaning from his response to our questions.
  It is inconceivable that the Government could have come forward with the Bill without a clear idea of what will be in the rules. It is inconceivable that the Minister has not had a final draft of the rules in his in-tray for weeks or even months and could not have made it available to us. It is an insult to the House that we still do not know what the rules will be. I warn Conservative Members that they do not yet know the full extent of what will happen as a result of the Bill.
  Many people were convinced that the Government would be bound to withdraw clause 4, which does such damage to appeal rights. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) condemned the Bill as wholly unnecessary, denying the rights of British citizens who happen to be black or Asian and denying the right of family unity to men and women living in the country.
  Nothing has changed, despite all our efforts in Committee. This remains a Bill which panders to prejudice and will heighten rather than reduce racial tension. That is a simple statement of fact, not an inflammatory comment. It remains a disgrace to a democratic Parliament. If any Conservative Members remain who still retain a concern for fairness, justice and humanity, they will surely feel honour bound to join us in voting against this nasty, squalid little Bill.
  10.4 pm
  Mr. Renton: My hon. Friends and I disagree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has said. However, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his maiden speech from the Opposition Dispatch Box. Although I disagreed with him, he showed a degree of vigour. He said that we had showed a degree of vigour in pushing through the Immigration Bill. Those of us who sat in Committee and spent six hours per clause on a modest
  920
  Bill may wonder about that vigour, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment none the less. I am sure that it was well-intended.
  I do not intend to delay the House long, as we have gone over the arguments repetitively and incessantly and the House has still to deal with some important business. I wish only to make two or three minor points.
  I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Fylde (Mr. Jack) for their interesting and wise speeches and for their support of our visit visa system and the way in which it is operating at present. They saw the wisdom of the system and the protection that it gives people. That was in contrast to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) who, typically, talked about a spider's web of controls. In the eight months that I have been Minister responsible for immigration, it is not the spider's web of controls that has struck me, but the superstructure of appeal upon appeal that we have created to protect people, to ensure that the overstayer is not sent away unfairly and that a person is not improperly deported.
  When I took up my post at the Home Office, I was struck by the number of letters that I was required to sign, pointing out to Members of Parliament who had made representations to me that they or their predecessor had first written to me in 1983, for example, saying that the person about whom they were writing had originally come here for 30 days. He had then disappeared and had not been seen or found for three or four years. He then made an appeal to change the leave under which he was in this country. The case had gone to the adjudicator, then to the appellate tribunal and then to a Member of Parliament.
  I am still writing frequent letters to hon. Members saying, "Your constituent first came here for 30 days, perhaps five years ago."
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Renton: No, I shall not give way, as the House wishes to go on. With respect to my hon. Friend, I must get on.
  I continue my letters to hon. Members by saying, "Your constituent has exhausted the system. It is time for him to go."
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Renton: That is how other countries see us. We have a superstructure of appeal. We are the only country in Europe, other than West Germany, to have an appeal system for those who are refused visit visas, yet we get no credit for that from the Opposition. That was reflected in the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, East.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) and other Opposition Members rebuked us for the chaos at Lunar house. I have already described the measures that we are taking to deal with that. It must stick in the craw of Opposition Members that they voted against our changes in immigration rules three weeeks ago, when routine changes to those rules would have removed about 20 per cent. of the immigration cases from Lunar house. It is therefore impossible for people to be as hypocritical as Opposition Members and to chide us for those delays, yet vote against procedural changes that would deal with those problems.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Renton: I will not give way to my hon. Friend. I do not propose to give way to anyone, because there is important business ahead for the House.
  We established one thing of which my hon. Friends who were not in the Chamber earlier should be aware. I asked the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West whether, if he was ever in office, he would cancel the visit visa system that we had introduced. He could not answer. We heard from the hon. Member for Leicester, East that he would cancel it and from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that he would cancel it, but the Opposition Front Bench does not know.
  That emphasises the problem of the Opposition on immigration. They have told us that they would cancel the Immigration Act 1971 and the British Nationality Act 1981, but we never hear what they would put in their place. All they tell us is that they would do all this, and that only 1,000 more people would come into the country every year. What hypocrisy; what humbug—and they know it as well.
  The Bill has been discussed enough. I support fully the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) who talked about the importance of racial harmony. I share that view. I believe that racial prejudice and racial discrimination are barbaric habits which have no place in a civilised or democratic society. Fair but firm immigration control is an essential precondition of racial harmony. The Bill makes modest but sensible changes. Our immigration controls will remain effective and flexible. That is in the interests of all people in Britain, whatever their ethnic origins. I commend the Bill wholeheartedly to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 214.

  Division No. 183]

  [10.12 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Alexander, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Amess, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Amos, Alan

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

  Arbuthnot, James

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Ashby, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Atkins, Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Butcher, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Butcher, Chris

  Baldry, Tony

  Butterfill, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cash, William

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Benyon, W.

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Colvin, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Couchman, James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Body, Sir Richard

  Devlin, Tim

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boswell, Tim

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Peter

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Durant, Tony

  Bowis, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  922

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lilley, Peter

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lord, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  McCrindle, Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Forth, Eric

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Franks, Cecil

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Madel, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mans, Keith

  Gow, Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gregory, Conal

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Grist, Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Ground, Patrick

  Miller, Hal

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moate, Roger

  Hannam, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

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

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Mudd, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Neubert, Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heddle, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hill, James

  Page, Richard

  Hind, Kenneth

  Paice, James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Holt, Richard

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howard, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Portillo, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Price, Sir David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Raffan, Keith

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Renton, Tim

  Irvine, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Irving, Charles

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jackson, Robert

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Janman, Tim

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jessel, Toby

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rost, Peter

  Key, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew

  Kilfedder, James

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Knowles, Michael

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Knox, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lang, Ian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Latham, Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Speed, Keith

  923

  Speller, Tony

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walden, George

  Squire, Robin

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Steen, Anthony

  Waller, Gary

  Stern, Michael

  Ward, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Watts, John

  Stokes, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Sumberg, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Summerson, Hugo

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wilshire, David

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Trippier, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. Alan Howarth and

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mr. Richard Ryder.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coleman, Donald

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Allen, Graham

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Anderson, Donald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cousins, Jim

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cox, Tom

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Crowther, Stan

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cryer, Bob

  Ashton, Joe

  Cummings, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Battle, John

  Darling, Alistair

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dewar, Donald

  Beith, A. J.

  Dixon, Don

  Bell, Stuart

  Dobson, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Doran, Frank

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

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Blair, Tony

  Eadie, Alexander

  Blunkett, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Boyes, Roland

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bradley, Keith

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fatchett, Derek

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

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

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fisher, Mark

  Buchan, Norman

  Flannery, Martin

  Buckley, George J.

  Flynn, Paul

  Caborn, Richard

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Callaghan, Jim

  Foster, Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Fraser, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Canavan, Dennis

  Galbraith, Sam

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  George, Bruce

  Clay, Bob

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clelland, David

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Graham, Thomas

  Cohen, Harry

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  924

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mullin, Chris

  Grocott, Bruce

  Murphy, Paul

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Nellist, Dave

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  O'Neill, Martin

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Henderson, Doug

  Parry, Robert

  Hinchliffe, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Pendry, Tom

  Holland, Stuart

  Pike, Peter L.

  Home Robertson, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Howells, Geraint

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Richardson, Jo

  Ingram, Adam

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Janner, Greville

  Robertson, George

  John, Brynmor

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lambie, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lamond, James

  Rowlands, Ted

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leighton, Ron

  Salmond, Alex

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lewis, Terry

  Sheerman, Barry

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Livingstone, Ken

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Livsey, Richard

  Short, Clare

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

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

  McCartney, Ian

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

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Soley, Clive

  McFall, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  McGrady, Eddie

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McKelvey, William

  Stott, Roger

  McLeish, Henry

  Strang, Gavin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McWilliam, John

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Madden, Max

  Turner, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Vaz, Keith

  Mallon, Seamus

  Wall, Pat

  Marek, Dr John

  Walley, Joan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Maxton, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Meacher, Michael

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Michael, Alun

  Wilson, Brian

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Winnick, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Worthington, Tony

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Morley, Elliott

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Mrs. Llin Golding.

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

Prevention of Terrorism
10.24 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, I wonder whether it will be possible to save the time of the House. I understand that this matter has been referred to earlier in today's sitting and that Her Majesty's Government have already given an undertaking to another Government, namely the Irish Government, and disclosed to that Government the Home Secretary's intentions. I understand that that has been done during adjourned discussions, totalling about 10 hours. As I understand it, our debate tonight will last for one and a half hours. I do not know whether it will be possible to reveal to the House of Commons what was said in advance and the commitments that were given to the Government of another country.
My second point is brief. As the order is based on a Bill that extends mainly to Great Britain, which originated only in Great Britain and which now refers to international terrorism and not solely to Irish terrorism, I wonder whether someone in authority could tell us whether the Libyan or Iranian Government have had the same facility for consultation as the Irish Government.
Mr. Speaker: Those are patently questions that I cannot answer, but perhaps the Home Secretary can.
10.26 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.
The effect of the order will be to renew the 1984 Act for a further 12 months from 22 March. The House will want to discuss several aspects of the order, but the main message should be clear enough, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) will not dissent from it. There is still a threat of terrorism hanging over the citizens of this country, including Northern Ireland. That arises not just out of the affairs of Northern Ireland but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, from the middle east and the sub-continent. Our defences against that threat must not be weakened.
In Northern Ireland in 1987, 83 people were killed by Republican or Protestant paramilitary groups. The bomb outrage at Enniskillen on Remembrance Sunday is still vivid in our minds. On the mainland in 1987, we thankfully had no successful attacks stemming from Irish republican extremism. However, I have no doubt that the Provisional IRA continues to wish and to plan further death and destruction among us. We must remain totally vigilant to defend ourselves against this threat.
We cannot ignore the threat which comes from international terrorist organisations. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the original Act did not cover international terrorism at all, but the world has changed for the worse since then. During 1987, there were six murders in Great Britain, which the police attributed to international terrorism. Those who died were three members of an Indian religious group at a service, two opponents of the Khomeini regime, and a Palestinian journalist.
926
The Prevention of Terrorism Act expires in March next year. Against the background that I have sketched, we need to consider what should take the place of that Act when it expires. It is right that I should say something about that this evening.
In April last year, I asked my noble and learned Friend Lord Colville of Culross, who conducted an independent review of the operation of the Act in 1986, to widen his net in 1987 and consider in greater depth the effectiveness of the legislation. His report was published in a White Paper in December. His scrutiny of the operation of the Act last year, which he concluded in January this year, was made available to Parliament on 8 February. I should like to express my gratitude, and, I believe, the gratitude of the House, for the effort and care that Lord Colville has devoted to these reports. He has taken a great deal of care to visit the ports and to consult many individuals and organisations who have an interest in the legislation.
I come immediately to what is undoubtedly Lord Colville's central recommendation. He says that he accepts the continuing need for legislation against terrorism. It would be foolish, he says, to pretend that terrorism in some form will not threaten lives and property in western countries for the foreseeable future, so he recommends that what he describes as the core controls enshrined in the legislation should no longer be subject to annual renewal, but should be enacted into fully permanent legislation, albeit with a continuation of the existing system of annual reviews.
We accept that the problem of terrorism in one form or another is not going to go away. We have to protect ourselves from terrorism from many sources. It is not just a matter of Irish terrorism, as the statistics show. None of the six deaths that occurred last year in Great Britain as a result of terrorist acts was the result of Irish terrorism.
We accept entirely the need for continuing legislation designed to prevent acts of terrorism in this country, but after careful reflection we do not believe that it would be right to interrupt the process by which Parliament is asked to take a positive decision each year to renew the provisions.
The BBC report today was inaccurate on one crucial point. In its hurry to get the story early the BBC got it wrong. We propose to return to the arrangement that existed when the Labour Government introduced the 1976 Act. The new Act that we shall propose will have no limit on its time span. It will not expire after five years, like the current 1984 Act under which this order is made. But the powers in the Act will have to be renewed each year. That is the arrangement that the Government of which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was a member introduced in 1976, and in the light of experience we intend to return to it, I am sure with the support of the Labour party. Moreover, the powers will be renewable in whole or in part, and there is a good reason for that. Lord Colville suggested that the powers that relate especially to Irish terrorism — proscription and exclusion—should remain on a temporary basis.
By retaining the requirement for annual renewal in whole or in part, we meet that point by making it possible to drop any provisions that no longer appear necessary. Because of the exceptional nature of the powers contained in the Act, it is right that its operation should be scrutinised by an independent person, as the 1984 Act has been, and that arrangement, too, will continue.

927
I would like to deal with two points that I have heard made in the past 24 hours but to which I have not been able to respond, for obvious reasons. There is nothing in the criticisms that have been voiced about timing. One cannot insist on annual debates and then complain about timing when the time for the annual debate comes round. The order had to be debated at this time, and obviously the House requires that the Minister sets out his future intentions in the debate.
There is a more fundamental point. The people of Northern Ireland suffer more from terrorism than any of the rest of us. It is overwhelmingly in their interest, in that of the citizens of the Republic, and in that of all Irish men and women living this side of the water, that terrorism should be checked and then crushed. It is inevitable that the powers needed for that purpose should occasionally hear on innocent people, causing delay, inconvenience and controversy. But the powers are not aimed at those innocent people; they are aimed at their oppressors—the terrorists.
Ms. Clare Short: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Hurd: I should like to get on. It is a short debate and I am afraid that I have a bit to say.
Lord Colville points out — and I remember vividly from my time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the resentment that use of these powers can produce. I would be delighted if they could be safely removed, but safely is the key word. While they exist, they must be carefully and intelligently used; and we must take every opportunity to prove—as we can—that they are there for the protection and not the oppression of the citizen.
We intend, in replacing the current Act, to implement Lord Colville's recommendation that the principal port powers, which are now in the order and the comparable Northern Ireland order, should be incorporated into primary legislation. Powers given to the police at ports — notably on examination and detention — are important, and, as with similar ones in the Immigration Act 1971, we now think that they deserve full consideration by Parliament and a place on the face of the Act.
We have considered Lord Colville's recommendation that the police powers at ports should be extended to cover ports handling traffic outside the common travel area. Those ports are covered by controls provided by the Immigration Act 1971, and we are not at present convinced that there is a case for extending police powers at those ports.
The House will have noticed Lord Colville's endorsement of the value of the powers in the prevention of terrorism legislation for the arrest and detention, for up to seven days if necessary, of people suspected of involvement in terrorist acts. In England and Wales, detention in police custody is subject to procedures laid down in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the codes of practice issued under it. Some of the requirements apply, with modifications, to detentions under the Prevention of Terrorism Act; others are expressly disapplied.
I see force in the changes proposed by Lord Colville to bring procedures for those detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act closer to those for people detained under
928
ordinary police powers, as long as the police investigation is not jeopardised, and we are examining the feasibility of that.
When Lord Colville's report was published before Christmas, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary announced straight away that we could not accept the recommendation that the power of exclusion should be abolished. We thought hard about that, but we did not believe it would be helpful to the House or anyone else for there to be any uncertainty on our views. Now is not the right time to give up that power. It is used sparingly. I look at every application with care and I refused, in the past year, three applications for orders from the police. I made 17 orders in respect of people who had previously been excluded, but 19 orders were not replaced when they expired. The total of exclusion orders in force at the end of 1987 was 111 in Great Britain and 23 in Northern Ireland, which is a slight rise on the previous year.
I dislike the idea of the use of Executive power to inhibit free movement of a person within his own country. I believe that other hon. Members, if confronted, case by case, with the information that is put in front of me as to the activities and intentions of these individuals would agree with me that the restrictions placed on their freedom of movement is justified to save lives, which is what the use of the power is about. Under section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, it is an offence to make available, to invite others to do so, or to receive, funds to be used in connection with Northern Irish terrorism.
Mr. Clive Soley: Understandably, the Home Secretary has praised Lord Colville. Will he bear in mind the fact that Lord Colville described exclusion orders as being similar to internal exile, which is a point that I have debated with the Home Secretary? Does he accept what Lord Colville recommended that it is undesirable for a politician, however senior, to have the power of exclusion which is not, in the first instance, overseen by a court of law?
Mr. Hurd: It is undesirable, but I simply repeat the point that I made when I explained why I disagree with Lord Colville's recommendation on this point. If the hon. Gentleman—who is a sensible person—were confronted with the facts that are laid before me in these applications, he would not accept all of them, and I do not accept all of them. They need careful probing, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have three completely independent advisers to advise me on these matters. Nevertheless, I believe that, for the time being, with the facts as they are today, it would be putting lives in jeopardy if we were to abandon that power of exclusion. Therefore, I believe that it should be used sparingly and carefully for the protection of citizens, as it is today.
Under section 10, as I was saying, it is an offence to make available or invite others to do so or to receive funds to be used in connection with Northern Irish terrorism. Lord Colville believes that the section could be useful in relation to international terrorism because there is evidence of fund raising by international terrorist groups in this country, to purchase arms and explosives. This is difficult. We agree with Lord Colville that it is wrong that contributions could be made in this country to international terrorist organisations and not be caught by our anti-terrorism legislation, and we are considering his proposals carefully.

929
We have some further work to do, but, in principle, the points I have outlined will be incorporated in the Bill which we shall introduce to replace the present Act when it expires in 1989. We mean to accept a number of other useful recommendations made by Lord Colville. They will be drawn to the attention of the police in a circular of guidance.
We are debating tonight the continuance for one more year of the powers in the present Act. It would be a great strength if the House could unite behind this proposal — and a great shame if it could not.
I know that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench would, if they were sitting on the Government Benches now, try to find a way—contrary to what they announced today—of keeping a Prevention of Terrorism Act alive. Of course they would: they would have to. The right hon. Gentleman has a particular difficulty because it was he, in 1982, who led the Opposition's drift away from reality into irresponsibility. He was a Minister when the Act was passed. He did not vote against it till 1982. If he now claims to be leading his party back towards responsibility, he cannot vote against the order tonight. It is a simple and straightforward test.
All the efforts that the right hon. Gentleman is making to get on better terms with the police and to try to repair the damage done by his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will be futile if he fails this test. He must decide whether to stand up to the Left wing, which forced him to make that lamentable change in 1982. If he does not—if he cannot—do that, he will show again that the Opposition do not have the backbone to deal with these matters. Until they recover it, they will not be taken seriously as an alternative Government.
In the previous debates, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has tried to cover himself by two lines of argument. The Opposition argue — this is a serious argument — that the Act should be scrapped as ineffective because terrorist incidents still happen; but that argument could be used about the whole of the criminal law. Their second point is that by skilful use of other pieces of legislation — this is the right hon. Gentleman's particular point — such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or the Immigration Act 1971, we could achieve the same ends. That is simply not true, as Lord Colville's report on the operation of the Act in 1987 amply showed.
Mr. Graham Allen: We have heard a great deal of assertion tonight about the PTA—and a fair bit of divergence, too. When will the right hon. Gentleman give us some evidence about activity under the PTA, rather than diversionary tactics?
Mr. Hurd: Exactly now. It was a mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He asks whether the PTA helps to prevent acts of terrorism and bring terrorists to justice. Let us look at the figures in Lord Colville's report. Anyone who doubts that we need the Act should be convinced by 27 charges of murder in Northern Ireland last year alone, some connected with the deaths of members of the security forces. But I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that figures, however convincing, do
930
not convey the complete picture. I can give the House some details which are no longer subject to the restraint of prejudicing court procedures.
The conviction late last year of a leading member of the International Sikh Youth Federation, who had organised some shooting of prominent moderate Sikhs in Great Britain, shows the extent of the threat against the Sikh community in this country and the value of the prevention of terrorism legislation. That man—that murderer—had been detained under section 12 of the Act after his fingerprints had been found in a car thought to have been used in the attacks, on a plastic bag used to contain a shotgun used in one of the attacks. Without the length of detention possible under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and the opportunities that that gave for further inquiries, examination of his correspondence, and further questioning, it might well have not been possible to bring that man to justice.
Ms. Short: The Secretary of State's argument does not stand. He tells us that the man's fingerprints were found in the car. Therefore, he could have been incriminated under existing criminal law. The Secretary of State uses a case badly to make his argument. That man could have been arrested and charged under existing criminal law, and the PTA was not needed.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady is wrong. In that particular case I allowed detention, after careful examination, for up to six days under the powers of the PTA. Under ordinary law, I would have been unable to do so and, in all probability, that terrorist would not have been brought to justice. [Interruption.] I appreciate that right hon. and hon. Members do not like it when anecdotes are produced to demonstrate the crucial value of the powers of the PTA.
Lord Colville described in his report the long and complex investigation in Scotland regarding firearms and explosives apparently destined for use by a Loyalist paramilitary group in Northern Ireland, which culminated in the conviction of six men on firearms charges. Those men were arrested under the PTA during 1986, but their trial took place in 1987. The simultaneous investigations required by the police in several other areas could not have not taken place successfully unless the powers in the PTA had been used. That is another example to demonstrate that those exceptional powers are necessary to bring would-be terrorists to justice.
Mr. Dennis Canavan rose—
Mr. Hurd: No, I have given way sufficiently. I have been asked for evidence and I have given evidence.
It is impossible to test the value of the Act simply by the changes brought. Last year, I noted how the Act had been used in 1986 to forestall—that is the key word—terrorism by a group of the Abu Nidhal gang, whom I deported. This year, a man suspected of working for the Libyan Government as an intelligence officer was likewise deported. Without the powers in the Act, it would have been impossible to arrest and deport that man.
If Opposition Members are arguing that we should wait until a crime has been committed and there are corpses on the streets—[Interruption.] That is what is at issue. We are discussing a preventive measure, and what it does is prevent terrorism and save lives.
To save lives and protect our citizens, I ask the House to give its wholehearted support to the continuation of the

931
powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The reports by Lord Colville should be a reassurance that those powers are not abused or over-used. They are exercised carefully and conscientiously, with regard to the impact on the liberty and rights of the individual. We are clear that those powers must continue to remain throughout the United Kingdom if we are to conduct and succeed in a serious and sustained fight against terrorism.
I commend the draft order to the House.
10.48 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: As a result of events yesterday and this morning, the debate is bound to be dominated by a discussion of the Home Secretary's proposals for permanent legislation.
In this 90 minutes we should be discussing the application of the PTA over the next year. Future plans should have been announced to the House at half past 3 one afternoon. They should not have been, first, incompetently leaked to the BBC yesterday and then described all morning to journalists by a spokesman from No. 10 Downing street. That task having been completed, the plans were actually reported to the House this evening.
The Home Secretary having reported to the House his intention to move to permanent legislation, it is worth our reminding him and the House about what he now proposes as a full-time, permanent feature of British law — a law which began, as Hansard will show, as a reaction to an immediate emergency, a crisis and a tragedy. It would not have been passed through the House if hon. Members had thought that it would ever become a permanent feature on the statute book.
The Home Secretary is recommending permanent legislation which would enable men and women to be held for up to seven days without charge, denied access to solicitors and to be subject to what Lord Colville, the Home Secretary's own choice of monitor of the Act, calls internal exile. It is worth noting from Lord Colville's report that the vast majority of men and women who were arrested without charge, held for seven days and denied the right of access to a solicitor were innocent under the law.
In 1987, a total of 113 men and women were detained on suspicion of what Lord Colville's report calls Northern Ireland terrorism. Only 10 of them were charged. We do not know how many of them were convicted, but let us assume that all 10 of them were convicted. The other 103 were arrested and imprisoned, but were guilty of no offence under the law.
If Conservative Members are no more able than the Home Secretary to recognise the enormity of the offence against those 103 people, I hope that at least they will be able to understand the bonus that such actions provides for terrorists who want to argue that the British Government in Westminster are callous about the way in which Irish people coming into Britain are treated, and are unconcerned about the real rule of law and the real protection of civil liberties.
Terrorism in Northern Ireland will be defeated only when the overwhelming law-abiding majority are convinced that they must repudiate, reject and expose the terrorists. The announcement today that the Act is to be permanent, the inept timing and the nature of the announcement and the extraordinary performance of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on television trying to suggest that there is to be no permanent legislation are
932
bound to play into the hands of the IRA propaganda machine. It will also prejudice the resumption of the proper and necessary co-operation between London and Dublin.
This morning, Government spokesmen describing the Act, and correcting the errors of yesterday, have been saying that the changes are not as profound as they may appear to critics of the proposals. I am not surprised. Had the Government intended to prejudice Anglo-Irish relations during the past month, they would hardly have behaved differently.
It began with the Government's refusal to prosecute over the Stalker-Sampson inquiry. It continued with the Attorney-General's unwillingness or inability to provide the information necessary for extradition. Now there is the ineptitude of today's announcement, or yesterday's leak, about the PTA.
I shall make my position absolutely clear. As part of their briefing, Government spokesmen spoke about the Opposition being soft on terrorism. I am not prepared to take that from a Government who gave a safe passage out of this country to the murderers of WPC Fletcher rather than have a row with Libya.
The truth about the Opposition's attitude to terrorism was described with a good deal more grace by the Home Secretary last year in a similar debate. He said:
"No one in this House disagrees about the distinctive evil of terrorism"
That is indisputably true. He went on:
"The argument in the House begins when we consider whether special powers are needed by the police and the Government in dealing with terrorism."—[Official Report, 10 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 263.]
But it is only the beginning of the truth, for our contention is not merely that the powers of the PTA are unnecessary or even inappropriate to a free society, true though that contention is. We insist that the operation, perhaps even the existence, of the PTA is a hindrance and a handicap in the fight against terrorism, certainly in relation to Northern Ireland.
Mr. William Cash rose—
Mr. Hattersley: I will give way on this one occasion because this is a 90-minute debate, the Home Secretary took 25 minutes and I want to be brief.
Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when Labour Members were in power, they managed to detain 4,524 people in five years under this Act whereas in the eight years during which we have been dealing with these matters the number has been only 1,947? That makes clear the reality of the situation and totally contradicts the right hon. Gentleman's position.
Mr. Hattersley: That does not even touch on the effects that the PTA is having on everything the Home Secretary claims he want to do. The Act must be judged by its effects on terrorism in Northern Ireland and our success in combating it. The Home Secretary now wants to broaden its scope and tries to defend that action by saying that we live in an age of international terrorism. But everybody knows that this measure was introduced to deal explicity with the Northern Ireland situation as an immediate and temporary expedient and necessity. Without the tragedy of Northern Ireland—indeed, without the specific tragedy of the Birmingham pub bombings—the Act would never have been passed.

933
The PTA stands or falls by the success it provides in combating, or helping to combat, terrorism in Northern Ireland. It falls, in our view, because of the effect it has on Irish opinion, and the main area where Irish opinion is now being prejudiced are exclusion orders.
It is no good the Home Secretary offering his thanks to Lord Colville, saying how full of wisdom his report is and then, in some cavalier fashion — unsubstantiated and unjustified — dismissing what Lord Colville says about exclusion orders. And it is not only Lord Colville. Sir Cyril Philips, who did the monitoring operation the year before, also—both men working from different bases—came to the same conclusion that exclusion orders should be ended in one form or another.
Exclusion orders prejudice opinion in Northern Ireland and are clearly intended to deal with Northern Ireland alone. The idea that terrorists can be excluded from the mainland and required to live in the six counties is a view of Northern Ireland which is wholly inconsistent with the principle that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and must be treated in exactly the same way as the United Kingdom. We do not send terrorists on exclusion orders to Chelmsford, Cardiff, Glasgow or Guildford. If we are to treat Northern Ireland as the repository for terrorists, we must be encouraging terrorism there and the IRA propaganda machine.
Our main objection, in principle and in practice, is to what the Act provides by way of power of detention. The Home Secretary argued last year, and he argued again tonight, that it was necessary to have the power to prevent horrors before they happened — the pre-emption argument. The first example he gave to justify that seemed extraordinary. The crime had already been committed. I refer to the Sikh bombing and murder. The Home Secretary mentioned a motor car which the police had taken into their care, which they knew had been used when the murder had been committed, and on which were found fingerprints of the man who was eventually convicted.
Is the Home Secretary really saying that that man could not have been arrested and prosecuted without the existence of this Act? I will give way at once to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to answer my next question. What happens when cars are used in the commission of murders which are not associated with terrorism and when fingerprints are found on those cars? Do we never catch and convict the criminals in such cases? Of course, in that circumstance the normal law and the normal powers could be used. We must therefore ask the question that is constantly asked by Opposition Members but is never answered: what is the real purpose of, and what is the real evidence that warrants, this form of detention?
I ask the Home Secretary questions which are not intended to be rhetorical. Could not the men found in the garden of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have been arrested under normal criminal law? Could not the retired doctor from my constituency who was held under the PTA and eventually charged and acquitted on suspicion of explosives offences have been held under criminal law? The police told me when I asked them that the PTA was more convenient. It does not seem to me that convenience justifies abandonment of the rules of arrest and detention which are expected in a free society.
934
The Home Secretary's excuse can hardly apply to the extension of detention orders, as he seemed to argue. Let me read to him a passage from Lord Colville's report. Paragraph 36 says:
"the reasons adduced by the police for an extension included a few alibi enquiries, some requests for an identity parade and a substantial number of forensic investigations. Broadly, however, the application was based on suspicion of involvement in a particular crime."
All that is the stuff of which normal criminal charges and investigations are made, and all that should have been dealt with in the normal way, not least because 103 of the 110 men and women who were treated in this draconian fashion — the word used by the Home Secretary who introduced the Act when it first came on the statute book —were subsequently found to be innocent.
We are left with the irresistible suspicion that the purpose of detention is to hold for 48 hours or seven days men and women who have committed no offence, but are thought to possess information of value to the police. That suspicion is intensified by the Government's refusal to accept Lord Colville's proposal that extensions of detention should be determined not by the Home Secretary but by the courts, for were the extension of detention to be determined by the courts much better reasons would have to be brought forward. They would certainly have to be better than those that the Home Secretary has provided to the House.
Detention allows a man or woman to be held without the normal safeguards of full custody sheets and access to a solicitor within 36 hours. That may be a reason for detention, but it is a thoroughly bad reason to be brought forward in a free society — so bad that the Home Secretary does not even advance it when he attempts to defend his proposition.
The way in which the Home Secretary has advanced his proposition is not calculated to encourage all-party support for the campaign in Northern Ireland. Indeed, apart from the moments of cheap abuse, the Home Secretary defended his views simply by assertion—not by justification, not by evidence, but just by assertion. He announced that it was not the right time to end exclusion. He announced that he was not convinced that changes were necessary. He announced that we were nevertheless required to maintain these powers, just as if the Home Secretary's word on these matters was enough. It is indeed a docile, supine, craven House of Commons that is prepared to accept such a curtailment and reduction of civil liberties on the unsubstantiated word of a Minister alone.
I am not prepared to do it, and that is why I shall vote against the order.
11.4 pm
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Because this is a brief debate, I intend to be extremely brief. I rise because last Sunday I had the privilege of being present in St. Anne's cathederal, Belfast, when the Royal Ulster Constabulary dedicated a window to the memory of some 252 police officers who had been murdered over the past 10 years in that part of the United Kingdom. At the end of the service, at which clergymen of all denominations spoke, I walked out in the company of more than 800 widows and children of those officers. No one who could mingle with the widows and children of those police officers could be in any doubt about the terrible carnage

935
that is wreaked upon the innocent by terrorists in Northern Ireland. As I met those widows and children, I felt immensely humble.
It was quite clear, as I discussed the debate that would take place in the House tonight, that the overwhelming majority of those who suffer from the scourge of terrorism in Northern Ireland would not forgive us if we did not provide to the police service in Northern Ireland and in this country every means that we can to prevent such horrors from taking place. It is against that background that I make my judgment of whether the legislation introduced by a Labour Government and continued by successive Governments should or should not remain a part of our law.
Lord Colville, like many other independent persons, came to the conclusion—
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right for the hon. Gentleman to imply that policemen always seem to be the victims rather than the perpetrators of crimes of terrorism? Should the hon. Gentleman not declare his interest before he starts, and declare himself as a paid servant of the police?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Member should declare his interest, but a breach of order has not been committed so far.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: If it is necessary for me to declare my interest, I do so with pride, but there can be few hon. Members who have any doubt about it. The issue is very simple: does the House owe to the security services and the police the provision of legislation to help them to defend the innocent?
Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member wishes to talk about the police and the valuable role that they perform in Northern Ireland, would he not be better advised to book a Committee Room when we are talking about the Prevention of Terrorism Act?
Madam Deputy Speaker: This is a very short debate and there is no point in wasting time by raising bogus points of order.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: The police service is in no doubt that it could not effectively safeguard the people of the country against the very substantial increase in terrorism that may take place if the Act were not available to them. I believe that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has some experience as a Home Office Minister—
Mr. Hattersley indicated dissent
Sir Eldon Griffiths: In that case, the right hon. Gentleman confirms what I was about to say which is that, lacking experience as a Home Office Minister, it is all the more egregious that he should regard his judgment as superior to that of those who have to risk their lives to undertake our protection. The Act has been crucial in the fight against terrorism. In June 1985 the Act enabled the police to prevent an IRA bombing campaign of British resorts and to bring charges in connection with the Brighton bombing of 1984. In June 1986 the leaders of the Provisional IRA murder gang involved in that atrocity were sent to prison for life, and that could not have happened without the legislation.
I believe that the Home Secretary is absolutely right to say that we need legislation that will assist the police and
936
the security services, not simply in investigating terrorism, but in preventing it. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is entirely right to commend the order to the House, and it will be disgraceful if the Opposition divide against it.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has just misled the House. I say so in all seriousness—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman come to his point of order? Time is passing and this is an important debate.
Mr. Bermingham: If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds wants to quote anything about the Brighton bombing case and the summer bombing campaign, the least he could do is to read the papers.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a point of argument and not a point of order.
11.12 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: Having read the report of Lord Colville, I reluctantly conclude that we are justified in continuing the exceptional response to the grave problem of terrorism for another year, but I say that with great misgivings.
I hope that hon. Members will listen to those misgivings because they might well agree with them. First, as the Home Secretary will no doubt recognise, the legislation is contrary to the European convention on human rights. Secondly, the continuation of exclusion orders, in the face of the views of Lord Colville and Sir Cyril Philips, serves no useful purpose except to fuel the IRA propaganda machine in future. Thirdly, it is regretable that we should be considering the continuation of the Act against the continuing background of the Diplock courts, without any announcement from the Home Secretary of any modification of the arrangements in those courts. Press speculation, no doubt fuelled by the Government, led us to believe that we might hear something about that tonight.
Fourthly, it is regrettable that we have not yet heard fom the Government that some simple measures recommended by Lord Colville, which would further ensure the fair treatment of prisoners in police stations, have not yet been brought into effect.
The way in which the future of the Act has been dealt with tonight is astonishing. It is part of a chapter of lamentable clumsiness which had led to a total breakdown of understanding between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. The announcement of the introduction of permanent legislation next year has probably done more to worsen Anglo-Irish relations than any other declarations or activities of the past few weeks. It is piled upon what happened, or, rather, did not happen, to the Stalker-Sampson report; and upon a regrettable refusal so far by the Government to provide a proper opportunity to debate relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The Dail is to have that opportunity tomorrow, but we are to be deprived of such an opportunity, apparently for some time to come.
The announcement tonight of permanent legislation will have a regrettable effect on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It will affect, within our own jurisdiction, law,

937
justice and security. It will affect the operation of extradition and the security of the realm. The Government's proposal is a constitutional nightmare. It is politically foolish and, further to the decisions not to prosecute in the shoot-to-kill cases or to insist upon a change of chief officer in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the smothering of the Stalker-Sampson affair, must sadden our friends in Ireland as much as it delights our common enemies—the gunmen and the terrorists.
We must not tolerate a permanent and exceptional removal of civil liberties. No democratic British Government should countenance that. It is the rights and freedoms of the citizen which should be permanent. Any derogation from them should be only temporary. The European convention on human rights, to which we are a signatory, makes it clear that suspension of civil rights for reasons of the state can be only by exception. The rule must be personal freedom.
Anti-terrorist legislation is, unfortunately, needed in the short term, but we believe that the time has come to develop it within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement — not outside the framework of that agreement and in what appears to be a clumsy, though not deliberate, attempt to destroy it.
Sir Giles Shaw: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlile: I have nearly finished my speech, so I shall not give way. Many other hon. Members wish to speak.
We believe that there should be joint and simultaneous enactment by the Dail and this Parliament of new antiterrorist legislation. That is the constructive way forward, that is the way in which anti-terrorist legislation can be made to stick and that is the way in which terrorism can be defeated.
11.15 pm
Mr. David Ashby: When the principal Bill was first in Committee it was known as the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, but several Opposition Members, together with some of my hon. Friends and I, insisted that the words "(Temporary Provisions)" should be inserted in the title. I remember well the reasons for the inclusion of those words.
The Act provides the police with exceptional powers. No state should normally take the powers that have been amply set out in this debate. They include the power to detain for seven days. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides for detention for only four days. Many hon. Members were very concerned about that power to detain, but under this Act a person can be detained for a further three days.
The Act includes the power to hold and interrogate and to hold simply for the purpose of gathering information. The Act also includes the power to detain people in Northern Ireland, thereby preventing them from travelling to the mainland. They are exceptional powers. Therefore, it was necessary to include the words "(Temporary Provisions)" in the title of the Act.
I welcome an annual opportunity to debate such exceptional powers. It is necessary to examine every year the effect of the Act, what is happening in Northern Ireland and whether the Act ought to be renewed. Its renewal should never be automatic. As parliamentary time
938
is limited, there cannot be a requirement to renew the Act every five years, but there must be an order every year, thus providing an opportunity for debate. Therefore, I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
For the reasons that were given by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I believe that it is right to renew the order. However, I say that only after a careful examination of the current situation. I give notice that next year I shall not automatically vote for the renewal of the Act. I shall consider its effect very carefully. Only after the most careful consideration shall I be prepared to vote for its renewal, because of the exceptional powers that it contains.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has given figures that prove that the Act has been successful, but the fight against terrorism has much further to go. Nevertheless, I believe that the Act cannot remain on the statute book for ever and I look forward to the end of it.
11.24 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: It is tragic that the debate is taking place in the shadow of the events of the past three weeks. Ringing in all our ears must be those prophetic words of Sir John Hermon, at his first meeting with John Stalker, when he said, "You are in a jungle now." The jungle state has been contributed to, not just by the situation in Northern Ireland, but by the decision announced on the Floor of the House, which will allow those charged with enforcing the law to undermine the law and which has debased the integrity of the whole process of justice in Northern Ireland in the eyes of the people who have had to watch various incidents.
The Government have played by the ground rules which were laid down by Sir John Hermon or the intelligence services. Translated into graffiti, with all the legal niceties stripped away, the decision could be written on a wall as, "Jungle rule, OK." It is against that background that we must examine the two crucial issues. I shall not deal with the timing of the announcement, except to say that it was grossly insensitive, to put it mildly.
The proposed permanency is something that I find abhorrent, like most of what is in the legislation. To understand the context, we must consider the rake's progress in trying to get a solution to the Northern Irish problem. A security solution has been tried in all shapes and forms for 20 years. A new brigade has just been formed, and there is a new border zone. Some people have compared it to the Gaza strip. I live in it, so I will not make that comparison. In their thinking the Government seem to be moving inexorably towards a futile military solution, but there is no such solution.
The question must be asked: what is the objective? Is it to defeat terrorism, or is it to bring peace? The Government have to address that question. What is the priority? Is it to bring peace to Northern Ireland or to Ireland, or is it to try to gain a futile victory? Let there be no mistake about it. The present position can go on for another 20 years, with the military approach by the Government and by all the paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland.
The second fundamental question is: can amending or bending the law lead to a solution? Let us look at the rake's progress on that. We have had internment without trial, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978,

939
the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, the Diplock courts, the brutal interrogation techniques verified by Lord Justice Bennett and supergrass trials. We have had all these abuses of the law, but, 20 years on, none of them has ended terrorism. This legislation, whether permanent or temporary, will not end violence.
Everything has been tried militarily and legally. The one solution that has not yet been tried is that of giving the people of Northern Ireland a proper system of justice that every person can identify with, have confidence in and defend if the need arises. That is the way to prevent terrorism and end violence. That is the way to create peace.
I refer hon. Members to the informed view expressed by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), when he was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. In a speech in Munich he said that oppressive policies, without regard to moderation, civilisation and restraint, could feed terrorism. That is what is happening because of the emergency provisions legislation. Paramilitarists can live with repression. Indeed, they promote and welcome it. They cannot live with the highest standards of justice, because that is what they fear most. Since 1974, they have never been faced with that prospect from a Government operating from this House.
Once the order becomes permanent, it will be a vote of no confidence in the prospect of obtaining stability, a proper system of justice or prospects for peace in Northern Ireland. It is saying that there is no chance of stability proper justice or peace.
When Lord Jenkins, as he now is, was Secretary of State for the Home Department and he introduced this legislation, he said that it was unprecedented in peacetime. It is draconian legislation. To have it as a temporary provision is bad enough, but to enshrine it permanently is a monstrous act for the people of Britain, and especially for the people in Northern Ireland.
Powers of detention could be rewritten. The legislation is already used as a trawl for intelligence information. The detention figures, not confining their application to Britain, and the application of sections 11 and 13 in Northern Ireland, are astounding. Is anyone telling me, or anyone who lives in Northern Ireland, that this legislation is not used to trawl for intelligence?
Let me give as an example an incident that occurred three weeks ago A lady in my constituency, who was six months pregnant, was taken from her home by helicopter at 6.30 in the morning to a holding centre and questioned for a day and a half. The questioning was not about herself and her involvement, but about people with whom she might have had contact.
Mr. Robert Parry: My hon. Friend will be aware that over many years thousands of men and women have had their fingerprints taken, and although they are not found guilty of any terrorism, their fingerprints are still kept on file. Is that not disgraceful, and should not those fingerprints be destroyed?
Mr. Mallon: That may cause considerable concern in Britain, but I can assure my hon. Friend that in my constituency it would be the least of people's worries.
I have two further points to make. Unless precautions are taken when people are held in detention, there will be a repeat of the situation where a Mr. Gillan from Belfast was released from custody on the direction of the court
940
because of his maltreatment in detention. Video cameras and tape recorders were introduced to put a stop to that, but they have not done so. This matter must be considered most carefully.
There is no statutory provison to cover the use of force by members of the security forces in Northern Ireland, apart from a provision in the Criminal Law Act 1967. There is nothing that the public have a right to know about, apart from that provision. Is that important? I suggest that it is very important when we realise that, between 1969 and 1986, 166 people were killed by members of the security forces. None of those people was involved in violence or paramilitary groupings. That is a remarkable omission from any form of legislation.
Until a uniform code of conduct and a set of rules are enshrined in legislation for both the police and the Army, there will be more Stalker affairs, and more people will be killed in dubious circumstances. This kind of incident will poison relationships, not just between the parties in the House, but between people in Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and between the Republic and Britain.
It may seen strange to quote the words of Lord Denning after these past three weeks, but I shall risk it. I ask that the Government remember these words at all times. He said: "Be you ever so high, the law is above you."
11.29 pm
Mr. Kenneth Hind: The fight against terrorism is an extraordinary business, and extraordinary solutions are required to deal with it. No Conservative Member would welcome the use of powers of this kind unless it was necessary, but necessary it is. Let me say to my right hon. Friend that one of the primary duties of a Government is to protect the citizens of this country. That is what he must do, and in doing so he takes on these necessary powers.
The lives of British people, not only in Northern Irleland but on the mainland, are in the hands of the police and the Home Office. It is their responsibility to ensure that our streets are safe and our people properly protected. We are dealing not only with international terrorism, or only with domestic terrorism, but with a mixture: the IRA, the Libyans, the Iranians—all kinds of terrorists who come to this country bearing its people no good will. Those are the people whom we must exclude, and this Bill will exclude them.
Let me say to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that it is much better for 103 people to spend a week in custody than for hundreds of British people to die on our streets because we do not look into things properly. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will agree with that. It does not do for the right hon. Gentleman to go on about the police in the way that he has done. That is at the root of it—the Opposition's paranoia about the powers granted to the police in this country. The police are the defenders of our society. I have sat in the House for four years and listened, and there is no doubt that the Opposition are paranoid about the powers of the police, and about giving them any further powers.
Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hind: I will not give way.

941
No one who has been in the House for the last few years and who has seen the incident at Heathrow over the E1-A1 jet, the Brighton bombing, Enniskillen, the Eksund incident and the recent uncovering of arms caches in Northern Ireland could believe that this measure is inappropriate. It is an essential tool of preventive policing, and an essential tool in the fight against terrorism.
Mr. Bermingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hind: No, I shall not give way.
I say to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that I am surprised at him in particular. I say to the House that the public will not understand, if the Opposition vote against the order, their cavalier attitude towards the safety of the people of this country, of which they ought to be thoroughly ashamed.
11.32 pm
Mr. Martin Flannery: The melancholy annual renewal of this legislation suggests that the Conservative party has exactly the same attitude as it did when the Act was first made law. Some of us fought against it on that day, and have continued to do so. It caused us much personal misery and trouble, but we did it for two reasons: because we were convinced that it would not work, and because we were convinced that it was profoundly unjust and would not do what it was intended to do. We are renewing it now against the background of a series of events which have been enumerated during the debate, and which, tied together, almost look like a provocation of the Irish people and the Irish Government.
We know that Sir John Hermon and the Government together have prevented justice from being done to the people who carried out those shootings. It is no good the Government hiding behind the Director of Public Prosecutions: it is the Government who are intervening in the law. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) should shut up. He never came here for debates about Ireland until he was paid for it. He was not here when we were fighting the struggle a long time ago, and he would not be now—
Sir Eldon Griffiths rose—
Mr. Flannery: I shall not give way.
Sir Eldon Griffiths rose—
Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is normally called first on such matters and he usually takes about half an hour out of a one-and-a-half-hour debate. The fact that he was told off means that we have been subjected to less than usual.
In 1974 the Act was passed against a background of fear and terror among our people. Many went along with it. Enniskillen is at the back of the order. Fear is causing a kind of semi-lynch law approach. People know that the Act is not working. Thousands of innocent people who have been fingerprinted are on the list.[Interruption.] I am told that it is much viler than that over there. People here should realise what the people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic are going through.
The Act's main provisions are draconian in the extreme. They include proscription of organisations that appear to be involved in political violence relating to
942
Northern Ireland; exclusion from Britain — what a terrible thing it is when the entire family is worried about people who have never been tried because there is no trial; arrest and detention for up to seven days without charge. The Home Secretary said that he needed that provision to keep somebody in for six days. He could keep somebody in for six days because some people are in gaol for six months, never mind six days. The right hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do.
The Act also includes exclusion—people are not even told the evidence against them or who is giving the evidence. There is no right of silence—people are forced to answer questions about other individuals. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, one reason for the Act is to collect knowledge and intelligence and to force people to answer. They do not have the right to silence or any opportunity to cross-examine their accusers and there is no form of trial or appeal.
It is a disgraceful Act and should be taken off the statute book altogether. It is impossible for anyone to make representations on behalf of the accused, as no form of charges has ever been laid. The Act is draconian and creates terrorism. It is a "production of terrorism" Act. If Conservative Members do not know that, they should ask themselves a simple question. When anybody is unjustly treated by the Act—the Irish people have millions of relatives in the United States—do those Conservative Members not realise that NorAid is immediately strengthened to get funds for the IRA? Among other things, that is one result of the Act.
The Act has not stopped the bombings and the shootings; they still go on. Therefore, the Act aggravates a difficult situation, produces misery, and violates the conscience of any honourable individual. The Conservative party should be ashamed of the sickening unanimity on the Government Benches. Conservative Members uphold the Act year after year when innocent people are being terrorised. People who have never bothered to go to Ireland in their lives go there with the cameras on them, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds did yesterday, as we all saw. What does he know about it? He only comes here to defend the police.
The Irish community in this country and in Northern Ireland are frightened of the Act. They all have relatives who have been affected by it. They know that something wrong is being done and have to explain why somebody has suddenly gone missing when they do not know why that person has gone missing.
Added to the Diplock courts, the Act is an outrage against the people in our country who are of Irish background. Tonight we should withdraw this vile Act instead of renewing it in this melancholy and sickening way as we do annually—and as, at one time, we did every six months. Those of us who have continually fought against it are happy and proud that we have done so, because it is a sickening wrong against innocent people, and it should go.
11.38 pm
Mr. William Cash: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) began his speech by saying that the order would not end violence. He knows that I am a strong supporter of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but the reality is that it does and can prevent violence and terrorism.

943
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said that innocent people are being terrorised in this country as a result of the Act and the orders. In reality, we can help to prevent the people of this country from being terrorised only by provisions such as this. That is why I support the Act and the order.
It is always difficult to strike a balance when one is dealing with fundamental liberties. It is always difficult to determine on which side of the equation to come down in deciding whether to introduce or continue powers such as these. As I pointed out in an intervention in the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), when the Labour Government were faced with having to deal with the problem, they detained many thousands more people than have been detained by this Government under the provisions of the same Act. As T. S. Eliot once said, humankind cannot bear very much in the way of reality, and the hon. Member for Hillsborough illustrates that point very clearly. The provisions are needed to protect the citizens of this country, of Northern Ireland, and, if I may say so, of southern Ireland. Terrorism breeds terrorism and terrorism breeds violence and unless one prevents it, it feeds like a canker upon itself. That is precisely why these powers are needed.
Mr. Mallon: They have not prevented terrorism for 20 years.
Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman says that the provisions have not prevented the violence from escalating for 20 years. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed Irish questions on many occasions. He knows that this position has pertained not for 20 or even for 40 years but for 400 years. I support the Anglo-Irish Agreement because its provisions are necessary, as are the powers in the Act. Only by these powers can we maintain the necessary degree of prevention.
Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer too. Does he not understand that the provisions of the Act apply only after arrest? The Act does nothing before a person has been arrested; it negates the normal criminal law powers after arrest. Will the hon. Gentleman please explain to the House how that helps to prevent terrorism?
Mr. Cash: As usual, the hon. Gentleman takes the nice legal point when we are dealing with something fundamental to the prevention of terrorism in this country. The fundamental reason why the Act and the orders are required is that they prevent terrorism.
Mr. Bermingham: How?
Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman is making absolutely no impact on the argument. The Act and the orders made under it must be maintained at all costs.
11.43 pm
Mr. Hattersley: I have only two points to make before I leave to the Under-Secretary the time that remains in this brief debate. It seems to me that the error committed by the Government, which tonight is more intellectual than political, was most eloquently demonstrated by the hon. Members for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash). They seem to believe that by merely reiterating the fact that terrorism exists they can justify the existence of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. They do not seem to realise that to justify
944
such draconian powers they have to relate the Act to terrorism and begin to show that it is in some way a deterrent.
My second point concerns the way in which the debate has been conducted. I think that the whole House will agree that to debate this matter of fundamental civil liberties for an hour and a half late at night is wholly unsatisfactory. It is not simply the continuation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act: it is more the permanence of that Act in future, the underlying concern expressed on both sides of the House about the state of affairs in Northern Ireland, the Stalker-Sampson report and the necessity for an inquiry, and the state of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which we tried to support when the Prime Minister announced it in the first place. Those matters must be debated soon in the House. That is clearly the underlying feeling of almost every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes his speech, will he give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has already finished.
11.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): As one would expect, this has been a vigorous debate. When deciding what weight to give to the criticism that has been voiced by Labour Members, it is as well to keep in mind the fact that the powers that we are discussing were first introduced by the Labour party in 1974. They were reenacted in 1976 by the Labour party, which was two years after the Birmingham bombing. I assume that that was then its mature policy.
It is desirable to keep in mind the fact that the powers that we are describing were described by the then Labour Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). He said:
"Unpleasant as are the powers contained in the Act, they are, in my view, necessary in order to prevent the far more serious consequences of terrorist violence." — [Official Report, 21 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 1520.]
That was the considered view of the then Labour Home Secretary.
Interestingly, there has been a debate in another place tonight and support for the renewal of this Act was voiced by two former Labour Ministers who have played an important part in these matters — the right hon. and noble Lord Mason, who is a former Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and the noble Lord Harris, who is a former Minister of State, Home Office.
Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to quote from a debate in another place?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The Minister is not quoting directly; no breach of order has been committed.
Mr. Hogg: Almost every person who has had responsibility for dealing with these matters supports the implementation and renewal of these provisions. Essentially, it is only those who have never had personal responsibility for the implementation of these matters who have sought to criticise them.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hogg: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman under any circumstances.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hogg: No.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hogg: No. I have made the position plain.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.
Mr. Hogg: The next question that we must ask—
Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hogg: No.
Mr. Corbyn rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist. The Minister has made it clear that at the moment he is not giving way.
Mr. Hogg: The next question that we must ask is what these provisions are about and what kind of conduct the Labour party is proposing to make lawful. We should also ask what safeguards and defences the Labour party proposes that we should discard.
Let us first look at sections 1 and 2. They are designed to render unlawful — to make a criminal offence — membership of or active support for either the IRA or the INLA. One matter on which we can all agree is that the IRA and the INLA are organisations whose avowed policies necessarily involve and include the killing and wounding of countless individuals. Membership of those organisations should be an offence. Active support for those organisations should be an offence. What is the Labour party's position? The Opposition render lawful membership of the IRA and the INLA in this country. They also propose to render lawful the giving of money to those two organisations. That is the inevitable and, I expect, the intended consequence of their policy as enunciated today. We need to be plain about this, because the country will want to know that the Labour party proposes to make lawful activities that most people regard as wholly deplorable.
I come now to part II of the Act, which is concerned with exclusion orders.
Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is saying that the Labour party is attempting and wants to make the IRA legal. I have never heard that uttered at any time or in any place. If the Minister—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. He must therefore seek to intervene to correct the position.
Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman putting a new point of order?
Mr. Bermingham: Is it in order for comments to be made in the House that clearly have no basis in truth, and then for hon. Members to be ruled out of order—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen are raising points of debate, not points of order.
Mr. Hogg: It is emerging either that the Labour party is extremely uncomfortable with its policy, or that it does not understand it.
Let me make plain what all this is about. Sections 1 and 2 of the Act have the effect of making it unlawful to be a member of the IRA or the INLA. They also make it unlawful to subscribe to those organisations. The Labour party proposes to repeal the two sections. That means it is proposing to make lawful membership of, and financial subscriptions to, the IRA and INLA, whose policy is murder and treason. That is the Labour party's policy, and the Opposition are not in a position to deny it, although they may find it extremely uncomfortable.
Let us now examine the exclusion orders. I fancy that the Opposition will find the debate on them as uncomfortable as they found the debate on sections 1 and 2 of the Act. If the exclusion orders were right in principle between 1974 and 1979, it is extremely difficult to see why they can be wrong in principle today. Practical criticism is one thing; practical objection is another. But to denounce in principle the policies to which the Labour party committed itself for six or seven years is a bizarre proposition that appeals to no one but the Labour party. So the question is twofold—
Mr. Hattersley rose—
Mr. Hogg: I do not propose to give way. The Labour party will have to face up to its policies and the right hon. Gentleman is not going to divert me by getting to his feet.
There are two questions. First, is the exclusion order—
Mr. Hattersley rose—
Mr. Hogg: No. I have two minutes more and I propose to proceed.
Is the exclusion order necessary and in the public interest? Secondly, is the exclusion order, if used, used in a fair and reasonable manner? On the latter point Lord Colville made it plain that he thought that the powers were being used in a fair and reasonable manner. He wanted to stop the use of those powers—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, he did, but he also explained the powerful arguments in favour of keeping them. Those arguments are to be found in his report. The first is that the police service strongly supports the continued existence of the powers. Secondly, Lord Colville expressly states that the police do not have the power to mount surveillance on terrorists who come into the country. Thirdly, he states that the powers are extremely useful in disrupting terrorist lines of communications and disrupting their supply of arms, ammunition and explosives. Those are the positive conclusions of the report.
Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does not "Erskine May" state that when someone goes mad at the Dispatch Box that person is out of order?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I am quite familiar with "Erskine May".
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 162.

Division No. 184]

[11.56 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Aitken, Jonathan

Gregory, Conal

Alexander, Richard

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Amess, David

Grist, Ian

Amos, Alan

Ground, Patrick

Arbuthnot, James

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Ashby, David

Hampson, Dr Keith

Ashdown, Paddy

Hanley, Jeremy

Aspinwall, Jack

Hannam, John

Atkins, Robert

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

Atkinson, David

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Harris, David

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Hawkins, Christopher

Baldry, Tony

Hayes, Jerry

Batiste, Spencer

Hayward, Robert

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Beith, A. J.

Heddle, John

Bellingham, Henry

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Benyon, W.

Hind, Kenneth

Bevan, David Gilroy

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Holt, Richard

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Hordern, Sir Peter

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Howard, Michael

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

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

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Boswell, Tim

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Bottomley, Peter

Howells, Geraint

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Bowis, John

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Brazier, Julian

Irvine, Michael

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Jack, Michael

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Jackson, Robert

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

Janman, Tim

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Jessel, Toby

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Buck, Sir Antony

Key, Robert

Budgen, Nicholas

Kilfedder, James

Burt, Alistair

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Butcher, John

Kirkhope, Timothy

Butler, Chris

Knapman, Roger

Butterfill, John

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Knox, David

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Lang, Ian

Carrington, Matthew

Latham, Michael

Carttiss, Michael

Lawrence, Ivan

Cartwright, John

Lee, John (Pendle)

Cash, William

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Chope, Christopher

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Lightbown, David

Colvin, Michael

Lilley, Peter

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Lord, Michael

Devlin, Tim

McCrindle, Robert

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Dover, Den

Maclean, David

Durant, Tony

McLoughlin, Patrick

Dykes, Hugh

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Emery, Sir Peter

Madel, David

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Malins, Humfrey

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Mans, Keith

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Marland, Paul

Fookes, Miss Janet

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Forth, Eric

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Mates, Michael

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Maude, Hon Francis

Gill, Christopher

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Glyn, Dr Alan

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Gow, Ian

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Gower, Sir Raymond

Miller, Hal

948

Mills, Iain

Speed, Keith

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Speller, Tony

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Moate, Roger

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Monro, Sir Hector

Steel, Rt Hon David

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Steen, Anthony

Moss, Malcolm

Stern, Michael

Mudd, David

Stevens, Lewis

Neale, Gerrard

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Nelson, Anthony

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Neubert, Michael

Sumberg, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Summerson, Hugo

Nicholls, Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Page, Richard

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Paice, James

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Patnick, Irvine

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Pawsey, James

Tracey, Richard

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Trippier, David

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Trotter, Neville

Porter, David (Waveney)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Portillo, Michael

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Price, Sir David

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Raffan, Keith

Waldegrave, Hon William

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Walden, George

Redwood, John

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Renton, Tim

Waller, Gary

Rhodes James, Robert

Ward, John

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Riddick, Graham

Warren, Kenneth

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Watts, John

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Wells, Bowen

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Wheeler, John

Roe, Mrs Marion

Whitney, Ray

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Widdecombe, Ann

Rost, Peter

Wiggin, Jerry

Rowe, Andrew

Wilkinson, John

Ryder, Richard

Wilshire, David

Sackville, Hon Tom

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Shaw, David (Dover)

Winterton, Nicholas

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wolfson, Mark

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Wood, Timothy

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Woodcock, Mike

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Yeo, Tim

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Shersby, Michael

Younger, Rt Hon George

Sims, Roger

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mr. Stephen Dorrell

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Allen, Graham

Canavan, Dennis

Anderson, Donald

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Clay, Bob

Armstrong, Hilary

Clelland, David

Ashton, Joe

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cohen, Harry

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Battle, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Beckett, Margaret

Cousins, Jim

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cox, Tom

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

Cryer, Bob

Bermingham, Gerald

Cummings, John

Blair, Tony

Dalyell, Tam

Blunkett, David

Darling, Alistair

Boyes, Roland

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

Bradley, Keith

Dewar, Donald

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Dixon, Don

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Doran, Frank

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Buchan, Norman

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Buckley, George J.

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Caborn, Richard

Eastham, Ken

Callaghan, Jim

Evans, John (St Helens N)

949

Fatchett, Derek

Meale, Alan

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

Michael, Alun

Fisher, Mark

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Flannery, Martin

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Flynn, Paul

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Foster, Derek

Morgan, Rhodri

Foulkes, George

Morley, Elliott

Fyfe, Maria

Mowlam, Marjorie

Galbraith, Sam

Mullin, Chris

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Murphy, Paul

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Nellist, Dave

Golding, Mrs Llin

O'Neill, Martin

Gordon, Mildred

Parry, Robert

Graham, Thomas

Patchett, Terry

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Pendry, Tom

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Pike, Peter L.

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Grocott, Bruce

Primarolo, Dawn

Harman, Ms Harriet

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Radice, Giles

Heffer, Eric S.

Randall, Stuart

Henderson, Doug

Reid, Dr John

Hinchliffe, David

Richardson, Jo

Holland, Stuart

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Home Robertson, John

Rogers, Allan

Hood, Jimmy

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Rowlands, Ted

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Ruddock, Joan

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Sheerman, Barry

Hume, John

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Ingram, Adam

Short, Clare

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Skinner, Dennis

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Lamond, James

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

Leadbitter, Ted

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

Leighton, Ron

Soley, Clive

Lewis, Terry

Spearing, Nigel

Litherland, Robert

Steinberg, Gerry

Livingstone, Ken

Stott, Roger

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

McAllion, John

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

McAvoy, Thomas

Turner, Dennis

McCartney, Ian

Vaz, Keith

McFall, John

Wall, Pat

McGrady, Eddie

Walley, Joan

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

McKelvey, William

Wareing, Robert N.

McLeish, Henry

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

McNamara, Kevin

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

McTaggart, Bob

Wilson, Brian

McWilliam, John

Winnick, David

Madden, Max

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Worthington, Tony

Mallon, Seamus

Wray, Jimmy

Marek, Dr John

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Tellers for the Noes:

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Maxton, John

Mr. Allen Adams.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.

Dr. Frank Skuse
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean].
12.7 am
Mr. Chris Mullin: This is the first of what I hope will be a series of Adjournment debates on different aspects of the case against the six innocent men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings. During these debates, I shall take the opportunity to explore areas that were not touched on in the recent hearing before the Court of Appeal and I hope that in due course this material may be used as the basis for reopening the case.
Tonight I will deal with Dr. Frank Skuse, the forensic scientist whose evidence above all helped to convict these unfortunate men. It is already a matter of record that Dr. Skuse was an incompetent scientist. Indeed, that is why in October 1985 the Home Office ordered his compulsory retirement at the grand old age of 51. The evidence he gave at the original trial has been utterly discredited, so much so that the judges at the recent Court of Appeal were obliged to set aside his evidence, even though they upheld the convictions.
I shall not dwell on Dr. Skuse's incompetence as a scientist. I go further and allege that Dr. Skuse also conspired with police officers to pervert the course of justice, and I shall provide the factual basis for that assertion.
At the time of the Birmingham pub bombings, Dr. Skuse was a scientific officer based at the Home Office forensic laboratory at Chorley in Lancashire. Five of the six convicted men were arrested at the port of Heysham a few hours after the bombs exploded. They were taken to Morecambe police station. Dr. Skuse was telephoned at his home in Wigan shortly after midnight and asked to come as quickly as possible to Morecambe to test the men's hands for explosives.
He was called by Sergeant Ray Paton, the police liaison officer at the Chorley laboratory. Sergeant Paton drove to Wigan to collect Dr. Skuse, and together they returned to the laboratory at Chorley, where Skuse collected his hand-swabbing kit, which was already packed, and they then went on to Morecambe, a total journey of just over 40 miles on roads with little traffic.
According to Dr. Skuse, they arrived at around 3.30 in the morning. It is puzzling why this journey should have taken the best part of three hours, since in the same statement Dr. Skuse estimates that the return journey from Morecambe to Chorley, made in daytime traffic, took only 45 minutes.
At about the same time as Dr. Skuse alleges he arrived, a party of west midlands detectives led by Superintendent George Reade reached Morecambe. Dr. Skuse and Mr. Reade had never met before that night. They have, however, since formed a close relationship which has endured for 13 years—a subject to which I shall return. Dr. Skuse invites us to believe that, having arrived at Morecambe, he did not commence his tests until 5·50 am. Just how he filled in the intervening 2 hours and 20 minutes is unclear. It is unclear also how there could be any possible reason for the delay, since the police were extremely anxious to know the results of Dr. Skuse's tests.
Dr. Skuse and Sergeant Paton installed themselves in the medical room in the cell block of Morecambe police station. The west midlands detectives were, initially at

951
least, confined to the CID offices on the first floor. They were, understandably perhaps, in view of what had happened in Birmingham, in a state of great agitation. They at first insisted on immediate access to the prisoners. Very properly, this was refused by Chief Superintendent Ibison, the senior Lancashire detective. I am told by an officer who was present that this led to a blazing row between Reade and Ibison, but to begin with at least Mr. Ibison held his ground.
Dr.Skuse says that he commenced testing the hands of the five men at 5.50 am. At their trial the men testified that they believed that the tests had commenced much earlier, at around 3 or 4 in the morning. This was necessarily only an estimate since they had no watches, but, as we shall see, there were a number of people who did have watches and who support their evidence.
According to his timings, Dr. Skuse obtained his first positive test from the hand of Billy Power at around 7 o'clock in the morning. He obtained another positive from Paddy Hill by around 7.30. There then occurs a lengthy gap in the times offered by Dr. Skuse, who claims that he did not see the next prisoner, Johnny Walker, until 8.55 and that he carried out a further test on Paddy Hill after 9 am. At the recent appeal hearing, Dr. Skuse explained the gap by saying that he ran out of ether and had to send out for more from a local chemist, Mr. John Rayner. Mr. Rayner, he said, had arrived at between 8.15 and 8.30 am. Mr. Rayner, however, told the court that he delivered the ether to Morecambe police station at between 5 and 6 in the morning. He was quite definite about this. The Appeal Court judges chose to explain this difference away as a lapse of memory on Mr. Rayner's part, but Mr. Rayner is not alone in his recollection.
What is not disputed, even on Dr. Skuse's controversial timings, is that by around 7 in the morning word of Dr. Skuse's positive findings had reached the west midlands detectives, who were anxiously pacing up and down on the first floor. From that moment onwards, they honestly believed that the men downstairs were the Birmingham pub bombers. Although he had no business to be so, Dr. Skuse was absolute in his certainty. There was, he testified later, a 99 per cent. chance that those men had recently handled nitro-glycerine.
At around 7 am or earlier, the Lancashire police surrendered control over the cell block in Morecambe police station to Superintendent Reade and his men, who commenced a series of fantastic assaults in an effort, which was successful, to extract confessions from the men who they sincerely believed, on the basis of what Dr. Skuse had told them, had recently handled nitro-glycerine.
I do not suggest that Dr. Skuse or Sergeant Paton witnessed or overheard these assaults. I do, however, say that, whether or not Dr. Skuse knew of the violence, he is a party to the elaborate web of fraud and perjury to which Superintendent Reade and his men had to resort in order to cover up the assaults.
The official story is that the Lancashire police, under Superintendent Ibison, conducted an orderly handover of the prisoners at 9.30 am. Patently, that is nonsense. Sergeant Ronald Buckley, the officer in charge of the cells at Morecambe, almost let the cat out of the bag at the original trial. He testified that west midlands detectives were already interviewing the prisoners in the cell block when he came on duty at around 7 am. It was not just a slip of the tongue; his evidence on this point covered a whole page of the transcript and lasted several minutes. He
952
only climbed back on board the official version of the events when the judge, Lord Bridge, came, as he sc often did, to the aid of the prosecution and hinted to Sergeant Buckley that his memory might be faulty. However, 13 years later Mr. Buckley still sticks by his story. Interviewed by the Devon and Cornwall police on 13 May last year, he again insisted that west midlands detectives were interviewing the prisoners when he came on duty at about 7 o'clock. He repeated this knowing the implication and knowing — indeed, it was put to him — that Superintendent Ibison, his superior officer at the time, was still saying something quite different.
Inspector Ken Brown was another Lancashire officer on duty that night. He was on duty until 6 am. When I contacted him two years ago, he told me: "My recollection is that Skuse had a positive by the time I went home, although I wouldn't swear to it." If Inspector Brown's recollection is correct, Dr. Skuse must have commenced his tests at least an hour earlier than the time to which he admits.
Sergeant Paton, who drove Dr. Skuse to and from Morecambe police station, can also assist with inquiries. He was not called to give evidence, either at the original trial or at the recent appeal. If the times have been rejigged, he must know. When Sergeant Paton was interviewed last year at his home in Preston by detectives from the Devon and Cornwall police force, he gave two statements. The first, dated 26 March, said that he and Dr. Skuse had arrived at Morecambe at around 1.30 am, two hours earlier than Dr. Skuse claimed.
The Devon and Cornwall police, having taken the statement from Sergeant Paton, went to see Dr. Skuse, who gave them the official version of events, flatly contradicting his driver, Sergeant Paton. So the Devon and Cornwall police went to see Sergeant Paton again and refreshed his memory. His memory suitably refreshed, Sergeant Paton clambered back on board. He signed a second statement, agreeing that he had arrived at 3.30 and not, as he said originally, 1.30. The Devon and Cornwall police were kind enough not to pursue how he came to be so far adrift, nor indeed how he had managed to spin out a 45-minute journey to the best part of three hours.
I come now to Dr. Skuse. It is now established beyond doubt that he was an incompetent scientist. Even the Home Office now accepts that. He was sacked on the grounds of what the Home Office coyly call limited efficiency". It is also established beyond doubt, although the Home Office has yet to own up to this, that Dr. Skuse's limited efficiency dates back to at least 1975, the year he gave his now discredited evidence at the original trial.
What I am suggesting today is something rather more serious than incompetence, and has nothing to do with Dr. Skuse's credibility as a scientist. I say that Dr. Sk use has conspired over a long period with Superintendent George Reade to rearrange the timing of events in Morecambe police station to cover up the fact that west midlands detectives had access to the prisoners several hours earlier than has so far been admitted and that, during that time, they commenced a ferocious programme of violence which led to the extraction of false confessions.
That is why Dr. Skuse and Mr. Reade, who had never met before that night and who live 80 miles from each other, are still so closely in touch after 13 years. That is why they liaised with particular care during the recent appeal and that is why Mr. Reade has stoutly championed Dr. Skuse's claim that he has been unfairly dismissed by

953
the Home Office. Reade needs Skuse's silence if what happened to those men in police custody is to continue to be concealed.
The four days which Dr. Skuse spent in the witness box at the Old Bailey in November must have been particularly nerve-wracking for George Reade. If Skuse had been caught out on timing—he was caught out many times on scientific matters— Reade would have been in deep trouble. If Sergeant Paton had broken ranks and testified along the lines of his first statement, the game also would have been up.
At the recent appeal hearing, it emerged that Dr. Skuse kept no contemporaneous note of the times at which he carried out the tests. Indeed, he kept very few notes of any kind. He did not even record the chemical formula he had used. It emerged also that Dr. Skuse had taken it upon himself to alter the times noted by Sergeant Paton by 10 or 15 minutes. He had done this without telling Sergeant Paton. He did it, he said, at the suggestion of Superintendent Ibison. He denied that he had done it at the suggestion of Superintendent Reade, even though it was pointed out that the new times matched Reade's not Ibison's.
While an alteration of 10 or 15 minutes is not directly relevant to the charge I am making—that the times were adjusted by several hours—it establishes that Dr. Skuse, far from being an impartial scientist, was prepared to change his evidence at the suggestion of a police officer. I do not dwell on this.
Central to the allegation I am making is the relationship that has developed between George Reade and Frank Skuse over the past 13 years. When I and a colleague from Granada Television called unannounced at George Reade's home in Rugeley, Staffordshire, two years ago, he said:
"I know you lads were about. Frank Skuse told me."
That was before any of the recent controversy became public. Dr. Skuse had not telephoned to alert Mr. Reade to our investigation. He had taken the trouble to drive 80 miles to Rugeley to alert Mr. Reade in person.
Over the following 18 months, as Dr. Skuse's difficulties with the Home Office increased, George Reade became a champion of Skuse's cause. He took Skuse to see his Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whom I hold in the highest regard. Reade even wrote on Dr. Skuse's behalf to the permanent secretary at the Home Office, Sir Brian Cubbon. I submit that George Reade did not do this out of the kindness of his heart. He did it because he needed Skuse's silence and he was worried that an embittered Dr. Skuse might blurt out the truth.
At the recent appeal hearing, Frank Skuse and George Reade were both important witnesses. Skuse was in the witness box for more than four days. Witnesses are not supposed to discuss their evidence with each other or anyone else while the case is proceeding. Indeed, that very point was made to Dr. Skuse by the Lord Chief Justice.
I am reliably informed that Dr. Skuse, on more than one occasion, while the case was proceeding, telephoned former Sergeant Ray Paton in Preston and discussed the case with him at length. Mr. Paton was the man who drove Dr. Skuse to Morecambe. His silence is also needed to corroborate Dr. Skuse's unlikely time schedule.
954
I further believe—and I challenge Dr. Skuse to deny —that, while the appeal was proceeding, Frank Skuse was regularly in touch by telephone with George Reade, the other principal Crown witness.
I go further. On Sunday 29 November, shortly after Skuse and Reade had completed their evidence, but while the case was still being heard and they were both technically witnesses, liable to be recalled at any time, an ITN journalist, Mr. Chris Jameson, called unannounced at Reade's house. Who should open the door? It was none other than Frank Skuse. Frank Skuse was there, in George Reade's house, while the appeal was still being heard.
Skuse and Reade are the villains of this terrible affair. Dr. Skuse, unwittingly perhaps, provided the false scientific evidence. Mr. Reade provided the confessions and they have conspired together ever since.
Giving judgment in the Appeal Court on 28 January, Lord Justice Lane said:
"It is inevitable that the allegations made on behalf of the appellants would necessitate the active collaboration of Dr. Skuse."
That is exactly what I am alleging.
12.22 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The allegations made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) appear to have been made with no evidence at all, for no evidence has been produced. They appear to represent a distortion both of any role that any of the people whom he has named under the cloak of parliamentary privilege might have had and of the Court of Appeal's judgment in the Birmingham pub bombings case. The hon. Gentleman's attack on a member of the judiciary was totally inappropriate and wrong.
The defence had the opportunity to put before the court any evidence that it wished. The court gave the case careful consideration. It is not clear to me, nor to my hon. Friends, exactly what purpose the hon. Genetleman seeks to serve by using the cloak of parliamentary privilege to make entirely unsubstantiated allegations based on nothing more than his personal interpretation of some of the facts for which he has produced no evidence, even when he has been challenged. His attack on a member of the judiciary is entirely inappropriate for an hon. Member following the conventions of the House.
The hon. Gentleman has clearly not read the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case. He has distorted Dr. Skuse's role in the prosecution and chosen to ignore the corroboration that his evidence received at crucial points. The speech that the hon. Gentleman read at great speed, presumably as a trailer for a future book or television programme, was one of the worst and most wretched performances that I have ever heard in the House of Commons.
I shall give a few facts about the retirement of Dr. Frank Skuse, who, along with members of the judiciary and others, has been subjected to attacks by the hon. Gentleman under the cloak of parliamentary privilege.
Dr. Skuse joined the Home Office forensic science service in 1963 at the age of 28. After six years service he was promoted in 1969 to the next grade of principal scientific officer. It was in that grade that he passed the remainder of his career in the forensic science service. Over these years he developed a particular interest in arson and explosives. Throughout the 1970s Dr. Skuse's career followed a normal pattern, with him gaining experience in

955
the matters in which he had developed his particular interests. It is unremarkable, therefore, that among the cases he handled was one that later became known as that of the Birmingham bombers. Dr. Skuse's career continued on these lines until the early 1980s, when his managers noted some falling off in his performance as a principal scientific officer.
It was that deterioration in performance, noted in a number of staff reports—[Interruption.] I am giving the facts and the evidence. I am not making unsubstantiated and wild allegations. That deterioration in performance led to an invitation to Dr. Skuse to consider early retirement. At the same time, it was made clear to Dr. Skuse that in view of his current performance the Department was bound to make moves to secure his compulsory retirement on grounds of limited efficiency. "Grounds of limited efficiency" is a perfectly ordinary term of art that is used in the Civil Service across all Departments. It is not something to be sneered at.
Dr. John Reid: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Patten: No, I shall certainly not give way.
In the event, in June 1985 Dr. Skuse agreed to take voluntary retirement. That is a fact rather than an allegation or an unsubstantiated, wild statement, such as we have heard from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. There was some discussion with Dr. Skuse about whether he should retire at the end of October or early in November. That also is a fact. In a letter dated 23 July 1985 he was told that his last day of service would be 31 October 1985.
The chronological sequence that I have just described makes it absolutely clear that the question of limited efficiency that led to the retirement of Dr. Skuse related to his performance in the period to his retirement in 1985, and certainly not to the work that he had done as long ago as 1975.
It has been demonstrated, therefore, that there was no connection between Dr. Skuse's retirement and the case of the Birmingham bombings. However, the Department, as a matter of prudence, has reviewed Dr. Skuse's earlier work on a number of occasions. The most comprehensive review was one made by the then director of the Chorley forensic science laboratory, Mr. George Walker, in 1984 and 1985, at the request of the controller of the forensic science service. Mr. Walker used all the available records at the laboratory. These covered Dr. Skuse's written evidence in some 350 cases, dating back not just to 1975, but to 1966. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not seem to be interested in the facts and in the evidence. They are interested only in wild and unsubstantiated allegations.
Mr. Walker concluded that his investigations had not brought to light any case where Dr. Skuse had misreported facts, had been biased in his reports, or had been negligent in his work. On the basis of his investigations, Mr. Walker did not consider that he had any grounds for suspecting that Dr. Skuse's work had led to any miscarriage of justice. Leaving on one side the case of the Birmingham bombers, nothing emerged from these reviews that called into serious doubt convictions reached in cases where Dr. Skuse gave evidence.
I should make it absolutely clear that, following the normal conventions of the House, neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home
956
Department consider it right to comment in any way on the evidence given at the appeal hearing or on the judgment handed down by the court. What I can say is that the Court of Appeal had laid before it the facts and arguments about Dr. Skuse's evidence. It went over ground raised at the trial.
At the appeal hearing, seven says were spent on the issue. The hon. Gentleman said that Dr. Skuse gave evidence for four days. It was about the only fact that the hon. Gentleman referred to in his speech and even that was wrong. Dr. Skuse gave evidence, not for four days, but for three and a half days. If the hon. Gentleman wants to report facts to the House, he should at least take the trouble to make sure that he has got them right. [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Gentleman cared about facts. Clearly he does not. He undermines the basis of his own arguments by his cavalier attitude to facts and his reliance on allegations and suppositions. There has been a clear opportunity for any issues or arguments about the scientific evidence in the Birmingham bombings case to be raised. After long and careful deliberation the Court of Appeal gave its judgment. As my right hon. Friend has made plain, he cannot now, in the absence of any indications from the court that he should do so, intervene in these convictions. It is not for him to seek to pass further judgment, quite rightly. He is not a court of law; nor am I; nor, in the strict sense, if I may say so, is the House.
What about the issue of further reviews of Dr. Skuse's cases? We have, of course, looked at what the court had to say in its judgment. Our understanding is that the judgment has not shown any grounds for casting doubt on Dr. Skuse's scientific work in general or in other specific cases. The position in cases in which Dr. Skuse gave evidence is the same as in any other contested criminal case that resulted in a conviction. If any new evidence or any new consideration—I emphasise the word "new" — is brought to our attention that casts doubt on the accuracy of the evidence—whether that of Dr. Skuse or any other witness—or on the safety of the conviction, we would think it right to review the case, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has shown himself very ready to do.
As with the Birmingham case, the decision for my right hon. Friend would be whether or not he found that there were grounds that would justify his referring the case to the Court of Appeal. We therefore have no present plans to subject criminal cases on which Dr. Skuse worked to further review. As I have said, however, we would clearly be ready to consider reviewing and intervening in any particular case where some new evidence or new consideration of substance that cast doubt on the safety of the conviction came to light.
Mr. Tony Benn rose—
Mr. Patten: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, as I have only two minutes in which to conclude my remarks on the case.
Mr. Benn: This is an important point.
Mr. Patten: I can see no justification for giving way to the right hon. Gentleman. I must return to the starting point of the Adjournment rather than deal with a number of allegations for which no evidence has been produced.
I believe that I have shown conclusively that the circumstances of the Birmingham bombings, and therefore

957
the issue of Dr. Skuse's retirement, have been fully addressed in my remarks to the House tonight in reply to the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment motion.
Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if there is a moment. I have listened to the Minister with interest. He has totally failed to meet the points made by my hon. Friend about established collusion between two witnesses appearing before the court. I ask him, before the debate ends, to say that he will investigate the points made by my hon. Friend, who has devoted a lot of effort to proving what most people now believe to be the case, namely, that the Birmingham six are innocent and that the only reason that their appeal was turned down was that if it had been upheld the British judiciary at a very high level, and the police, would have been brought into disrepute.
The Minister, in replying to my hon. Friend, has totally failed to address some of the most serious allegations that I have heard made in the House. Those reading the report of this debate in Hansard will draw the conclusion that the Minister, too, is covering up for the judiciary and the police.
Mr. Patten rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I must ask the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to withdraw those last remarks. They are totally unparliamentary and unacceptable.
Mr. Benn: Madam Deputy Speaker, I said that those reading the report of the debate in Hansard would be driven to the conclusion that the Minister was covering up for decisions that had been taken elsewhere.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is those remarks that I ask the right hon. Member to withdraw. I plead with him. They are totally unacceptable to me in the Chair tonight, and unacceptable to the House. I ask him to consider and to withdraw them now.
Mr. Benn: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am an old Member of the House and I ask you what is unparliamentary about accusing the Government of covering up, because that is precisely the charge.
Mr. Patten: Withdraw!
Mr. Benn: "Covering up" is a charge that I have heard used regularly in many years of debates in the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand when the right hon. Gentleman says that he is a long-standing Member of the House, but he is making a personal attack on the Minister tonight, which I believe is totally unjustified, and I ask him to withdraw those remarks at this stage.
Mr. Benn: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will bow to your ruling, but I must say that if the charge is objectionable because it relates to the Minister, I must claim that the Government, who are responsible to the House, are covering up for what happened in the police and the judiciary.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Those remarks I can accept, but there must be no aspersions in the House against a Minister. Criticism of the Government is perfectly justified in the House, but it must not be made against any individual Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Refreshments
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list by bar and restaurant the nonalcoholic and low-alcoholic beverages which are available for sale in the House.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In addition to soft drinks and mineral waters, alcohol-free wines, and alcohol-free and low-alcohol beers are available in all Refreshment Department outlets in the House.

WALES

  Craft Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish the independent report he commissioned into the developmental and marketing needs of the Welsh craft industry.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The report was published earlier today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. I shall be consulting widely on its proposals. Given the need to reduce the present uncertainties in the industry, I hope to be in a position to make early decisions.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how the operation of selective grants for industrial development will benefit areas without assisted area status.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Regional selective assistance under section 7 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 is not available outside the assisted areas. Many measures administered by the development agencies and the Wales Tourist Board, most of them selective in nature, are available, however, to support industrial and commercial projects in the unassisted areas, where about 11 per cent. of the economically active population live and work.

  These include Mid Wales Development grant, DRIVE, rural building conversion grants, the new business development grant administered by WDA and MWD, capital grants and assistance for joint marketing schemes from the Wales Tourist Board, subsidised and small rural loans, equity capital, business and technology-oriented advice, assistance under the Welsh food initiative, advance and bespoke factories and derelict land and environmental improvement grants.

  In addition, depending on their precise location certain projects could also be eligible for assistance under the Department's urban programme and urban development grant schemes and the Welsh Development Agency's recently announced property development grant.

  Speech Therapy Training Centre
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now take steps to facilitate the establishment of a speech therapy training centre in North Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 23 November 1987 at col.12.

  Consultant Community Health Physicians
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if any health authorities in Wales do not have a consultant community health physician.

  Mr. Grist
  At September 1986 all district health authorities in Wales had at least one consultant community health physician.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, for each of the last three years, what was the maximum length of time that a patient confirmed as suffering from a cervical carcinoma had to wait before commencing in-patient treatment at(a) Singleton hospital, Swansea, and (b) Velindre hospital, Cardiff.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 28 January 1988]: The available information is shown in the following table. It relates to the length of time that patients were on the waiting list before commencing in-patient radiotherapy treatment. In cases where the patient received in-patient treatment on several occasions, the information relates to the first in-patient episode in the sequence.

  Maximum Wailing Times (Days)

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Singleton Hospital

  17

  30

  19

  Velindre Hospital

  21

  25

  28

  Health Service (Clwyd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to improve the health service in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: Clwyd will benefit from the increased resources of £69·8 million which is being made available to the National Health Service in Wales in 1988–89. Net resources available to the National Health Service in Wales in 1988–89 in real terms will be 39 per cent. above what it was in 1978–79.

PRIME MINISTER

  Teesside Development Corporation
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will visit the offices of the Teesside development corporation.

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

  Wolston
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Wolston, near Rugby.

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

  EURATOM
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her recent meeting with Chancellor Kohl, she discussed the implications of the Transnuklear nuclear wastes and nuclear materials alleged bribes and false labelling scandal with regard to the effectiveness of the EURATOM nuclear oversight and future public confidence in civil nuclear power.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Newbattle Abbey College
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she wrote to the principal of Newbattle Abbey college prior to the announcement that funding would be withdrawn.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Upper Barnsley
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if she plans to make an official visit to Upper Barnsley.

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

  Advisory Council on Science and Technology
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to chair the Advisory Council on Science and Technology.

  The Prime Minister
  I hope to chair a meeting of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology shortly.

  Extortion (Terrorists)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Prime Minister what action she has taken since the terrorist practice of using extortion to obtain funds first became known in 1982; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  A number of important initiatives have been undertaken or are in train to deal with the serious problem represented by the extortion practised by terrorists in Northern Ireland. In 1982 the Royal Ulster Constabulary set up its anti-racketeering squad which, among other things, has investigated extortion and related offences. Its inquiries continue, as do a number of prosecutions, and the squad has very recently been strengthened and reorganised. The Northern Irish (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987 included provisions to prevent security firms extorting money under the guise of providing security services. Progress has also been made in co-ordinating Government activity to make extortion more difficult and further initiatives in this area are being considered.

  President Waldheim (Wartime Record)
  Mr. Rhodes James
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will instigate further inquiries into the fate of Sub-Lieutenant Allen Tuckey, Private Ray Jones, Captain Bluett, Captain Hamilton, Private Davies and Private Bennett, in the light of the report of the International Historians' Commission on the wartime record of President Kurt Waldheim; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We are reviewing the results of investigations carried out in 1986 by the Ministry of Defence into the fate of captured British service men,520
  including those mentioned by my hon. Friend, in the light of the report of the International Commission of Historians on the wartime record of President Waldheim. I would remind the House that we have taken the allegations concerning Dr. Waldheim very seriously, particularly those concerning British service men, and that our thorough investigation of British official records has found no evidence to substantiate the allegations. As we have said before, we remain ready to examine all new information.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

  Mr. James Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Authority Staff
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the number of employees of the Cheshire county council and each district council in Cheshire in each of the last 10 years, broken down by functions.

  Mr. Chope
  Individual authority data have only been included in the Joint Manpower Watch since the end of 1979. The information relating to Cheshire county council, broken down by function, is not available centrally. Aggregate figures for that authority are as follows:

  Cheshire County Council—June figures

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1980

  20,356

  17,180

  37,536

  1981

  19,760

  15,857

  35,617

  1982

  19,129

  15,844

  34,973

  1983

  18,917

  15,036

  33,953

  1984

  18,220

  16,766

  34,986

  1985

  18,072

  17,051

  35,123

  1986

  18,155

  18,037

  36,192

  1987

  18,307

  19,757

  38,064

  Tables showing the numbers employed, broken down by function, for each of the districts within the county from June 1980 are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from
  521
  district councils in Northumberland about his proposals for the reform of finance of housing associations; and what replies he has given.

  Mrs. Roe
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from Alnwick district council. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Department's reply.

  Leicestershire (Job Selection)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to end discrimination being practised by the Leicestershire county council in the selection procedure it adopts for job vacancies, in so far as this affects past or retired employees of the Crown.

  Mr. Chope
  Local authorities, as independent bodies responsible for their own recruitment policies, are free to employ whomever they wish provided that they have regard to relevant employment legislation. They have to account to their local electorates for their recruitment policies.

  Urban Regeneration
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire of 1 December 1987,Official Report, column 549, if he will indicate when he expects to complete his review on the progress of urban regeneration grants.

  Mr. Trippier
  Soon.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has as to whether his Department's code of guidance regarding the listing of buildings is being adhered to; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  The code summarises the instructions given to field workers about their conduct towards the owners of the buildings they inspect. It was introduced to give more publicity to best practice. Since its publication in October 1986, over 38,000 buildings have been listed, but only about 80 complaints have been received about the conduct of field workers; of these, about 10 have been upheld on investigation.

  Cheshire County Council
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to which services Cheshire county council spends above the average; by how much; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The comparative information has been presented in terms of net current expenditure per head of population in 1986–87.
  522

  Net current expenditure per head

  Services

  Cheshire County Council

  Average for all Shire County Council

  Spending by Cheshire County Council in excess of the average for all Shire Counties

  £

  £

  £

  Education

  248

  228

  20

  School meals and milk

  11

  8

  3

  Personal Social Services

  45

  41

  4

  Fire

  13

  l2

  1

  Courts and probation

  7

  6

  1

  Town and Country Planning

  3

  2

  1

  Miscellaneous services1

  7

  6

  1

  1 Including land drainage and flood protection, non-housing revenue account housing, employment, consumer protection and general administration.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if in view of the exceptionally wet weather, he will consider extending the time limit from 1 March to 31 March for local authorities to clear up the hurricane damage.

  Mr. Ridley
  On 8 December 1987, at column 99, I announced, inter alia, proposals to widen the total expenditure exclusion on storm-related revenue expenditure above a threshold amount. Total expenditure exclusions have the effect of relieving authorities from block grant loss. I have now consulted the local authority associations and the authorities concerned about these revised proposals and have considered their comments carefully.

  A number of the responses also made representations about the scheme of financial assistance (the Bellwin scheme) to assist authorities with the costs of storm damage. After careful consideration of these representations I have decided to make no changes to the Bellwin scheme which was designed to provide assistance in meeting emergency expenditure in the immediate aftermath of the storm. For the purposes of the scheme, the date by which work of an emergency nature must be completed therefore remains 1 March 1988.

  In the light of the representations on the total expenditure exclusions, I have decided to extend the exclusion for 1987–88 to cover all storm-related revenue expenditure above the threshold defined for the Bellwin rules, including revenue contributions to capital outlays, incurred by the end of March 1988. In addition, as proposed, I have decided to exclude for 1987–88 and 1988–89 all debt charges incurred in respect of capital expenditure on storm damage on 16 October up to the end of March 1989. Finally, I have also proposed that all debt charges on this capital expenditure which fall in 1989–90 should also be excluded: a decision on this proposal will be taken prior to the 1989–90 RSG settlement.

  Members' Accommodation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the quality of furnishings and fittings in the new Members' accommodation in Bridge street will be of similar standard to those in the Department of Health and Social Security building in Richmond terrace; and if he will make a statement.
  523
  Mr. Chope
  Members' accommodation in the new parliamentary building will be fitted out generally in accordance with the design brief published in the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), Third Report, Session 1983–84, Appendix 1.1 (HC571). The quality will be comparable to the furniture in the Commons Court offices though taken from current standard ranges.

  European Year of the Environment
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the achievements sponsored by Her Majesty's Government to date, in support of the European Year of the Environment; and if he will make a statement on the major initiatives known to his Department achieved by other European countries participant in the European Environment Year.

  Mrs. Roe
  My Department has provided over £750,000 of support to the United Kingdom Committee for the European Year of the Environment (EYE). This includes a grant scheme of £300,000 under which the Department has supported over 150 practical environmental projects on the recommendation of the committee. It also includes the running costs of a full-time team which has put together the United Kingdom EYE programme and publicity campaign on behalf of the committee.

  In addition, my Department has been associated with a number of major events and projects in the EYE programme including the second International ministerial conference on the protection of the North sea hosted by the Government in London in November 1987; support for the production of the second edition of "EEC Environmental Policy and Britain" by Nigel Haigh; and the international pollution abatement fair in Birmingham in April 1987. As a further contribution the Department is preparing a general guide to the Government's environmental protection policies which it hopes to publish shortly.

  The Property Services Agency has contributed a large number of events, including open days, a travelling landscape exhibition, tree and shrub planting and conservation projects.

  Ministers from my Department and other Departments have also attended a number of speaking engagements and other events associated with EYE.

  The regional campaigns for EYE have received additional support from the territorial Departments. The Scottish Office has contributed £30,000 to support the work of the Scottish EYE panel and a range of projects in Scotland. The Welsh Office has contributed £10,000 as well as administrative support to the work of the Welsh EYE panel, and projects including a bilingual information leaflet and an environmental exhibition. The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has provided some £20,000 covering administrative support to the Northern Ireland EYE panel and grants to projects. It has also sponsored a range of events including conferences and guided walks and open days in country parks and nature reserves.

  Other Government Departments have also contributed events and projects to the EYE programme and have encouraged many of the bodies which they sponsor to participate. The following are examples of the activities they have sponsored:
  524
  Publication of a booklet on "Defence and the Environment"; Army training areas clean-up week — a series of anti-litter, anti-pollution, landscaping, tree-planting and works projects involving the armed forces and local conservation groups such as Salisbury Plain conservation day, May 1987—Ministry of Defence
  Conference on "The Global Environment After Chernobyl" (April 1987) — Foreign and Commonwealth Office
  Financial support of £60,000 for the International Institute for Environment and Development/World Bank conference on sustainable development (April 1987); publication of booklet "The Environment and the British Aid Programme"—Overseas Development Agency
  Schools pack "Watching Waste" for EYE recycling week (October 1987); joint DTI/CBI conference on recycling (February 1988); series of articles in British Business on environmentally friendly projects and processes — Department of Trade and Industry
  Publication of booklet on "Transport and the Environment of Transport
  National and local publicity events drawing attention to community programme environmental improvement projects; secondment of member of staff to United Kingdom EYE team—Department of Employment/Manpower Services Commission.
  Series of open days held as part of a programme of farming and countryside events launched in May 1987; conservation event held in collaboration with the Royal Agricultural Society of England at the national agricultural centre (October 1987)—Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food.
  Projects to preserve ancient woodlands, reclaim land and improve bird habitats; major project in Sherwood forest to create a traditional oak wood for conservation and recreation purposes—Forestry Commission.

  These activities add up to a strong contribution by Government to the United Kingdom EYE campaign and are clear evidence of their support for the aims of the year.

  The Department does not have full information about EYE initiatives in other European countries. The various national committees have put together wide-ranging and varied compaigns reflecting the circumstances and priorities of their respective countries. All EC member states including the United Kingdom have also played their part in the series of projects and events co-ordinated by the European Commission at Community level. This includes awards schemes; competitions; twinning and exchange scheme; and "weeks" focusing on clean beaches, water, recycling and tree planting.

  Council House Rents
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what figures he has for levels of council home rents in each London borough for each of the past five years.

  Mrs. Roe
  For average unrebated rents for individual London boroughs at April 1987 I refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 30 November 1987 at column 420. Available information for the other years appears in the earlier editions of "Housing Rents Statistics", published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, copies of which are in the Library.

Local Authorities and Joint Boards

  (Rates and Precepts)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report, for each year since April 1985, those local authorities and joint boards subject to rate or precept limitation.
  525
  Mr. Ridley
  The relevant information was included in my reply of 11 January at columns 95–99.

  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report, the cash growth in net current expenditure from (a) 1978–79 to 1987–88 and (b) 1985–86 to 1987–88 for each of the following local authorities: Basildon, Brent, Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Haringey, Inner London education authority, Islington, Lambeth, Lewisham, Sheffield, Southwark, Thamesdown, Liverpool, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Tower Hamlets, showing also the average figure for all local authorities in these two periods.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information, based on authorities' budget estimates for 1987–88, is as follows:

  Increase in net current expenditure

  £ million

  (a) from 1978–79 to 1987–88

  (b) from 1985–86 to 1987–88

  Basildon

  10·0

  5·3

  Brent1

  123·5

  47·8

  Camden1 2

  95·4

  41·1

  Greenwich1 2

  58·2

  22·7

  Hackney1 2

  80·4

  39·0

  Haringey1

  97·6

  37·6

  ILEA

  569·9

  124·0

  Islington1

  48·2

  18·3

  Percentage increases in total expenditure

  1985–86 over 1984–85

  1986–87 over 1985–86

  1987–88 over 1986–87

  1988–89 over 1987–88

  Authorities first selected for 1985–86

  Sheffield

  2·1

  not selected

  2-6·9

  not selected

  Camden

  -8·8

  141·6

  30·7

  4—

  Greenwich

  13·7

  153·7

  3-8·5

  4—

  Hackney

  17·4

  137·3

  312·5

  4—

  Islington

  -3·7

  126·3

  22·9

  not selected

  Lambeth

  5·9

  152·9

  3-11·4

  4—

  Lewisham

  2·0

  142·7

  319·0

  4—

  Southwark

  -2·6

  113·2

  324·2

  4—

  Brent

  1·3

  not selected

  2-0·3

  not selected

  Haringey

  0·2

  130·6

  2-8·1

  4—

  Basildon

  -27·4

  82·8

  24·4

  4—

  Thamesdown

  -1·9

  5·9

  2-4·4

  4—

  Leicester

  1·0

  not selected

  not selected

  not selected

  Portsmouth

  3·1

  not selected

  not selected

  not selected

  GLC

  -38·2

  abolished

  abolished

  abolished

  ILEA

  -4·0

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Merseyside MCC

  13·0

  abolished

  abolished

  abolished

  South Yorkshire MCC

  1·1

  abolished

  abolished

  abolished

  Authorities first selected for 1986–87

  Liverpool

  n/a

  127·7

  not selected

  4—

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  n/a

  128·2

  3-4·8

  4—

  Authorities first selected for 1987–88

  Gateshead

  n/a

  n/a

  23·0

  not selected

  North Tyneside

  n/a

  n/a

  2-0·6

  not selected

  Tower Hamlets

  n/a

  n/a

  2-3·3

  4—

  Hounslow

  n/a

  n/a

  2-25·2

  not selected

  Newham

  n/a

  n/a

  25·5

  not selected

  Middlesbrough

  n/a

  n/a

  22·7

  4—

  Brighton

  n/a

  n/a

  2-4·2

  not selected

  Authorities first selected for 1988–89

  Manchester

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4—

  526

  (a) from 1978–79 to 1987–88

  (b) from 1985–86 to 1987–88

  Lambeth1 2

  90·5

  43·5

  Lewisham1 2

  69·4

  36·0

  Sheffield1

  165·2

  58·1

  Southwark1 2

  65·1

  20·2

  Thamesdown

  3·2

  -0·9

  Liverpool1

  169·8

  68·0

  Newcastle upon Tyne1 2

  90·8

  37·1

  Tower Hamlets1

  59·0

  27·6

  Average for all English authorities3

  36·2

  9·9

  1 Authority assumed new functions on 1 April 1986, following abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.

  2 Based on revised estimate for 1987–88.

  3 This is an average cash figure taken across all different classes of authority — and therefore has no significance for the purposes of comparison with any individual authority.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish for each local authority selected for rate limitation since 1 April 1985, the percentage increase or decrease in its total expenditure for each year compared with the previous year, showing also the maximum rate applicable in each year.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information on percentage changes in total expenditure is as shown. The relevant information on maximum rates and precepts was included in my reply of 11 January at columns 95–99.
  527

  1985–86 over 1984–85

  1986–87 over 1985–86

  1987–88 over 1986–87

  1988–89 over 1987–88

  Ealing

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4—

  Waltham Forest

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4—

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4—

  1 Authority assumed new functions on 1 April 1986, following abolition of GLC and metropolitan county councils.

  2 Based on budget estimate for 1987–88.

  3 Based on revised estimate for 1987–88.

  4 Budget information for 1988–89 not yet available.

  Housing Project Control
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any decisions have yet been made regarding his proposals to abolish housing project control for local authorities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My Department and the Welsh Office have today sent to the local authority associations copies of circulars about the abolition of the present housing project control system for new building and renovation schemes. It will be replaced by a system of admissible cost limits which will not require the submission of schemes to the Department or the Welsh Office.

  The change will reduce work both for local authorities and for the Department and the Welsh Office, and will allow authorities greater freedom to plan and implement their capital programmes more efficiently. It will also clarify their responsibility for achieving value for money in their housing schemes. The circulars and the new system which it describes are the product of extensive consultations with the local authority associations.

  Local Authorities (Subsidies)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has decided what deemed rent increase and what increase in reckonable expenditure on management and maintenance should be used in calculating the entitlement of local authorities to having subsidies for 1988–89.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our proposals for these increases were issued as consultation papers last September. The local authority associations have sent us their comments in writing and in discussion with my officials. We have considered these comments very carefully.

  My right hon. Friend has decided, jointly with the Secretary of State for Wales, that, in view of the need to encourage local authorities in improving the condition of their housing, the increases in reckonable expenditure and income for the purposes of calculating entitlement to housing subsidy for 1988–89 should be in excess of the general level of rises in costs and prices. Therefore, the allowance for management and maintenance will go up by 9·2 per cent., provided an authority's actual expenditure reaches the enhanced level. Similarly the increase in the deemed local contribution will be £1·60 per week. It is for local authorities themselves to decide actual rents according to their own circumstances. Taken together, the increases represent a balance between central and local contributions towards extra renovation costs.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the further margin of error relating to the tables in annex F of "Paying for Local 528
  Government" resulting from taking account of the regular 30 per cent. non-response rate to the family expenditure survey, stating for which bands of household income the data would be most affected.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 3 February 1988]: Direct evidence of the income of non-respondents is not available. Comparison with the 1981 census does provide an indication of the types of household whose response rate is below average (see "Statistical News No. 72," February 1986, HMSO). This evidence suggests that households with three or more cars and the self-employed are under-respresented. The response rate for the elderly aged over 70 is also significantly below average.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the repriced tables in his Department's note on the relationship between local taxes and income and the distributional impact of the community charge alongside the results from the 1986 family expenditure survey, together with an explanation of how the repriced figures were derived and what margin of error applies to them.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 3 February 1988]: I am afraid the hon. Member's question is unclear. The family expenditure survey does not contain tables comparable with those in the note placed in the Library on 13 January. The table, however, shows the proportion of households in each band of net income as used in that note alongside the most nearly comparable table from the 1986 FES.

  1986 FES Table 1

  DOE note of 13 January

  Disposable income

  Percentage of sample

  Weekly net income

  Percentage of sample

  £

  £

  Under 45

  6·8

  45–50

  2·2

  Under 50

  5·4

  50–55

  1·9

  55–60

  1·9

  60–65

  2·5

  65–70

  2·5

  50–75

  12·0

  70–80

  4·0

  80–90

  4·1

  90–100

  3·6

  75–100

  10·3

  100–120

  7·0

  120–140

  6·5

  100–150

  15·7

  140–160

  6·7

  160–180

  5·8

  180–200

  5·5

  150–200

  15·9

  200–225

  7·3

  225–250

  6·0

  200–250

  13·6

  250–275

  5·0

  275–300

  4·2

  250–300

  10·2

  300–325

  3·3

  325–350

  2·7

  300–350

  6·5

  350–375

  2·1

  375–400

  1·4

  350–400

  4·1

  400–450

  2·4

  450–500

  1·4

  400–500

  4·0

  500+

  3·0

  500+

  2·3

  529
  Percentage of households in each income band
  The aggregated FES sample used to exemplify the impact of the community charge has been repriced to 1986–87 prices using a number of appropriate indices. For example earned income in each quarter was updated by reference to the index of seasonably adjusted average earnings, water rates were updated by the water charges component of the RPI and local authority rates were repriced according to the actual level applying to each household in the sample. The margin of error which applies will vary according to the index used.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the sampling ratio achieved by the combination of family expenditure survey responses for 1981 to 1984 used in annex F of Cmnd. 9714 "Paying for Local Government" and subsequently(a) for Great Britain and (b) for England; and what margin of error should be allowed for in a sampling ratio of this kind.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 3 February 1988]: The tables in annex F of the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) have been superseded by those contained in the note I placed in the Library on 13 January showing the relationship between local taxes and income and the distributional impact of the community charge. The sampling ratio achieved by the family expenditure survey is around 6,000 out of 18} million in England. Using four years data gives a combined sampling ratio of around one in 750. It is not possible, however, to estimate the margin of error simply from the sampling ratio. This will depend on

  (i) the sample size

  (ii) the design of the sample

  (iii) the nature of the variable being measured

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Overseas Ministers (Entry)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of access into the United Kingdom of Ministers of foreign Governments.

  Mr. Mellor
  We afford every appropriate facility, consistent with the Immigration Act 1971 and immigration rules, in respect of the access of Ministers of foreign Governments to the United Kingdom.

  E1 Salvador (Mercenaries)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the supply of mercenaries by a United Kingdom-based company, KMS, to the Government of E1 Salvador; what action he proposes to take; what advice he will give them regarding danger of prosecution under the Foreign Enlistment Act should any fatalities arise from the actions of such United Kingdom personnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are aware of press reports about KMS involvement in E1 Salvador, but have received no evidence to confirm them. KMS is a commercial company which is not controlled by Her Majesty's Government.

  Defence Services Ltd.
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what services have been and are provided to his Department or any of its agencies by Defence Services Ltd.
  530
  Mr. Mellor
  Defence Systems Ltd. (DSL) is subcontracted to Hall and Watts (International) Ltd. which has a commercial contract with the Mozambique Government to provide equipment and training for a Mozambican militia force deployed on security duties on the Nacala railway line. DSL provides the training element of the contract. We have no involvement with this private sector operation, but recognise that the work being done in the Nacala line accords with our overall policy towards Mozambique and the needs of its neighbours.

  Atomic Energy (Peaceful Uses)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there have been any recent discussions with(a) the Japanese Government, (b) Euratom and (c) the International Atomic Energy Agency over exports from the United Kingdom of nuclear materials and technology under Cmnd. 3853 on agreement for co-operation between the United Kingdom and Japan in the peaceful uses of atomic energy.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have had several contacts with the Japanese Government about the implementation of this agreement, but no recent discussions about the agreement with Euratom or the International Atomic Energy Authority.

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to initiate the renegotiation of the United Kingdom-Euratom-International Atomic Energy Agency Tripartite Safeguards Treaty (Cmnd. 6730) in order to include the requirement to report yearly plutonium production figures, by nuclear station, to the appropriate international agency.

  Mr. Mellor
  No renegotiation is necessary. Existing arrangements with Euratom provide for plutonium produced to be reported when the fuel is shipped from United Kingdom civil reactors. Euratom keeps the International Atomic Energy Authority informed.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Office Equipment and Computers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the total output of office equipment, the percentage exported, and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987;

  (2) what was the total output of computers, the percentage exported, and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information for the United Kingdom for Office Equipment (Activity Heading 3301) and Computers (Activity Heading 3302) is published in table 10.5 of the Monthly Digest of Statistics and in Business Monitor MQ12, "Import penetration and export sales ratios for manufacturing industry". These are available in

  531
  the House of Commons Library. Information for West Germany and Japan could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Consumer Goods (Imports)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the total output of compact disc players, the percentage exported and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987;

  (2) what was the total output of hi-fi equipment, the percentage exported and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987;

  (3) what was the total output of photographic cameras, the percentage exported and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987;

  (4) what was the total output of television cameras, the percentage exported, and proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and each year from 1979 to 1987;

  (5) what was the total output of food mixers, the percentage exported and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information requested is not available for the United Kingdom. That for West Germany and Japan could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of loudspeakers, the percentage exported, and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in:(a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The available information for the United Kingdom is published in Business Monitor PQ 3453, "Electronic sub-assemblies and active components" (formerly PA 364, "Radio and electronic components"), which is available from the Library of the House. Information for West Germany and Japan could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of video recorders, the percentage exported and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information for the United Kingdom is not available prior to 1985. Figures for 1985 onwards are published in the quarter 2 1987 Business Monitor PQ3454, "Electronic consumer goods and miscellaneous equipment". Information for West Germany and Japan could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  532
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of microphones, the percentage exported and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in:(a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The available information for the United Kingdom is shown in the table. That for West Germany and Japan could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Microphones

  1975

  £ thousands

  Sales (1)

  1,657

  Exports

  282

  Imports

  2,709

  Note:

  (1) Sales data relate primarliy to units in the United Kingdom with a minimum employment of 25. Reliable estimates of sales of microphones by smaller establishments are not readily available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of tape recorders, the percentage exported and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in;(a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, and in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The available information for the United Kingdom is published in the quarter 2 1987 issue of British Monitor PQ 3454, "Electronic consumer goods and miscellaneous equipment", which is available from the Library of the House. Information for West Germany and Japan could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Enterprise and Deregulation Unit
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what role the Enterprise and Deregulation Unit has played and is playing in the reviews of the export licensing system, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the burdens on business, including Sunday trading restrictions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The EDU has played and continues to play its usual role of looking at issues in all areas of the Government's work, including those my hon. Friend raises, for ways in which unnecessary burdens on businesses can be removed or minimised.

  Castleford (Industrial Development)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to encourage industrial development into the Castleford travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Atkins
  A number of measures already exist to encourage industry to locate and develop in the area. Companies in, or moving to, the TTWA are eligible to apply for assistance under the Department's enterprise initiative consultancy schemes and the area is also eligible for assistance from the European Coal and Steel Community and social and agricultural funds. In addition, the Yorkshire and Humberside development association, funded by the DTI, local authorities and private sector
  533
  sponsors, is charged with attracting inward investment to the Yorkshire and Humberside region, including the Castleford and Pontefract TTWA.

  Redundant Steel Workers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many outstanding claims are still being processed for training payments for redundant steel workers in the Sheffield area; if the delays in making such payments arise within his Department or within the EEC Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Nine redundant steel workers from the Sheffield area have not yet received training benefits under the iron and steel employees re-adaptation benefits scheme (ISERBS) because of the European Commission's delay in approving United Kingdom applications for re-adaptation aid under the treaty of Paris. No payments can be made until Commission approval has been given. We are continuing to press the Commission for an early decision on these cases.

  Regional Development Grant and Regional Selective Assistance Expenditure

  £ million

  TTWA

  York

  Barrow

  Preston

  Fin. Year

  RDG

  RSA

  RDG

  RSA

  RDG

  RSA

  1978–79

  0·3

  0·1

  1·3

  0·1

  1·6

  0·6

  1979–80

  0·4

  neg

  0·9

  neg

  1·3

  0·3

  1980–81

  0·6

  neg

  0·9

  neg

  1·5

  0·3

  1981–82

  0·7

  neg

  1·6

  neg

  3·1

  0·2

  1982–83

  0·3

  neg

  0·1

  —

  0·4

  0·2

  1983–84

  —

  neg

  —

  neg

  0·6

  0·5

  1984–85

  —

  neg

  —

  neg

  —

  0·1

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  —

  neg

  0·1

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Stafford and Lincoln TTWAs are not assisted areas and have not therefore received any RDG or RSA. The assisted area status of the remaining TTWAs has changed during the period and none of the areas is now assisted.

  2. Regional selective assistance includes project and training grants only.

  3. neg = less than £50,000.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the total expenditure on(a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Upminster travel-to-work area in each year from 1973 to 1979 to date.

  (2) what was the total expenditure in (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Portland travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79 to date;

  (3) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Weymouth travel-to-work area in each year from 1987–79 to date;

  (4) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Redditch travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79 to date;

  (5) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Droitwich travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79 to date;

  (6) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Bodmin travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79 to date;

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the total expenditure on(a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to York travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79;

  (2) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Barrow travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79;

  (3) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Stafford travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79;

  (4) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Lincoln travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79;

  (5) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Preston travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested for each travelto-work area for the years 1978–79 to 1986–87 is as follows:

  (7) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Newquay travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79 to date;

  (8) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Bude travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79 to date;

  (9) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Launceston travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79 to date;

  (10) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Alfreton travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79 to date;

  (11) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Haverhill travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79 to date;

  (12) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Long Melford travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79 to date;
  535
  (13) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Lavenham travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79 to date;

  (14) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Heanor travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79 to date;

  (15) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Ripley travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79 to date;

  Travel-to-work area

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Alfreton

  RDG

  0·2

  0·1

  0·5

  1·2

  0·1

  —

  *—

  —

  —

  RSA

  0·5

  0·4

  0·3

  0·3

  0·4

  0·2

  0·1

  —

  —

  Birmingham (Redditch)2

  RDG

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RSA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·5

  3·3

  Bodmin

  RDG

  —

  —

  0·5

  *—

  —

  —

  —

  *—

  0·2

  RSA

  0·1

  0·2

  0·1

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  0·3

  0·4

  Bude

  RDG

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *—

  RSA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottingham (Heanor and Ripley)2

  RDG

  0·1

  *—

  0·1

  0·6

  *—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·2

  0·1

  0·2

  0·1

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  Launceston

  RDG

  *—

  —

  *—

  *—

  —

  0·3

  0·2

  0·1

  0·1

  RSA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newquay

  RDG

  —

  —

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *—

  0·5

  RSA

  —

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  * Negligible.

  2 Heanor, Ripley and Redditch are not current TTWAs: information has been given for the TTWAs which currently encompass these towns except that some payments under the original regional development grant scheme have been identified for the former Heanor TTWA.

  Notes:

  1. RSA information covers project and training grants only.

  2. No RDG has been paid in the TTWAs covering the other areas listed in the questions.

  Microcircuits
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of microcircuits, the percentage exported, and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information for the United Kingdom is published in Business Monitor PQ3453, "Electronic sub-assemblies and active components" (formerly PQ364, "Radio and electronic components"), which is available from the Library of the House. Data for West Germany and Japan could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Computer Software
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of computer software, the percentage exported, and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Total and export sales by a voluntary panel of United Kingdom companies are published in Business Monitor SDQ9, "Computing Services" (formerly SD9, "Computer Services"), which is available from the
  536
  (16) what was the total expenditure on (a) regional development grant and (b) selective assistance to Sudbury travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79.

  Mr. Atkins
  Expenditure under the regional develop-men grants (RDG) and regional selective assistance (RSA) schemes since 1978–79 to the travel-to-work areas (TTWAs) for which information is requested was as follows:

  Library of the House. Statistics on the imports of software are not available. Information for West Germany and Japan could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many cases of reported insider dealing are currently under investigation by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  There are 14 cases where inspectors appointed under section 177 of the Financial Services Act are currently investigating possible contraventions of the insider dealing legislation.

  The appointment of such inspectors is considered in all appropriate cases which are brought to the attention of my Department.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what categories of people have been invited to the Lancaster house conference on the internal market; if they include trade union representatives and Opposition hon. Members of the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: Invitations will be issued shortly. The Lancaster House

  537
  conference is primarily for British business, and we are inviting nearly 200 senior representatives from all the main industry and service sectors.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are his estimates of the employment implications for each category of employment of the completion of the European Community internal market in 1992.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: Completing a single Community market of 320 million people should bring substantial economic benefits, helping to create wealth and employment in this country. The effect on the pattern of employment in the United Kingdom will depend on a number of factors, including the way British business seizes the opportunities of a single large market to increase sales and improve their competitive performance in Community and world markets.

  Waste Paper
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action he is taking to encourage commercial collection from Government Departments and other producers of greater or lesser amounts of waste paper, to reduce litter, and smoke from burning and save imports.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have been asked to reply.

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office collects some 20,000 tonnes of waste paper and allied materials per year from Government Departments throughout the United Kingdom. Of this, more than 17,000 tonnes are commercially shredded and pulped for the manufacture of cardboard boxes and similar products. The balance comprises security materials, some of which are disposed of by burning, and other products unsuitable for recycling. Her Majesty's Stationery Office already advertises these services, but I have asked it to consider whether more could be done to encourage other public sector customers to use the facility.

DEFENCE

  Trident
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been any slippage in the timetable for introducing work on the Trident programme at AWRE Aldermaston; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stated on 19 January at column 775, there is no slippage of the in-service date of the Trident programme, and AWRE Aldermaston is playing its part in this programme.

  London University
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many research agreements or contracts his Department has with University college, London; and in which subjects;

  (2) how many research contracts or agreements his Department has with King's college, London; and in which subjects.
  538
  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) on 21 January at column 775.

  F-16 Aircraft
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions with Mr. Valerio Zanone, the Minister of Defence of Italy, on the fate of the F-16s formerly at the Torrejon base in Spain.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Rome on 27 January for bilateral discussions with Signor Zanone on a range of issues of mutual interest. In noting the proposed withdrawal of the F-16s currently based at Torrejon it was agreed that, in view of the important role played by the aircraft in the defence of Europe, they should if possible be relocated elsewhere in the southern region.

  Novel Defences
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals exist within NATO for novel defences, including terrain enhancement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The Alliance regularly reviews proposals across the whole spectrum of defence planning including terrain enhancements. Details of defence planning proposals are classified.

  Radiation-Capable Shells
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there are any plans to introduce enhanced radiation-capable shells into Europe.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) made clear in the reply he gave to the hon. Member on 8 May 1987 at column 557, NATO has no plans to introduce enhanced radiation weapons into Europe.

  Chemical Warfare Research
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many marmosets have been used for chemical warfare research in the United Kingdom in each of the past five years; and if he will list the establishments carrying out such research.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Wherever possible, animals are not used in experiments. Where there is no suitable alternative the lowest order of animal possible is used for any experiment. It is not our practice to make available detailed information on the usage of a particular species for chemical defence research. Such information could enable an informed observer to gain a useful insight into the scope and direction of MOD's work to the detriment of national security.

  La Belle Discotheque
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will call for a report from the General Officer Commanding British Sector West Berlin on the progress of the investigations, carried out by the West Berlin police into the bomb outrage at La Belle discotheque.
  539
  Mr. Freeman
  No.

  Trident Submarine (Transportation Loss)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances a section of a Trident submarine broke free from its transporting ship in the Irish sea on Friday 5 February; what is the estimated value of the section lost; whether it is intended to attempt to recover it; what warnings are being issued to fishing and other vessels in the area; what are the defence implications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave on 15 February at columns 448–49 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

SCOTLAND

  Caravans (Illegal Parking)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of individuals who have been charged by Tayside police with offences of parking caravans illegally in Angus over the past two years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Criminal Records Office
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ensure that all entries in the Scottish Criminal Records Office relating to convictions are accurate in all respects.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information relating to convictions is obtained by the police service from the relevant court. Every effort is made and will be made to ensure the accuracy of the material supplied.

  NHS Funding
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to allocate sufficient resources for National Health Service funding for Scotland in 1988–89 to maintain the development of services in the community for elderly, mentally ill and mentally handicapped people, without reducing the level of acute services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Gross expenditure in the National Health Service in Scotland has risen from £1,053 million in 1979–80 to an estimated £2,334 million in the current year, a cash increase of over 120 per cent. This

  Unfilled vacancies—Dundee Jobcentre area

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  January

  —

  536

  273

  303

  321

  322

  190

  205

  419

  February

  —

  501

  311

  289

  416

  241

  201

  249

  369

  March

  —

  476

  373

  291

  424

  270

  218

  267

  358

  April

  —

  472

  329

  307

  293

  219

  205

  315

  326

  May

  —

  468

  288

  366

  389

  179

  200

  342

  267

  June

  692

  347

  272

  402

  369

  169

  257

  534

  365

  July

  674

  403

  302

  352

  370

  110

  273

  437

  434

  August

  563

  359

  274

  366

  265

  120

  198

  437

  510

  September

  602

  346

  283

  419

  269

  195

  384

  517

  495

  540
  corresponds with growth of about 27 per cent. in real terms. The allocation for 1988–89 will shortly be announced and it will be for health boards to give adequate priority to the development of community care provision and of acute services from the very substantial resources made available to them.

  A74 (Upgrading)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new funds he intends to provide to the relevant local authorities to meet the costs of upgrading the A74 to motorway standard; and whether he will expect local authorities to meet any of those costs from their existing budgets.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The A74 is a trunk road, for which I am directly responsible. Consequently no costs of its upgrading will be met by local authorities.

  Water (Lead Levels)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to lead levels found in water in Edinburgh during a study carried out by the Scottish Home and Health Department; what maximum lead level has been recommended by that study; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There has been no recent study on lead levels in water in Edinburgh.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to amend the scope of section 15 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 in order to avoid the necessity of community charges registration offices having to serve a statutory notice on dead people in terms of the Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering this matter.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, for each month since June 1979, the number of job vacancies in Dundee.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: The number of job vacancies (excluding community programme) notified and remaining unfilled in the Dundee jobcentre area for each month since June 1979 is shown in the table.
  541

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  October

  690

  287

  246

  346

  364

  298

  414

  518

  665

  November

  719

  442

  325

  432

  378

  265

  430

  561

  523

  December

  590

  374

  299

  427

  358

  242

  226

  412

  317

  The figures are not directly comparable due to a change in the compilation of the statistics in October 1985, from which date this information is available in the Library. It is estimated that only around one-third of all vacancies are notified to jobcentres.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make a statement on the operation of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The powers in the Act to trace, freeze and confiscate assets are proving an effective new weapon against drug trafficking. During the first year of operation of the Act the High Court made over 150 orders freezing some £7 million pounds of suspected drug traffickers' assets. The Crown court has ordered some substantial sums to be confiscated, including £452,000 in one case last month. We are seeking reciprocal agreements with other countries so as to make the most effective use of these powers: the first such agreement, with the United States of America, was signed on 9 February.

  Hooliganism
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received with regard to the threat to good order and quiet enjoyment represented by hooligans, vandals, litter louts and graffiti writers.

  Mr. John Patten
  We receive frequent, and understandable, representations on these subjects. In regard to the lower level of offences, much can be achieved through local preventive approaches, including proper enforcement of the law against under age drinking, good planning and provision of constructive activities for young people who may otherwise congregate on the streets causing a nuisance. The Government have taken firm action against the misuse of alcohol associated with football matches and are discussing with the Football League what more needs to be done to control hooliganism. The police are giving a high priority to combatting racially motivated harassment and the Home Office has issued guidance to forces on the recording and handling of racial attacks. The Public Order Act 1986 created the new offence of disorderly conduct to deal with loutish behaviour liable to cause harassment, distress or alarm to vulnerable members of the community.

  Prisons (Speech Therapy)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to increase the provision of speech therapy in prisons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Because of the limited and fluctuating demand for speech therapy the Prison Service's policy is to use the resources of the National Health 542
  Service rather than to employ its own therapists. Prison medical officers have discretion to refer patients to a local hospital in suitable circumstances or to arrange for a therapist to vist the establishment. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Prisoners (Counselling)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to increase counselling help available for prisoners.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A wide range of counselling help is available for prisoners which may be provided by seconded probation officers, prison chaplains or ministers of other faiths, medical officers or other doctors including psychiatrists, psychologists, education officers, other prison staff or members of voluntary agencies concerned with specific problems such as alcohol abuse. No new central initiative is currently planned, although the continued development of shared working between probation officers and prison officers will lead to the greater involvement of the latter in the social work and welfare needs of prisoners. A particular recent development has been the training of some Prison Service specialist staff to counsel inmates identified as HIV antibody positive.

  Traffic Offences (Revenue)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total revenue raised from traffic offences in each of the past five years in the metropolitan region.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is estimated that in 1986 the value of fines imposed by courts in the Metropolitan police district for offences related to motor vehicles was £10 million, but information on resulting payments is not available. Information on the number of fixed penalty notices paid, by police force area, is published annually in "Offences Relating to Motor Vehicles, England and Wales, Supplementary Tables" (table 21 of the issue for 1986), copies of which are in the Library. For tickets issued in 1985, the latest year for which complete information is available, £11·7 million was paid as a result of fixed penalty notices issued by the Metropolitan police.

  Traffic Wardens
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time equivalent traffic wardens have been employed by the Metropolitan police in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the information is as follows:

  Number

  31 December 1983

  1,789

  31 December 1984

  1,829

  543

  Number

  31 December 1985

  1,698

  31 December 1986

  1,668

  31 December 1987

  1,527

  These figures include wardens employed at Heathrow airport.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many cases were awaiting resolution by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board at the end of each month since June 1987;

  (2) how many cases were resolved by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board during each month since June 1987;

  (3) how many staff were employed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board at the end of each month since June 1987.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Month

  Cases awaiting resolution at the end of each month

  Cases resolved during each month

  Staff in (post-time staff being each counted as one half)

  June 1987

  68,600

  2,023

  218·5

  July 1987

  70,400

  2,112

  218·5

  August 1987

  72,000

  2,132

  218·5

  September 1987

  73,300

  2,244

  221·5

  October 1987

  74,800

  2,532

  259·5

  November 1987

  76,500

  1,943

  283·5

  December 1987

  76,700

  2,320

  297·5

  January 1988

  76,000

  3,652

  310·5

  Lunar House, Croydon
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are currently employed at the public inquiry office at Lunar House, Croydon; and how many of these speak(a) Gujarati, (b) Punjabi, (c) Urdu, and (d) Hindi.

  Mr. Renton
  There are currently 90 staff employed in the immigration public inquiry office at Lunar House, of whom four speak one or more of these languages. Three speak Gujarati; one speaks Punjabi; three speak Urdu and three speak Hindi. A further six staff are employed in the nationality public inquiry office, one of whom speaks all four languages.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours were worked as overtime by employees at the public inquiry office at Lunar House, Croydon for each year from 1984 to 1987 and to the latest available date in the current year; and what was the total cost of this overtime.

  Mr. Renton
  The number of hours worked as overtime by staff in the immigration public inquiry office at Lunar House are set out in the table. The estimated cost of the overtime for the period is £150,000.
  544

  Hours

  1984

  2,885

  1985

  8,578

  1986

  6,827

  1987

  9,279

  1988 to 22 January

  928

  As regards the nationality public inquiry office, no overtime was worked in the years 1984 to 1986. In 1987, 428 hours overtime was worked, at an estimated cost of £2,526. So far in 1988, 12 hours overtime has been worked, at an estimated cost of £80.

  Police (Crime-related Injuries)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board resolved in 1986–87 for police officers suffering crime-related injuries while on duty.

  Mr. John Patten
  As stated at paragraph 8 of the board's latest annual report (Cm. 42), copies of which are in the Library, 1,948 cases involving injury to police officers on duty were resolved in the year ended 31 March 1987.

  Prisoners (Strip Searches)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many category A women prisoners there were in Her Majesty's prison, Durham in January 1988; and how many strip searches were made on these prisoners in that month, indicating strip searches before and after consultation with legal advisers, after visits and after cell changes, wing searches and cell searches, and listing reasons for searches and illegal contraband or smuggled items found.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During January there were three category A women prisoners in Durham prison. The number of occasions on which each was strip searched during the month is shown in the table:

  Inmate A

  Inmate B

  Inmate C

  After legal visits

  —

  —

  —

  After other visits

  2

  —

  1

  At the time of cell changes, and wing and cell searches

  1

  1

  1

  Other

  —

  2

  1

  No unauthorised article was found on any of the three women. I set out the reasons for such searches in my reply to a question from the hon. Member on 15 January at column 446.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many category A prisoners are at present held on remand at Risley detention centre; to how many strip searches they have been subjected on a monthly basis since they have been remanded at Risley, giving the number of persons involved, the number of times each person was searched and if any prison contraband, smuggled item or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search, indicating which items; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while a search was being conducted; and what were the reasons for the search under each of the following headings:(a) making a remand appearance at court, (b) attending a trial, (c) inter-prison visit and (d) other reasons.
  545
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 9 February there were six inmates on remand at Risley remand centre who had provisionally been allocated to category A. Comprehensive records of strip searches are available only in respect of category A women prisoners, of whom there was one in Risley on the date in question. In accordance with standing instructions, this prisoner was strip searched on initial reception at Risley in September. Subsequently, she was strip searched on the following number of occasions up to the end of January, all in connection with appearances at court for remand hearings:

  Number

  September

  2

  October

  6

  November

  4

  December

  4

  January

  6

  No unauthorised article was discovered on any of these occasions. On no occasion did the prisoner refuse to be strip searched.

  Irish Republican Army
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department was first made aware of the existence of Irish Republican Army extortion rackets in London and other cities in England; what actions have been taken to track down the sources of Irish Republican Army funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Allegations of IRA extortion appeared in the Evening Standard on 5 February 1988. It is an offence under section 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 to solicit or invite financial or other support for a proscribed organisation, or knowingly to make or receive any contribution in money or otherwise to the resources of a proscribed organisation. Under schedule 1 to the 1984 Act the Irish Republican Army and the Irish National Liberation Army are proscribed organisations. Any evidence of such offences which comes to light is investigated by the appropriate authorities.

  Kidnap and Ransom Insurance
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to make it illegal to provide kidnap and ransom insurance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  No.

  Mr. Gene Meyer
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Mr. Gene Meyer, a United States citizen with permanent residence rights in the United Kingdom, was stopped and interrogated about his sexuality by officials at Gatwick airport on 4 January, and told that he was a high risk and medically unsuitable to enter the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  Mr. Meyer is not a resident of the United Kingdom, but sought entry at Gatwick on 4 January as a visitor. The immigration officer was not immediately satisfied that he was a genuine visitor under the 546
  immigration rules. He was not, however, questioned about his sexuality, nor was he told that he was a high risk and medically unsuitable to enter the United Kingdom. He was admitted as a visitor until the end of February 1988.

  AIDS
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if there are any circumstances under which incoming travellers with the HIV virus are banned from entering the United Kingdom;

  (2) if immigration officers receive training in the detection of symptoms of AIDS in travellers entering the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he has any information regarding the interviewing and vetting by immigration officers of incoming travellers suspected of having the HIV virus; and if he will make a statement on his policy regarding such practices.

  Mr. Renton
  Evidence of HIV infection is not considered to be a sufficient reason for refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom. Immigration officers receive no medical training, but the immigration rules require them to refer for examination by the port medical inspector any passenger who mentions health or medical treatment as a reason for his visit, or who appears not to be in good health. Passengers coming here for medical treatment or who may need treatment during their stay, including treatment for AIDS, are required to satisfy the immigration officer that they can meet any charges which might be made for such treatment and that they can otherwise support themselves without recourse to public funds. Under the rules, any passenger arriving in the United Kingdom must provide the immigration officer with such information as may be required for the purpose of deciding whether he requires leave to enter arid, if so, whether and on what terms leave should be given.

  Mentally Ill Prisoners
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his Department's current estimates of the number of mentally ill people discharged from prison each year into the community.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his Department's current estimates of the number of mentally ill people currently held in Her Majesty's prisons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our most recent estimate is that on 30 September 1987 there were 344 inmates who, in the opinion of prison medical officers, were suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which would satisfy the criteria for detention in hospital for medical treatment. 298 of these were mentally ill.

  British Nationality
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish in the Official Report the letter from Coventry community relations council, dated 23 November 1987, with reference to the deadline for applications for British nationality, and the reply sent by the assistant private secretary to the Minister of State: and if he will make a statement;
  547
  (2) what grounds would be considered acceptable as justifying a late application for registration as a British citizen made by Commonwealth and Irish citizens resident in the United Kingdom since 1 January 1973.

  Mr. Renton
  No. The position on the matters dealt with in the correspondence referred to was set out fully in the reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 15 January, at c. 449.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the total cost to public funds of the Metropolitan police in 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  As police authority for the metropolis I have approved estimates which provide for net revenue expenditure by the Metropolitan police of £1,004·967 million in 1988–89, an increase of 8·2 per cent. on the expenditure I approved for 1987–88. There will be a cash limit on current expenditure of £994·609 million. The remainder will be capital expenditure, for which separate controls exist.

  I have also authorised the issue of a precept requiring rating authorities to levy rates at 16·5p in the £ for Metropolitan police purposes. This is an increase of 7·1 per cent. on the 1987–88 precept of 15·4p.

  Dr. Frank Skuse
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now call for a review of all cases in which Dr. Frank Skuse gave evidence.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: No.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently employed on Government-sponsored training schemes in the Basildon area; and if he will express the figures as a percentage of the total local work force.

  Retail prices index—percentage changes over twelve months to January

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Food

  12·6

  8·9

  11·0

  1·9

  6·0

  3·4

  3·2

  3·8

  2·9

  Radio, TV and other household appliances1

  9·8

  4·3

  2·9

  0·9

  -0·5

  -0·8

  0·0

  -2·8

  n.a.

  Electrical appliances

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  2·8

  Audio-visual equipment2

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  -4·7

  (Purchase of) motor vehicles2

  11·6

  6·5

  6·1

  3·8

  3·7

  -0·6

  2·2

  6·2

  6·9

  Men's outer clothing3

  15·1

  6·1

  0·1

  0·7

  -1·2

  3·1

  2·9

  1·5

  1·6

  Women's outer clothing3

  3·7

  1·1

  -1·5

  0·3

  -2·7

  2·3

  3·8

  0·9

  -0·8

  Children's clothing3

  8·9

  5·2

  3·2

  4·0

  5·3

  6·7

  2·5

  3·3

  1·0

  1 No figure for electrical goods is available. This heading is the most closely comparable, and includes gas appliances.

  2 From February 1987 the definition of some components were changed. These figures show the annual change in prices for January 1988.

  3 No figure for textiles is available and figures for various types of clothing are therefore given.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is(a) the number of participants in and (b) the cost of the enterprise allowance scheme in (i) the
  548
  Mr. Cope
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. At 29 January in the Basildon local authority district there were 461 young people in training on YTS of whom 143 were employed by their training provider and 37 people on the new job training scheme of whom none were employed. Occupancy figures are not available for other adult training schemes. The total local work force for the Basildon LAD is currently 64,489 (as at 29 January).

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the Basildon area have been employed on Government-sponsored training schemes for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Cope
  Information about the number of people participating in Government training schemes in the Basildon area for each of the last five years, and the number of those who had employed status, is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Overtime
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the average hours of overtime worked per week by full-time employees in(a) manufacturing industry (b) mining and (c) agriculture.

  Mr. Lee
  The most recent estimates of the information requested are provided in table X2 of part B of the 1987 New Earnings Survey report.

  Price Increases
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what have been the average increases each year since 1979 of(a) textiles, (b) motor vehicles, (c)electrical goods and (d) food.

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

  However, the following table gives changes in retail prices over the 12 months to January each year for the closest approximation to the categories specified.

  Northwich travel-to-work area, (ii) the Chester travel-towork area, and (iii) the Runcorn travel-to-work area; and what have been the figures in each year since the scheme's inception.
  549
  Mr. Cope
  The figures are not available in the form requested. The Northwich, Chester and Runcorn travelto-work areas are all covered by the Cheshire enterprise allowance team. The table gives the number of participants

  (£ million)

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Participants at year end

  596

  946

  1,038

  1,407

  11,507

  Expenditure for year

  1·25

  1·98

  2·17

  2·94

  23·15

  1 (at 9 February 1988).

  2 (to 9 February 1988).

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was the rate of unemployment for January of Sudbury travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79;

  (2) what was the rate of unemployment for January of Haverhill travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79;

  (3) what was the rate of unemployment for January of Long Melford travel-to-work area in each year from 1978–79;

  (4) what was the rate of unemployment for January of Lavenham travel-to-work area, in each year from 1978–79;

  (5) what was the rate of unemployment for January of Ripley travel-to-work area, in each year from 1978–79;

  (6) what was the rate of unemployment for January of Grimsby travel-to-work area, in each year from 1978–79;

  (7) what was the rate of unemployment for January of Heanor travel-to-work area, in each year from 1978–79;

  (8) what was the rate of unemployment for January of Upminster travel-to-work area, in each year from 1978–79;

  (9) what was the rate of unemployment for January of Weymouth travel-to-work area, in each year from 1978–79;

  (10) what was the rate of unemployment for January of Portland travel-to-work area, in each year from 1978–79;

  (11) what was the rate of unemployment for January of Redditch travel-to-work area, in each year from 1978–79;

  (12) what was the rate of unemployment for January of Droitwich travel-to-work area, in each year from 1978–79;

  1978 Definition travel-to-work areas

  Sudbury

  Haverhill

  Grimsby

  Weymouth

  Bodmin

  Newquay

  Bude

  Launceston

  Alfreton

  Unemployed registrants

  January 1979

  4·3

  4·0

  7·4

  7·7

  7·6

  13·7

  12·4

  8·5

  5·5

  January 1980

  4·0

  4·0

  6·6

  6·7

  5·9

  13·0

  11·4

  8·9

  6·1

  January 1981

  7·1

  8·6

  11·9

  10·8

  8·7

  18·0

  15·0

  12·4

  11·5

  January 1982

  10·1

  9·8

  14·2

  13·3

  10·7

  22·4

  16·9

  13·6

  14·8

  Unemployed claimants

  January 1983

  9·5

  11·7

  15·2

  14·8

  14·5

  23·3

  18·6

  12·1

  15·2

  1984 Definition travel-to-work areas

  Sudbury

  Haverhill

  Grimsby

  Dorchester and Weymouth

  Bodmin and Liskeard

  Newquay

  Bude

  Launceston

  Alfreton and Ashfield

  Unemployed claimants

  January 1984

  11·7

  9·3

  16·5

  10·3

  15·6

  27·3

  15·9

  13·8

  10·3

  January 1985

  11·2

  8·6

  16·3

  10·5

  16·5

  30·6

  18·6

  15·4

  11·3

  January 1986

  11·9

  8·6

  15·5

  11·4

  17·3

  32·2

  19·3

  15·8

  11·5

  January 1987

  11·2

  7·1

  15·6

  11·6

  17·6

  31·8

  19·0

  15·7

  11·3

  550
  in receipt of the allowance in Cheshire at the end of each financial year (in 1987–88 at the latest date available) and expenditure for each financial year (in 1987–88 up to the latest date available).

  (13) what was the rate of unemployment for January of Bodmin travel-to-work area, in each year from 1978–79;

  (14) what was the rate of unemployment for January of Newquay travel-to-work area, in each year from 1978–79;

  (15) what was the rate of unemployment for January of Bude travel-to-work area, in each year from 1978–79;

  (16) what was the rate of unemployment for January of Launceston travel-to-work area, in each year from 1978–79;

  (17) what was the rate of unemployment for January of Alfreton travel-to-work area, in each year from 1978–79.

  Mr. John Lee
  The following information is in the Library. Unemployment figures are not comparable over the whole period because of changes in the coverage of the count, and in the boundary definitions of the travel-to-work areas. The table shows the number of unemployed registrants in the requested travel-to-work areas as defined in 1978, at January of each year from 1979 to 1982, the number of unemployed claimants in those areas at January 1983, and the number of unemployed claimants in the travel-to-work areas as defined in 1984 for January of each year from 1984 to 1987, expressed as a percentage of employees in employment and the unemployed. Long Melford, Lavenham, Ripley, Heanor, Upminster, Portland, Redditch, and Droitwich do not form travel-to-work areas; these areas are all only a small part of a travel-to-work area.

TRANSPORT

  Taxis
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many taxis, including minicabs, are currently licensed in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Essex region, (c) Basildon area, (d) London.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The figures are as follows:

  Area

  Taxis

  Hire Cars

  England and Wales excluding London

  21,100(1986)

  25,780(1985)

  Area

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  England and Wales (excluding London)1

  17,700

  18,100

  18,400

  18,900

  21,100

  London1

  12,800

  13,100

  13,600

  13,800

  14,200

  Scotland2

  n.a.

  n.a.

  5,641

  6,358

  n.a.

  Basildon2

  62

  62

  62

  61

  63

  Sources:

  1 Transport statistics for Great Britain.

  2 TRRL surveys.

  Motor Cars (Geneva Convention)
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to update the 1948 Geneva convention as this applies to motor cars crossing European borders where differing regulations exist concerning head lights and tyre tread depths.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The 1949 Geneva convention was in many respects updated by the 1968 Vienna convention. Further amendments have been proposed in the appropriate working groups of the Economic Commission for Europe. The requirements on headlamps and tyres are in broad terms so as to accommodate the differences between national regulations. For example, headlamps may be white or yellow and their use may be allowed or required in built-up areas at night. Tyres must be in a state such as to ensure conditions of safety, including adhesion, even on a wet road. This implies the presence of some tread, without specifying any minimum tread depth.

  Air Traffic Control Radar
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how old the air traffic control radar on St. Boniface Down, Isle of Wight, is; what plans there are for its replacement and modernisation; what part this installation plays in preventing air near misses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Air traffic control services are the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. I shall draw my hon. Friend's question to the attention of the authority's chairman.

  Dartford-Thurrock Crossing
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Government will publish their response to the special report of the Select Committee on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, Session 1987–88: HC 213; and if he will make a statement.
  552

  Area

  Taxis

  Hire Cars

  London

  14,200(1986)

  Not licensed

  Scotland

  6,358(1985)

  2,956(1985)

  Essex

  629(1986)

  Not available

  Basildon

  63(1986)

  141(1985)

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total number of taxis licensed in(a) the United Kingdom, and (b) the Basildon area, for each of the last five years.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The available figures are as follows:

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Government will publish their response to the special report on the Select Committee on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, Session 1987–88: HC 213; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The response has been published today. Copies have been sent to members of the Select Committee and the Standing Committee, are available in the Vote Office and have been placed in the Library.

  The Government appreciate that the task which the Select Committee was called upon to perform was exceptionally difficult, raising issues of great technical complexity. We are grateful to the members, and particularly to the Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, (Mr. Chapman) for their very thorough examination of all the issues put to them.

  The response addresses all the matters to which the Select Committee made reference. Since receiving its report the Department has reviewed the effects of wind on vehicles using the bridge, the traffic management measures available, and the effect of imposing a requirement for full windshielding on the bridge. The re-examination of the evidence put to the Select Committee and the results of further work commissioned since then have led us to conclude that the provision of full windshielding on the bridge is not justified. The Government will therefore seek to have the requirement deleted from the Bill at the Report stage.

  However, the discussions leading up to the Select Committee, and the proceedings themselves, have helped to establish the benefits to be gained from local windshielding near the bridge towers. I am informed that this can be accommodated in the existing design and that Dartford River Crossing Ltd. will be providing it.

  The Select Committee asked me to inquire into the way in which the case on windshielding was presented. I am pursuing that. Difficult issues arise about the way in which commercially confidential information should be presented.
  553
  The Government accept the Select Committee's recommendation about road access to Dartford and maintains their neutral attitude to naming of the bridge.

  Finally, the response notes the recommendation on compensation for Mr. Michie and his neighbours at Rose Villas. The Department will make every effort to assist in the speedy assessment and payment of compensation.

  This is an urgent and badly needed project. The Government hope that the extra capacity at this crossing will be provided as quickly as possible.

  Postneonatal mortality for selected causes (numbers and rates) England and Wales 1986

  Cause of death

  ICD

  Sex

  Number

  Rate1

  All causes

  000–999

  Male

  1,693

  5·00

  Female

  1,131

  3·51

  Total

  2,824

  4·27

  Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

  798–000

  Male

  798

  2·36

  Female

  494

  1·53

  Total

  1,292

  1·95

  Diseases of the Respiratory System

  460–519

  Male

  195

  0·58

  Female

  116

  0·36

  Total

  311

  0·47

  Congenital Anomalies

  740–759

  Male

  249

  0·73

  Female

  240

  0·74

  Total

  489

  0·74

  Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period

  760–779

  Male

  137

  0·40

  Female

  66

  0·20

  Total

  203

  0·31

  Injury and poisoning

  800–999

  Male

  58

  0·17

  Female

  46

  0·14

  Total

  104

  0·16

  Other Remainder

  000–999

  Male

  256

  0·76

  Female

  169

  0·52

  Total

  425

  0·64

  1 Rate per 1,000 live births.

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

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how he proposes to correct the tendency in regional hospital plans to emphasise hospital closures as a central plank of strategy for the mentally ill and to be unspecific about how local needs have been assessed; and how the new pattern of services is to be developed and resourced.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 8 February 1988 at column 97.

  Special Hospital Patients
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients are currently residing in each special hospital who no longer require a secure environment, due to an inability to relocate them in National Health Service or local authority accommodation.

  Mr. Newton
  The table shows the number of patients in the special hospitals who at 4 January(a) had been recommended for a move to another hospital on trial leave or transfer and were awaiting a vacancy in an identified hospital; and (b) had been conditionally discharged or

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Infant Mortality
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the numbers of post neonatal deaths, and the rate per 1,000 live births, in England and Wales attributed to(a) sudden infant deaths, (b) respiratory diseases, (c) congenital abnormalities, (d) conditions arising in the perinatal period, (e) injury and poisoning and (f) all other causes, for the latest available year.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is given in the table.

  were the subject of a deferred conditional discharge by a mental health review tribunal and were awaiting a vacancy in local authority accommodation.

  (a)

  (b)

  Broadmoor

  10

  —

  Moss Side

  4

  1

  Park Lane

  5

  4

  Rampton

  17

  2

  TOTAL

  36

  7

  Pin-ups
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department has made clear that it is the responsibility of line managers to ensure that potentially offensive material is not displayed in the workplace.

  Lost Operations
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has of the number of
  555
  operations and hospital treatments, including emergency operations, lost on 3 February, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The information we received from health authorities showed that the number of non-emergency operations lost through strike action in the National Health Service on 3 February was 206. There were no reports of cancelled emergency operations. A small number of non-emergency admissions, out-patients and day patients had their attendances disrupted.

  Nurses
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many working days were lost in 1986 and 1987 amongst nurses in the National Health Service due to back problems.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that we do not collect this information centrally.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he intends to take to help provide for the needs of the very severely disabled people in Blyth Valley, in the light of the entitlements of new claimants after April.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 9 February at column 172.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for each of the last five available years the cost to the National Health Service of general practitioners' prescribing of(a) brand name drugs and (b) generic drugs.

  Mr. Newton
  The estimated net ingredient cost of drugs prescribed by general practitioners in the National Health Service in England for the last five calendar years is set out in the table:

  £ million

  Calendar year

  Drugs prescribed Generically

  Drugs prescribed by brand name

  1982

  48·5

  811·8

  1983

  53·3

  916·4

  1984

  56·6

  978·7

  1985

  88·2

  955·8

  1986

  103·3

  1,021·5

  Not included in this table are those drugs prescribed generically but dispensed by brand name, that is, where a generic equivalent is not available.

  Breast Cancer (Screening)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he intends to encourage health authorities to send written reminders to women over 64 years of age of the need for three-yearly screening for breast cancer.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have no plans to encourage health authorities to send written reminders to women aged 65 and over to attend for breast cancer screening. The nationwide breast cancer screening service which we are introducing over the next three years is based on the conclusions in the report of a Government-appointed working group, chaired by Professor Sir Patrick Forrest. The report recommended that the priority for any screening programme should be to offer an initial screen to as many women as possible aged 50–64. Women aged 65 and over will not be automatically invited for screening but they will be screened on request.

  Health Authorities (Chief Officers)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many graduates with masters of business administration degrees are employed at chief officer level in regional and district health authorities; and how many such graduates are employed in health service administration within his Department.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that the information for health authority officers is not held centrally. For departmental staff, information is not readily available in this form and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Consultants
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to how many consultants do more work for the National Health Service than is stipulated in their contracts.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that this information is not collected centrally.

  NHS (Funding)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of the representations he has received on the means of funding of the National Health Service favoured(a) a tax-based system and (b) a system based on personal insurance.

  Mr. Newton
  A variety of different funding methods have been recommended in the representations we have received. Variations on both systems have featured in these representations, but it would not be meaningful to categorise them precisely in this way.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total amount of National Health Service funding what comes from direct taxation; and what percentage of the total National Health Service funding this represents, for each year from 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 11 February 1988]: The information requested is as follows for Great Britain:
  557

  From general taxation (Consolidated Fund)

  From National Health Service Contributions

  Year

  £ million

  Per cent. of total NHS funding

  £ million

  Per cent. of total NHS funding

  1978–79

  6,810

  88·0

  745

  9·6

  1979–80

  8,071

  87·9

  877

  9·6

  1980–81

  10,654

  89·1

  989

  8·2

  1981–82

  11,783

  87·8

  1,257

  9·4

  1982–83

  12,588

  85·7

  1,662

  11·3

  1983–84

  13,325

  85·8

  1,708

  11·0

  1984–85

  14,291

  85·6

  1,848

  11·1

  1985–86

  15,071

  85·6

  1,945

  11·0

  1986–87

  16,055

  84·6

  2,205

  11·6

  1987–88 (est)

  16,841

  83·1

  2,676

  13·2

  NHS funding drawn from the Consolidated Fund is not attributable to different forms of taxation, direct or indirect.

  Medicine and Surgery (Expenditure)
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, of the total expenditure on secondary services, what amounts and proportions are attributed to medicine and surgery, respectively.

  Mr. Newton
  The requested details of expenditure, for hospitals in England in 1986–87, are as follows:

  Total revenue expenditure(£)

  Percentage of total revenue expenditure(£)

  (1) Expenditure on drugs, dressings and pharmacy

  836,132,385

  10·1

  (2) Expenditure on direct treatment of patients excluding costs at (1)

  3,950,185,144

  47·5

  AIDS
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is aware of any research findings which show that infection caused by the AIDS virus cannot pass through the material of an intact condom.

  Mr. Newton
  I am advised that there are two published studies from San Francisco and Brussels in which various commercially available latex condoms have been demonstrated to be impermeable to human

  Patients treated in Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley district health authority for the following specialties

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  General medicine

  Number of available beds

  174·2

  187·6

  204·9

  201·8

  200·8

  195·3

  197·2

  177·7

  Number of occupied beds

  166·1

  172·1

  174·9

  165·3

  165·4

  158·0

  162·6

  150·3

  Discharges and deaths

  5,634

  5,854

  6,385

  6,145

  6,563

  7,035

  7,352

  7,064

  Total out-patient attendances

  15,428

  15,341

  20,001

  21,453

  23,382

  23,797

  25,402

  26,708

  Day cases

  553

  553

  920

  1,154

  1,037

  1,266

  1,365

  1,314

  Paediatrics

  Number of available beds

  36·3

  37·4

  58·3

  59·3

  58·2

  51·6

  50·6

  53·5

  Number of occupied beds

  16·2

  17·2

  25·1

  28·6

  25·7

  24·0

  24·7

  22·9

  Discharges and deaths

  1,515

  1,501

  2,326

  2,542

  2,699

  2,663

  2,852

  2,669

  Total out-patient attendances

  4,431

  4,459

  6,111

  6,783

  7,397

  6,972

  6,575

  6,075

  Day cases

  2

  9

  1

  1

  5

  4

  6

  3

  Geriatrics

  Number of available beds

  337·2

  350·2

  352·9

  351·6

  334·8

  282·4

  280·9

  276·5

  558
  immunodeficiency virus (HIV) under laboratory conditions. In addition, I understand that similar results have been obtained by other researchers which have not yet been published.

  Neonatal Intensive Care
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the conclusions of the meeting held between the Medical Research Council and the health departments into the long-term consequences of neonatal intensive care.

  Mrs. Currie
  A meeting of experts to discuss appropriate measurements of developmental, social and educational outcome in children who had undergone neonatal intensive care was proposed at the last annual meeting between the health departments and the Medical Research Council. I understand that the Medical Research Council is currently considering the most appropriate way to approach the issue. Progress is to be reviewed at the next annual meeting in March.

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley District Health Authority
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases were dealt with by the Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley district health authority from 1979 to 1986 in(a) general medicine, (b) paediatrics, (c) geriatric medicine and (d) general surgery.

  Mrs. Currie
  The requested information is given in the table.
  559

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Number of occupied beds

  332·8

  346·3

  348·5

  339·7

  315·3

  266·0

  257·9

  244·2

  Discharges and deaths

  1,015

  1,328

  1,636

  2,013

  2,439

  2,255

  2,385

  2,267

  Total out-patient attendances

  345

  508

  773

  1,054

  1,089

  1,382

  1,745

  1,812

  Day cases

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  General surgery

  Number of available beds

  154·4

  156·2

  155·0

  147·8

  154·3

  142·5

  137·2

  130·2

  Number of occupied beds

  129·7

  128·6

  125·2

  119·6

  120·0

  111·4

  106·5

  97·2

  Discharges and deaths

  6,088

  6,259

  6,160

  6,136

  6,577

  6,740

  6,772

  6,487

  Total out-patient attendances

  13,731

  14,217

  14,806

  14,848

  14,004

  14,546

  14,338

  13,753

  Day cases

  397

  560

  650

  570

  553

  698

  708

  715

  Housing Benefits (Lambeth)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to how many housing benefit claims have been made to Lambeth council but have not been processed.

  Mr. Portillo
  We do not collect such unformation centrally. Local authorities are responsible for the day-to-day administration of the housing benefit scheme.

  1981 Census
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the reasons for the difficulties encountered when the trial ethnic question for the 1981 census was tried out in Haringey; and whether similar difficulties are expected with the 1991 census.

  Mrs. Currie
  Co-operation from the public in the test carried out in Haringey in 1979 was seriously hampered by an organised campaign of opposition which was given considerable publicity in the media. The campaign contended that information collected in the test was linked with plans to change the nationality laws in a manner that would worsen the status of ethnic minority groups in Britain. Such fears were unfounded, but the level of opposition at the time of the test and subsequently during consultation with organisations representing ethnic minority groups was sufficient to show that an ethnic origin question was not acceptable at that time.

  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the Commission for Racial Equality are currently holding meetings with community relations officers and representatives of ethnic minority organisations to find out why some people are worried about a possible ethnic origin question in the census so that ways can be found to remove any mistaken doubts and fears if such a question were to be included in the 1991 census. These meetings follow a recent series of tests carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to develop an effective form of wording of such a question.

  Pontefract Health Authority
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many consultants are employed by Pontefract district health authority on contracts; and how many of these work(a) full-time and (b) part-time for the National Health Service;

  (2) what is the annual cost of consultants' contracts for the Pontefract district health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information on the number of consultants in non-teaching districts such as Pontefract is not available centrally as such staff are employed by regional health 560
  authorities. Some information on costs is available from district accounts. In 1986–87 Pontefract's total expenditure on salaries and wages of consultants was £1,376,934. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Yorkshire regional health authority for any further information which he requires.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many beds have been closed either temporarily or permanently in each of the past three years in the Pontefract district health authority area; and how long each closure lasted;

  (2) what is the bed availability to the Pontefract district health authority at the latest date; and if he will give similar figures for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information is available centrally only on the average number of beds in Pontefract. This is given in the table, together with discharges and deaths per available bed.

  The hon. Member may wish to approach the chairman of Pontefract DHA for the remainder of the information he is seeking.

  Average daily available beds in Pontefract district health authority

  Average daily available beds

  1Throughput

  1979

  853·5

  22·3

  1980

  848·3

  25·0

  1981

  873·0

  24·2

  1982

  864·5

  23·1

  1983

  883·0

  25·1

  1984

  904·0

  25·0

  1985

  884·9

  26·2

  1986

  880·6

  25·9

  1 Discharges and deaths per available bed.

  Figures before 1982 relate to Pontefract's predecessor district within Wakefield area health authority.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many nurses have left the Pontefract district health authority since 1979; how many have been reinstated; what is the present number in post; and what was the number in post in 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  Such figures as are available are shown in the table. Because of the 1982 National Health Service reorganisation, figures on a consistent basis are not held centrally for the years prior to 1982. Information on nurses who have left, or been reinstated, is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the Pontefract district health authority for this information.
  561

  NHS nursing and midwifery staff in post1 Pontefract District Health Authority at 30 September

  Whole time equivalents2

  1982

  1,020

  1983

  1,040

  1984

  1,070

  1985

  1,080

  1986

  1,100

  Source: DHSS annual census of National Health Service nonmedical manpower.

  1 Includes agency staff.

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

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many appointments he has made to the Pontefract health authority since 1983.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Secretary of State reappointed Mr. R. Widdowson as chairman of Pontefract health authority on 1 April 1986. The appointment of members to Pontefract district health authority is the responsibility of the Yorkshire regional health authority and certain local authorities.

  Schizophrenics
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the annual numbers of schizophrenics discharged from hospitals in the United Kingdom over the past 10 years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The number of discharges of patients with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia from National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units in England are shown in the table for each year since 1977. The figures refer to discharges and cannot be related to individual patients; a patient may be readmitted more than once during the year.

  Year

  Discharges

  1977

  28,595

  1978

  25,695

  1979

  24,656

  1980

  25,280

  1981

  25,992

  1982

  24,594

  1983

  25,336

  1984

  25,934

  1985

  26,225

  1986

  26,077

  Figures for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate for the amount of money to be spent by his Department on research into schizophrenia in the current financial year.
  562
  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) on 10 November 1987 at column 149.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many documented cases of abuse of mentally ill people in institutions covered by his Department there have been in the most recent period for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  Individual health authorities are responsible for monitoring their own services and dealing with all issues — including abuse — as appropriate. Such information is not routinely collected by the Department. Since 1 January 1986, there have been 80 complaints by patients in the special hospitals alleging ill-treatment. In one of these cases, the allegation was substantiated and a staff member was dismissed.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has of the numbers of those caring for the mentally ill at home under the care in the community proposals who are subsequently certified as mentally ill.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no basis for making such an estimate.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are his Department's current figures for the number of homes funded by health authorities to provide sheltered accommodation for people who are mentally ill.

  Mrs. Currie
  If accommodation for people who are mentally ill is funded by a health authority it should form part of the in-patient accommodation the health authority provides, and so not figure separately in NHS statistics. Health authorities may also provide varying degrees of financial support to voluntary bodies which are providing sheltered accommodation, but we have no statistics of such payments.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, South received on Tuesday 9 February, if he will list the 45 National Health Service hospital units, hostels and holiday homes for the mentally handicapped closed since 1984, stating in each case the changes of use for each site.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret the delay in supplying the information originally requested. As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member on 18 January at column 579, it was necessary to make enquiries to bring the information held centrally up to date.

  Listed are details of the National Health Service hospital units, hostels and holiday homes for mentally handicapped people which have closed since 1979, including 31 since 1984.
  563

  NHS hospitals units, hostels and holiday homes for mentally handicapped people closed since 1979

  Region

  District

  Hospital

  Closure date

  Use made of sites

  Northern RHA

  —

  None

  Yorkshire RHA

  Scunthorpe

  Bubwith Hostel

  1985

  Part sold to GP practice and part to building firm

  York

  Tadcaster Hostel

  1987

  To be demolished to provide new facilities for mentally handicapped people

  Harrogate

  Bondgate Hostel

  1987

  To be marketed

  Trent RHA

  Southern Derbyshire

  Retreat Hostel

  1983–87

  Sold for use as an old peoples home

  Leicestershire

  Glengate Hospital

  1987

  Sold for use as training centre

  Leicestershire

  Hillesden Hostel

  1981–82

  Sold privately. Use not known

  North Lincolnshire, Central

  Tuxford Hostel

  1983–84

  Sold subject to contract

  Nottinghamshire

  Victoria Hospital

  1986

  Demolished.6 person bungalow for elderly people planned

  Rotherham

  Aughton Court

  1984

  Part sold for use as a private nursing home

  Sheffield

  Wales Court Hospital

  1979–80

  Sold privately. Use not known

  Sheffield

  Scott Road Hostel

  1985

  Withdrawn from market

  Sheffield

  Commonside Hostel

  1985

  Under consideration for day centre

  East Anglian RHA

  Norwich

  Blofield Hall

  1984

  Sold for use as educational establishment

  North West Thames RHA

  North West Hertfordshire

  Tenterdon House, St. Albans (part of Cell Barnes Hospital)

  1986

  Sale to be completed before end of March 1988

  North West Hertfordshire

  Houndswood (part of Harperbury Hospital

  1984

  Sold to private developer

  North East Thames RHA

  North East Essex

  Brunswick House

  1987

  Disposal option under review

  North East Essex

  Essex Hall

  1983

  To be sold by tender

  North East Essex

  Middlesex House

  1986

  Sold for residential development

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  Little Warley Lodge

  1987

  Sold for use as nursing home

  South East Thames RHA

  Hastings

  East Down House

  1987

  Sold possibly for residential development

  Canterbury

  Lanthorne Houe

  1987

  Demolished to provide 4 bungalows for mentally handicapped people

  South West Thames RHA

  Merton and Surrey

  Brook

  1983

  Sold for residential development

  North West Surrey

  Murray House

  1984

  Sold for residential development

  South West Surrey

  King George V Hospital

  1986

  Sold for residential development

  Wessex RHA

  Isle of Wight

  Longford (Ryde)

  1985

  Awaiting outcome of planning application

  West Dorset

  Elfadene Holiday Home

  1983

  Sold to Housing Association

  Winchester

  Tichbourne Down

  1986

  Possible residential development

  Portsmouth

  Sandy Point Hospital

  1985

  Residential development institutional use and nature reserve

  Bath

  Winsley Centre

  1985

  Planning appeal for residential units rejected

  Oxford RHA

  West Berkshire

  Style Acre Hospital

  1985

  Sold for use as private hospital

  Oxfordshire

  Bradwell Grove Hospital, Burford

  1986

  Reverted to ground landlord on closure

  South Western RHA

  Frenchay

  Leigh Court Hospital

  1985

  Sold for private mental handicap care

  Exeter

  Hawkmoor Hospital

  1987

  Sale under consideration

  Cornwall

  Elizabeth Barclay Home

  1985

  Sold to private sector

  Bath

  Rock Hall House

  1983

  Sold to Housing Association

  Exeter

  Starcross Hospital

  1986

  Sold to private sector

  West Midlands RHA

  North Warwickshire

  Over Whitacre Hostel

  1986

  Sold for private nursing home

  Dudley

  Part of — Prestwood Hospital

  1986

  Sold. Present use not known

  North Western RHA

  West Lancashire

  Ormskirk Childrens' Hospital

  1986

  Closure being reviewed by Health Authority

  Mersey RHA

  Chester

  Tabley Agricultural Hostel

  1981

  Sold to private developer

  Crewe

  Wrenbury Hostel

  1981

  Sold to Trust for use as hostel for mentally handicapped people

  564 565

  Region

  District

  Hospital

  Closure date

  Use made of sites

  Macclesfield

  Part of—Mary Dendy Hospital ie Warford Hall

  1987

  Not yet marketed

  Ancoats

  1987

  Not yet marketed

  Health Authorities (Resources)
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to allocate sufficient resources to health authorities in 1988–89 to meet the needs for services of elderly, mentally ill and mentally handicapped people, without reducing the level of acute services.

  Mr. Newton
  It is for regional and district health authorities to provide for the health care needs of the elderly, mentally ill and mentally handicapped, after taking account of other priorities, from within their total resources. The national resource allocation formula allows for the numbers of elderly people, mentally ill and mentally handicapped in regionally managed populations in arriving at target allocations.

  Local Authorities (Health Charges)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, on how many occasions in the last five years(a) he has agreed that a local authority may make charges under section 28(4) of the National Health Service Act 1977, (b) charges have been determined by arbitration; and if he will list the local authorities involved.

  Mr. Newton
  Charges by local authorities under section 28(4) of the National Health Service Act 1977 have never been agreed to my knowledge. The Department has recently reached a negotiated settlement of the bill presented by the London borough of Camden for the provision of hospital social workers.

  Hospital Social Workers
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will publish a table showing the number of hospital social workers employed by each local authority social services department for the last available year;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the number of hospital social workers in each district health authority in England and Wales for the last available year.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that this information is not available centrally.

  Storm Damage
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement on the arrangements he has made to give financial assistance to health authorities for costs arising from the storm of 15–16 October 1987, where the costs arise from risks which were insurable but which were not insured.

  Mr. Newton
  I have nothing to add to my statement to the House on 16 December 1987 at columns 1093–94.

  Advice Service
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if there are any plans to provide a social security advice service specifically for employers and the self-employed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Yes. A new free telephone inquiry service will become operational on 22 February 1988. The social security advice line for employers will provide expert advice on national insurance contributions and the payment of statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay. The service will be useful to all employers and independent payrolling services, and particularly helpful for people starting up a new business, the self-employed and small businesses without a separate wages section. A free telephone call will enable them to check that they are following the correct procedures.

  Dental Ailments (Lost Working Days)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the number of working days lost as a result of dental ailments.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: This information has not been collected since the introduction of self-certification for days of absence. Time lost through dental disease was usually not long enough to be recorded under this system.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Avgas
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue was raised through the duty on Avgas for each of the years 1979–80 to 1986–87.

  Mr. Lilley
  Estimates are as follows:

  £

  1979–80

  3·70

  1980–81

  6·85

  1981–82

  4·65

  1982–83

  2·60

  1983–84

  2·95

  1984–85

  2·85

  1985–86

  3·05

  1986–87

  2·55

  Toxic Waste (Seaham)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provision is made for the checking of toxic waste which is landed at the port of Seaham, to ensure that the cargo manifest tallies with the materials offloaded.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 8 February, at column 95. All imported goods, including toxic waste, have to be declared to
  567
  Customs and Excise, which imposes checks to test the accuracy of the declaration and its supporting documents and to ensure that the goods are not subject to prohibition. There are no special provisions at Seaham to ensure the cargo manifest tallies with the material offloaded.

  National Savings
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what compensating allowance has been made in the national savings index-linked products for the recently announced error in the retail prices index.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 18 December, at column 846.

  EC (Rebates)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rebate from the whole European Economic Community budget has been obtained for the years 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Brooke
  The United Kingdom's payments to and receipts from the European Community budget in 1986 gave rise to an abatement of its VAT contributions in 1987 of 1,633 million ecu (some £1,150 million). The preliminary draft budget for 1988 provides for an upward correction of 244 million ecu (£170 million) to the abatement in respect of 1986, and for an abatement of 2,269 million ecu (£1,580 million) in respect of 1987.

  Government Data Network
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the lowest grade of civil servant able to grant permission to allow an authorised intradepartmental and interdepartmental transfer of data on the Government data network; and whether any transfer of data between Departments will be permitted without the consent or knowledge of the data subject.

  Mr. Brooke
  These will be operational matters for the Departments using the network. As data users, Departments will be responsible for compliance with the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what computers at the Department of Health and Social Security, Inland Revenue, Home Department and Customs and Excise will be connected to the Government data network; and what are the locations of these computers.

  English National Opera

  National Theatre

  Royal Opera House

  Royal Shakespeare Company

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1977–78

  2,640,000

  2,770,593

  4,850,000

  1,365,000

  1978–79

  3,665,000

  3,401,500

  5,475,000

  1,838,486

  1979–80

  4,800,000

  4,806,500

  7,000,000

  2,117,000

  1980–81

  5,475,000

  5.188,000

  7,805,000

  2,535,934

  1981–82

  4,550,000

  5,770,000

  9,020,000

  2,880,000

  1982–83

  5,440,000

  6,550,000

  10,379,682

  4,075,000

  1983–84

  5,988,401

  6,869,446

  11,584,776

  4,660,312

  1984–85

  5,918,250

  7,005,870

  12,386,891

  5,286,000

  1985–86

  6,034,500

  6,955,200

  13,474,491

  5,392,000

  568
  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: Departmental decisions on which computer systems and sites would be connected to the proposed GDN cannot be made until after the project is approved.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the costings of the savings arising from the economies of scale referred to in the service requirements for a Government data network have been calculated.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: Only when tenders are received will sufficient financial information be available to assess the savings to Government arising from the introduction of the proposed Government data network.

  Confectionery and Biscuits
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to meet the president of the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance to discuss the imposition of value added tax on confectionery and chocolate biscuits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: Changes in taxation are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget judgment. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, it is not possible for him to meet all those seeking to put their views beforehand. However, representations submitted by the president of the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance have been carefully considered by Treasury Ministers.

THE ARTS

  Art in Prisons
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the Arts Council's initiatives to encourage art in prisons.

  Mr. Luce
  I am pleased to learn of the Arts Council's proposed initiatives to encourage art in prisons. This work is of great value, and I look forward to learning more about the scheme when firm plans have been drawn up.

  Grants
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list the grants made by the Arts Council to(a) the English National Opera, (b) the National Theatre, (c) the Royal Opera House and (d) the Royal Shakespeare Company for every year from 1977–78 to 1987–88 inclusive, and the grants proposed for them in 1988–89.

  Mr. Luce
  The information requested is as follows:
  569

  English National Opera

  National Theatre

  Royal Opera House

  Royal Shakespeare Company

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1986–87

  6,576,000

  7,811,400

  13,096,500

  5,197,000

  1987–88

  6,748,000

  7,811,400

  13,226,960

  5,197,000

  1988–89

  6,917,000

  17,811,400

  13,491,270

  5,326,500

  1 An additional sum of £105,600 is reserved for the National Theatre and may be made available on receipt of a three-year plan showing, inter alia, financial break-even.

  I have increased the grant to the Arts Council in 1988–89 and subsequent years to enable it, in part, to provide more assistance for touring within the United Kingdom and overseas. The national companies may well receive increased funding on this account, and also from the incentive funding arrangements now being devised.

  Eastern

  East Midlands

  Greater London

  Lines/Humberside

  Merseyside

  Northern

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1977–78

  242,099

  216,023

  470,913

  202,305

  189,067

  729,309

  1978–79

  343,594

  297,163

  558,571

  267,829

  254,180

  914,787

  1979–80

  419,398

  428,033

  652,301

  335,893

  338,147

  1,088,960

  1980–81

  481,180

  579,874

  932,101

  390,747

  386,083

  1,306,630

  1981–82

  541,045

  699,754

  1,209,972

  460,691

  444,877

  1,456,051

  1982–83

  690,483

  824,944

  1,464,087

  523,048

  497,419

  1,733,236

  1983–84

  728,305

  927,160

  1,487,240

  556,740

  535,158

  1,819,020

  1984–85

  889,775

  1,061,119

  1,583,722

  591,050

  583,903

  1,938,659

  1985–86

  1,144,871

  1,627,406

  1,791,430

  782,836

  656,000

  2,086,802

  1986–87

  1,715,344

  1,809,737

  8,427,313

  904,490

  1,096,830

  3,543,845

  1987–88

  1,774,026

  1,873,783

  8,127,248

  962,235

  1,094,270

  3,556,920

  North West

  South East

  Southern

  South West

  West Midlands

  Yorkshire

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1977–78

  337,281

  190,675

  305,935

  360,229

  416,634

  255,974

  3,916,444

  1978–79

  490,069

  249,285

  445,031

  485,561

  553,019

  343,292

  5,202,181

  1979–80

  578,474

  318,807

  525,050

  535,794

  696,735

  444,425

  6,362,017

  1980–81

  662,483

  367,495

  618,638

  637,082

  803,105

  520,779

  7,686,197

  1981–82

  751,055

  431,274

  708,620

  702,175

  896,095

  586,900

  8,888,509

  1982–83

  864,849

  540,353

  850,418

  876,133

  1,034,811

  717,002

  10,616,783

  1983–84

  932,393

  581,659

  884,447

  883,678

  1,100,434

  737,914

  11,174,148

  1984–85

  1,031,953

  628,991

  995,088

  970,894

  1,221,727

  841,602

  12,338,483

  1985–86

  1,493,749

  1,085,773

  1,172,470

  1,225,052

  1,558,134

  1,338,899

  15,963,422

  1986–87

  1,982,320

  1,231,962

  1,298,559

  1,555,765

  2,291,310

  2,084,900

  27,942,175

  1987–88

  1,996,480

  1,303,970

  1,369,191

  1,685,317

  2,315,020

  2,117,070

  28,175,530

  I understand that the Arts Council will be notifying individual regional arts associations about their 1988–89 grants in the course of this week. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as I am able to pass on these figures, and will place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether, pursuant to his written answer on 2 February,Official Report, columns 535–536, to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), in connection with the change in the cash limits for the Office of Arts and Libraries, the figure of £7,329,000 on class XIII, vote 10, represents an
  570
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list the grants made by the Arts Council to each of the 12 English regional arts associations by the Arts Council for each year from 1977–78 to 1987–88, inclusive, and the grants proposed for them in 1988–89.

  Mr. Luce
  The information requested is as follows:

  actual payment of cash to the Inland Revenue in respect of acceptance of works of arts in lieu of tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: Subject to parliamentary approval, supplementary provision is being made so that the sum of £7,329,000 may be paid in due course to the Inland Revenue, in respect of three works of art accepted in lieu of tax in 1987–88. Two have already been accepted: Constable's "Stratford Mill" (tax satisfied £5·5 million), and Picasso's "Weeping Woman" (tax satisfied £1·2 million). The offer of a third item (which would be similarly funded) is in the final stages of agreement. Further details will be made available when the acceptance has been completed.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Student Grants
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish the report on the review of student financial support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he now anticipates publishing his proposals for student finance.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the Review Body on Student Grants to complete its report.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government hope to publish proposals for consideration by the middle of this year.

  Science Budget
  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science for what reasons the Government are planning for a reduction of the science budget of 2 per cent. in real terms in 1990–91 relative to 1988–89, according to table 12.14 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89—1990–91" (Cm. 288-II).

  Mr. Jackson
  The figures for 1988–89 and 1989–90 include special additions for AIDS research and research in the Antarctic which are not carried forward into 1990–91. Expenditure in 1990–91 in these and other areas of the science budget will be reviewed in this and next year's public expenditure surveys.

  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he can make of the total size of his science budget relative to the increase of industry's funding of its own research and development needed to bring such industrial research and development up to the lowest level as a proportion of gross domestic product in Germany, Japan and the United States of America.

  Mr. Jackson
  The latest year for which we have a complete set of relevant statistics is 1985. The figures for industry's own funding of R and D as a percentage of GDP are as follows:

  Country

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  1·0

  Federal Republic of Germany

  1·6

  Japan

  1·8

  United States of America

  1·3

  If the science budget in 1985–86 were increased by 60 per cent., 80 per cent. and 30 per cent., the figures would be respectively £920 million, £1,035 million and £745 million. However, United Kingdom Government funding of civil R and D as a percentage of GDP, although lower than in the Federal Republic of Germany, was higher in 1985 than that in Japan and the United States of America:

  Country

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  0·63

  Federal Republic of Germany

  1·0

  Japan

  0·57

  United States of America

  0·4

  Source: OECD.

  Special Schooling
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is prepared to make extra funds available for special schooling.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Government's plans, announced last November, for local authority spending on education for 1988–89 represents a cash increase of 7·9 per cent. over the 1987–88 plans. The plans for special education in 1988–89 are 8·3 per cent. higher than the 1987–88 plans. The increase should help local education authorities to pursue their policy priorities for special education.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the assessing and testing proposals within the new school curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A few representations have been received since the publication of the report of the task group on assessment and testing on 12 January. Some 14,000 individuals and organisations have written in response to the Government's consultation document on the national curriculum, published last July. Many of these have expressed a variety of views about the place of assessment and testing.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding the percentage of time proposed for foundation subjects in the Education Reform Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Education Reform Bill makes no provision for the percentage of time to be spent on foundation subjects.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received asking him to take steps in the Education Reform Bill to provide improved education for handicapped children.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding the effect of the proposals in the Education Reform Bill on the education of disabled children; and what was the nature of his response.

  Mr. Dunn
  The statistical breakdown is available only in respect of responses to the national curriculum consultation document. Of the 13,800 responses, approximately 12,000 were from individuals and 1,800 from organisations. Some representations concerning children with special educational needs were made by 836 individuals and 213 organisations. My right hon. Friend is drawing the attention of the task group on assessment and testing and of the subject working groups to the implications of those representations which concerned the national curriculum. The Government believe that the proposals in the Education Reform Bill hold every prospect of improved educational provision for children with special educational needs.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the effect of allowing boroughs in district councils to opt out of county local education authorities.
  573
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The outer London boroughs have had responsibility for education for over 20 years, and under the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend on 4 February, at columns 1178–79, the inner London boroughs will assume similar responsibilities on 1 April 1990. The Government have no further plans to reorganise the arrangements for the administration of education.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many inquiries or comments he has received from school governing bodies in the county of Devon relating to individual schools opting out of the local education authority system.

  Mr. Dunn
  All individual schools which have approached the Department about this proposal have done so on the basis that their interest will be treated in confidence.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he intends to take, should the Education Reform Bill become law, to enforce the compulsory nature of the national test for seven-year-olds.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Education Reform Bill places duties on local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers to secure implementation of the national curriculum, including assessment and testing arrangements. It also provides for regulations requiring information to be made available which will enable parents and the public to check on implementation; and for procedures to deal with complaints that statutory requirements are not being implemented. If necessary, the Secretary of State could use the powers under sections 68 or 99 of the 1944 Act to issue a direction in order to secure compliance.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has had any representations from teachers or parents groups in Leicestershire about the Education Reform Bill.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has received about 60 representations from teachers' and parents' groups in Leicestershire in addition to many from individual teachers and parents.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his latest estimate of the number of schools likely to opt out if the Education Reform Bill becomes law; what will be the earliest date for them to do so; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his latest estimate of the number of schools that would opt out under the terms of the Education Reform Bill.

  Mr. Dunn
  Schools will be able to initiate the procedures leading to an application for grant-maintained status as soon as the Education Reform Bill has received Royal Assent. I expect the first few grant-maintained schools to come into being in September 1989, and anticipate a steady increase in their numbers thereafter.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how the proposals contained in the Education Reform Bill will help integrate pupils with special educational needs into the educational system.

  Mr. Dunn
  The changes proposed in the Bill will provide improved educational opportunities for all 574
  children and do not affect the integration principles established under the Education Act 1981. Pupils with special educational needs in ordinary schools will benefit from the new opportunities, whether the schools remain within LEA control or become grant-maintained.

  First Division Association
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet representatives of the First Division Association branch in his Department.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong).

  Religious Instruction
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with Church leaders and representatives of the teaching profession about improving the teaching of religious instruction.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Since publication of the Government's proposals for a national curriculum my right hon. Friend and I have had meetings with representatives of the Church of England Board of Education, the Roman Catholic Bishops' Conference, the Religious Education Council, and with the Bishop of Newcastle. Discussion at all these meetings covered religious instruction in schools.

  Children (Assessment Tests)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether it is the Government's intention to publish the results of tests for children aged seven years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the progress in the growth in the number of city technology colleges.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Sponsorship for five city technology colleges has now been announced. The Kingshurst CTC is to open in September and the Nottingham CTC in 1989. We are making good progress in discussions with a number of prospective sponsors and expect further announcements to be made soon.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will report on the progress to date on the setting up of a city technology college in Wolverhampton.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There has been some interest in the establishment of a city technology college in Wolverhampton but as yet we have received no firm proposals. If there is support in industry and in the local community for doing so, we would be pleased to consider any proposals which are put forward.

  Inner London Education Authority
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received opposing the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Since my right hon. Friend announced on 4 February the Government's decision to amend the provisions currently in the Education Reform Bill, we have received rather fewer than 200 letters expressing support for the retention of ILEA.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the future of the Inner London education authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received regarding the future of the Inner London education authority.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Since the introduction of the Education Reform Bill on 20 November, we have received some 1,200 letters concerning education in inner London.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to announce his policy on the future of the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce his decision about the future of the Inner London education authority.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Members to my right hon. Friend's statement on 4 February at columns 1178–79.

  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he will undertake to ensure that inner London boroughs provide a proper and adequate education service if the inner London education authority is abolished.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government propose that in 1989 each inner London council should be required to publish a development plan, setting out the way in which it proposes to organise the transfer of education responsibility and the service it would propose to run when it becomes an LEA, subject to the full range of duties under the Education Acts. The Department will consider with the councils concerned whether formal or informal cooperative arrangements are necessary in respect of particular aspects of provision.

  General Certificate of Secondary Education
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the progress of the implementation of the GCSE.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is satisfied that teachers and others in the education service will secure the successful implementation of the GCSE. It will take time to reap the full benefits of the new examinations. Careful monitoring is taking place by HMI and reports of significant improvements in teaching and learning have been given.
  576
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the GCSE.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the content of the new GCSE since September 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a range of representations from parents, teachers and others about the GCSE. Many have welcomed the new examination and the content of courses associated with it. My right hon. Friend is concerned to ensure that any concerns expressed in representations about the content of GCSE syllabuses are brought to the attention of the GCSE examining groups and the Secondary Examinations Council, which are responsible for keeping the GCSE national criteria and syllabuses under review.

  Scottish Universities
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to meet the University Grants Committee to discuss the future of the Scottish universities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet the University Grants Committee to discuss the future of Scottish universities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave on 19 January, at column 625, to the hon. Members for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and Kirkaldy (Dr. Moonie).

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent he has considered the impact of his new funding proposals on the Scottish universities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Our policies for the universities, including the relevant provisions in the Education Reform Bill, apply to universities in Scotland is exactly the same way as to those in England and Wales.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied that admission procedures to Scottish universities do not discriminate against(a) pupils from state schools and (b) disabled applicants.

  Mr. Jackson
  Universities are autonomous institutions. Matters relating to the admission of students are, within the law, entirely for them.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to reverse the declining number of Scots-domiciled undergraduates entering Scottish universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  Universities are autonomous institutions. Matters relating to the admission of students are, within the law, entirely for them.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the numbers and countries of origin of undergraduates, other than Scots-domiciled undergraduates, who entered Scottish universities in each of the past five years.
  577
  Mr. Jackson
  The maximum disaggregation of student domicile in Scottish universities from the available information is as follows:

  Academic year

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Scotland

  8,245

  7,969

  8,102

  7,682

  7,864

  England and Wales

  1,924

  1,946

  2,051

  2,261

  2,272

  Northern Ireland

  232

  269

  242

  320

  318

  Overseas

  998

  1,299

  1,341

  1,802

  1,857

  Total

  11,399

  11,483

  11,736

  12,065

  12,311

  University of Aberdeen
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will pay an official visit to the University of Aberdeen.

  Mr. Jackson
  I shall he visiting Aberdeen university on 27 April.

  School Sports Facilities
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will encourage more dual use to be made of the sports facilities in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  With my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport, we are seeking to develop guidance which will further encourage the adoption of dual use schemes. Such guidance would build on the many initiatives which our Departments, the Sports Council and others have developed in recent years.

  Further Education
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to ensure that further education students are informed about the true cost of the education they receive.

  Mr. Jackson
  The provisions on further education in the Education Reform Bill will require college budgets to be related to the number of students at each college. They will also require the publication of LEA funding and delegation schemes, and empower my right hon. Friend to require the publication of information about the operation of those schemes. This will promote awareness of funding methods and costs.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to ensure a continued provision for students with special educational needs in colleges of further education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is for the local education authorities to decide what provision to make for special educational needs in colleges of further education.

  Clause 81 of the Education Reform Bill puts beyond doubt their duty to provide full-time education either in school or in FE for all who seek it up to the age of 19, including those with special educational needs. Provision for the adult population is a matter for the discretion of individual local education authorities.

  Teachers (Pay, and Conditions)
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet representatives of the teachers unions to discuss future arrangements for the determination of pay and conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Responses to the Green Paper en titled "Teachers' Pay and Conditions" are still being received in the Department. No meetings to discuss future arrangements with the teacher unions have yet been fixed.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the resources available to meet the next teachers pay settlement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The rate support grant settlement for 1988–89 allows fully for the cost of a teachers pay settlement consistent with the remit which my right hon. Friend has given to the Interim Advisory Committee on school teachers' pay and conditions.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to increase the level of pre-school provision for children with special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  It is for each LEA to determine its own policy in respect of pre-school provision. Each LEA makes its own decisions on pre-school provision for children with special educational needs in the light of any consultations leading up to statements of special educational need, and of the appropriateness of any pre-school provision available to them.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will list for Northumberland education authority the proportion of the total number of under fives in pre-school education represented by(a) three-year-olds and (b) four-year-olds; and how many vacancies there are.

  Mr. Dunn
  The proportions of the total number of pupils under five attending maintained nursery and primary schools in Northumberland in January 1987 who were aged three anti four were 34 per cent. and 59 per cent. respectively.

  Information on the number of vacant nursery or primary places is not collected centrally.

  School Governors
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to give parents the right to elect parent governors to temporary school governing bodies.

  Mr. Dunn
  Schedule 2 to the Education (No 2) Act 1986 provides that the temporary parent governors for a new school will normally be appointed by the LEA, or in the case of an aided school by the promoters, from among parents of children likely to attend the school. The Government have no plans to change this. Once the school is established, parent governors will normally be elected under the new instrument of government.

  Economic and Social Research Council
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce the new location of the Economic and Social Research Council; why no site in Humberside is among those being considered; and what plans he has for the further relocation out of London of other research bodies.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is for each research council to decide on the location of its headquarters. I understand that the Economic and Social Research Council is expected to make an anouncement about its intentions in the near future. Humberside would not have met the criteria set by the council. The Agricultural and Food Research Council announced on 10 February that it would move to Swindon on the expiry of the lease on its present premises.

  Universities Funding Council
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the directions he gives to the new Universities Funding Council will take account of the differences between the Scottish university system and the system in England and Wales, with particular reference to the length of courses and levels of funding.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The University Grants Committee makes no distinction between universities in Scotland and elsewhere in the application of its standard criteria for funding which, in particular, take account of different course lengths. The Universities Funding Council will doubtless want to maintain this general approach.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the state of school buildings in Northumberland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information is not collected about individual schools, but my right hon. Friend is informed by his recent visit to Northumberland, by his officials and by HMI about the general situation in the county.

  Children (Special Education Needs)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the assessment of children with special learning difficulties.

  Mr. Dunn
  Under the Education Act 1981 local education authorities are required to assess the needs of 580
  children in their areas who have learning difficulties and to ensure that suitable educational provision is made for them.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to increase the staffing ratios for the teaching of children with special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  Current guidance on the staffing of special schools and classes is set out in DES circular 4/73. The Government hope to consult on the draft of a revised circular during the year.

  University Education (Wales)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future of university education in Wales.

  Mr. Jackson
  Government policy towards the universities, set out in "Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge" (Cm. 114) and elsewhere, applies to Great Britain as a whole, and makes no distinctive provision as regards Wales.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on current pupil to teacher ratios.

  Mr. Dunn
  The overall pupil to teacher ratio in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England has fallen markedly in recent years, from 18·1:1 in 1983 to 17·3:1 in 1987. "The Government's Expenditure Plans" (Cm. 288) allow for some further reduction in the overall pupil to teacher ratio to 17·0:1 by 1989.

  Universities (Independence)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for safeguarding the independence of universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government have no wish to see universities' proper freedoms eroded. Universities' substantial reliance on public funds means that the interests of the taxpayer have to be taken into account alongside desirable institutional autonomy. The right balance is being explored in debate during the Education Reform Bill's parliamentary passage.

  Academic Freedom
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the subject of academic freedom.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on securing academic freedom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  We have received about 40 letters on the subject of academic freedom.

  The Government believe wholeheartedly that academic freedom is fundamental to a healthy system of higher education. I refer the hon. Members to the detailed statements I made in reply to my hon. Friend the Member

  581
  for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) on November 1987 at columns 676–78 and the hon. Member from Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) on 13 January 1988 at columns 268–69.

  Universities (Research Funds)
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of Research Council funds goes to those universities which fall in the(a) top, (b) middle and (c) bottom third of research grant funds per student.

  Mr. Jackson
  The proportions are as follows:

  (a) 68 per cent.

  (b) 24 per cent.

  (c) 8 per cent.

  Sex Education
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any further plans to encourage responsible sex education in secondary schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department issued a circular to all maintained schools in England in September 1987 giving guidance on sex education at school. The circular made clear that sex education should be given in a factual and balanced manner and in accordance with section 46 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. There are no plans at present for any further guidance to be issued.

  Pre-school Playgroups
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will bring forward proposals to permit local education authorities to encourage parents to provide pre-school playgroup activities for children on school premises.

  Mr. Dunn
  No. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that there is no significant obstacle to local education authorities offering such encouragement.

  Teachers Unions
  Mr. Evennett
  to ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met respresentatives of the teachers unions; and what was discussed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has had meetings since the last election with representatives of the National Association of Head Teachers, Secondary Heads Association of The National Union of Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters the Secondary Heads Association, the National Union of Teachers the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association and the Professional Association of Teachers. In each meeting matters of current concerns to the teacher association were discussed.

  English Subject Working Group
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to set up the subject working group on English; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend intends to establish the national curriculum working group on English after Easter, following and building on the report,582
  due next month, of the committee chaired by Sir John Kingman on the knowledge needed by teachers and pupils about the workings of the English language.

  16-year-olds (Further Education)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans the Government have to increase the staying on rate at the age of 16 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans the Government have to increase the staying on rates at the age of 16 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  As stated in the 1988 public expenditure White Paper the Government wish to encourage greater participation in post 16 education and training. My right hon. Friend aims to raise the level of attainment of young people and to encourage a more positive attitude to continuing education and training. He considers that the examination reforms and new forms of provisions already introduced, together with the curriculum and other school reforms proposed in the Education Reform Bill will help to achieve this objective.

  University Funding
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on his policy on university funding and control.

  Mr. Jackson
  We have received many representations about university funding and the university provisions in the Education Reform Bill.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on Government expenditure on civil academic and academically related research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany.

  Mr. Jackson
  A study commissioned by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils (published in 1986) found that in 1982 Government spending on academic and academically related research amounted to:

  Percentage of GDP

  United Kingdom

  0·38

  France

  0·44

  West Germany

  0·49

  The ABRC is currently supporting a further study to update this information.

  Teaching Standards
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that standards of teaching are adequately assessed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The pilot work on teacher appraisal, which is expected to be completed in summer 1989, is being
  583
  undertaken in six local education authorities under the direction of the national steering group. The intended outcome of the pilot work is a proven set of guidelines which will form the basis of an agreed national framework consistent with the June 1986 ACAS working group report. The implementation of that framework should lead to a system which will both enhance career development for teachers and raise standards of teaching in our schools.

  School Discipline
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set up an inquiry to examine standards of discipline in schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) on 29 January at column 399.

  Schools (Examination Results)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether for the purposes of producing legislation he takes into account the O and A-level results obtained by individual schools in assessing the value of such schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  O and A-level examination results are one of the factors taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend in reaching decisions on proposals under sections 12 and 13 of the Education Act 1980.

  School Uniforms
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek powers to enable him to obstruct the plans of some local education authorities which, despite the Education Act 1986, seek to prevent the wearing of school uniforms in schools which have freely opted so to do.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to seek such powers. His own views, as expressed in circular 7/87 from his Department, is that the wearing of school uniform contributes significantly to the ethos of the school and the decision should normally rest with the governing body.

  School Meals
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has about the average daily charge by local educational authorities for a school meal and how many authorities charge more than the average.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information requested is included in the October 1986 school meals census, copies of which are available in the Library. The average fixed charge for primary schools was 61p. This sum was exceeded by 50 LEAs. It is not possible to provide equivalent data in respect of secondary schools as many authorities operate cash cafeterias.

  "Strategy for Science"
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received following the publication of the Advisory Body on Research Councils, report "Strategy for Science"; and if he will make a statement.
  584
  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has received 250 representations about the Advisory Board for the Research Council's discussion document "A Strategy for the Science Base". He will be making a statement later this year on the Government's conclusions on policy for the science base, taking account of the ABRC's recommendations and the comments of the higher education and scientific communities.

  Schools (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools he has visited in the current year.

  Mr. Dunn
  One to date.

  Day Release Courses
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he has had with organisations representing employees in inner London concerning the pattern of day release courses in colleges of further education.

  Mr. Jackson
  None.

  EC (Community Action Programme)
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give details of the extent of United Kingdom involvement in the programme established by the EEC on community action to promote the educational integration of disabled children and young people.

  Mr. Dunn
  Within the first four-year programme United Kingdom representatives have participated in study visits to schools and to education departments of local and central Government in many member states to develop knowledge and share expertise about the education of handicapped pupils. Participation continues in the field of computing and new technology involving data banks and communication aids for the disabled. There is official and HMI representation at the EC working group meetings which oversee this programme.

  Pupil Costs
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) England and Wales and (ii) Cheshire in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures in 1978–79, at constant prices.

  Mr. Dunn
  The available information is as follows:

  Net institutional recurrent expenditure1 per pupil

  £ 1985–86 prices

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  England2

  1978–793

  690

  1,000

  1985–86

  815

  1,175

  Cheshire

  1978–793

  670

  985

  1985–86

  760

  1,100

  1 Net institutional recurrent expenditure covers the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not

  585

  include the cost of school meals, central administration and inspection, debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

  2 Information for Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  3The cash prices for 1978–79 have been repriced to 1985–86 prices using the gross domestic product (market prices) deflator.

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the numbers of children in Northumberland education authority of compulsory school age entering the maintained sector from the private sector of education, over the most recent period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dunn
  These figures are not available.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what account was taken in fixing the individual student grant award for 1988–89 of the inability of students in Scotland to pay the community charge in 1989–90.

  Mr. Jackson
  All prospective changes in students' financial circumstances are considered in determining the level of the student grant. In the Government's view, liability for the community charge at the discounted rate of 20 per cent. in the second half of academic year 1988–89 does not justify a higher rate of grant for students studying in Scotland. Rates of grant applicable in England, Wales and Scotland in academic year 1989–90 will be considered in due course.

  Housing Benefit (Students)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what account was taken in fixing the individual student grant award for 1988–89 of the loss of students' entitlement to housing benefit from 1 April.

  Mr. Jackson
  Students in circumstances which now entitle them to claim housing benefit will not lose that entitlement from 1 April. The reformed system of housing benefit, which will apply to all categories of claimant, was one of the many factors taken into account in the Government's decision to raise grant rates by 4 per cent. in September of this year.

  Student Financial Support
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish his proposals on student fiancial support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The work of the student support review is expected to be completed by the middle of this year.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effects of waste disposal in all of its forms upon marine life off the coast of Durham.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department assesses the effects on marine life of disposals of waste which it licenses. The only 586
  significant effect of such disposals off the Durham coast relates to beach tipping of solid colliery waste where there is an identifiable alteration to the nature of the seabed and consequential change in the associated benthos. The area where this occurs is restricted to the foreshore and the offshore area immediately adjacent to the beach. This tipping predates statutory controls over dumping at sea by many years, but care is taken to ensure that the area affected is not extended.

  Control of discharges of waste by pipeline is a matter for the Northumbrian water authority under the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  EC (Surplus Food)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received relating to the allocation of surplus European Community food.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have received a number of expressions of view on the arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend on 12 January, to which I am replying.

  Alternative Land Use
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hectares have been bought under the woodland scheme in the ALURE package(a) in the county of Durham and (b) in Easington district.

  Mr. Gummer
  None. The farm woodland scheme will not come into operation until later this year following the passage of the necessary legislation.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the objectives of the set-aside scheme; and if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the scheme.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: The principal aim of the Community set-aside scheme is to reduce surplus production of crops and so reduce budget costs. The Government have pressed for set-aside to be adopted as a complement to stabilisers, not a substitute for them. We also envisage that the scheme can fulfil desirable objectives for the environment. Under the agreement reported to the House yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the scheme can now go ahead on a basis that meets these objectives. I and my agriculture colleagues will proceed as quickly as possible to settle details of the arrangements to be applied in the United Kingdom, taking full account of the many responses we have received to our consultation document.

  Cereals
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the annual cost of the cereals regime, as shown in the annual review, breaks down into the costs of(a) intervention purchases, (b) transport, (c) storage, (d) subsidy on disposal, (e) administration and (f) other costs for each of the years from 1984–85 to 1987–88.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A breakdown of expenditure by the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce on the cereals regime is set out in the table. Administration costs are not included in these figures and are not separately available.
  587

  £ million

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  11987–88

  Intervention purchases

  242·0

  543·1

  121·6

  4·8

  Incidental costs2

  30·4

  81·4

  79·3

  54·4

  Other expenditure3

  95·5

  29·5

  -86·4

  131·9

  367·9

  654·0

  114·5

  191·1

  Receipts from EAGGF for loss on sales

  5·9

  33·5

  275·5

  105·5

  1 Forecast.

  2 Includes storage, transport, intake and discharge costs which are not separately available.

  3 Includes export refunds and positive monetary compensatory amounts offset by proceeds of sales out of intervention, co-responsibility levy and negative monetary compensatory amounts.

  European Community
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North, of 20 July 1987,Official Report, column 62, if he will update the details of the total value of agricultural production (a) for the European Economic Community and (b) for each European Economic Community country, to the latest date for which information is now available.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The latest information is shown in the table.

  Total final agricultural production: 1986 (provisional)

  1million ecu

  Belgium

  5,507

  Denmark

  6,545

  Germany

  27,581

  Greece

  7,052

  France

  42,941

  Ireland

  3,676

  Italy

  34,819

  Luxembourg

  172

  Netherlands

  14,133

  United Kingdom

  17,420

  Total EC10

  159,846

  Spain

  2—

  Portugal

  3—

  Source: Eurostat.

  1 At 1986 prices and exchange rates.

  2 The latest figure available is 20,215 million ecu for 1985.

  3 The latest figure available is 2,188 million ecu for 1981.

  Food Surpluses
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the cost to(a) the European Economic Community and (b) the United Kingdom of storing and exporting food surpluses produced in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: All the costs of operations in the United Kingdom under the CAP are ultimately borne by the United Kingdom, either directly or via our contribution to the EC budget. In 1986–87 the costs of storing and exporting surplus commodities (beef, cereals, milk products, sugar) produced in the United Kingdom were:

  £ million

  Storage

  129

  Stock financing (notional)

  77

  Stock depreciation

  45

  588

  £ million

  Loss on sale

  444

  Export refunds (net of MCAs)

  185

  Total

  880

  A total of £813 million was transferred from the EC budget to the United Kingdom in respect of these operations.

  During this period £406 million was spent by the Intervention Board on buying stock into intervention and £270 million was received for sales out of intervention.

  Monofilament Nets
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he plans to undertake research into bird deaths caused by the use of monofilament gill nets.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 11 February 1988]: My Department has no plans at present to undertake specific investigations of the effects of monofilament nets on sea bird populations, but we are keeping the situation under review.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the recent effects on auk species, including razorbills, of fishermen fishing inshore due to bad weather, using monofilament gill nets off St. Just, Cornwall.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 11 February 1988]: I have received a number of reports about unusually high mortalities of auks associated with the use of gill nets in St. Ives bay, but not off St. Just. This appears to have resulted from a combination of factors, including the adverse weather.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce further limits, or codes of practice, on the use of monofilament gill nets so as to limit bird deaths in areas of seabird concentrations.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 11 February 1988]: I have no such plans at present. The use of monofilament gill nets is regulated in a number of ways, including local sea fisheries committee byelaws. Where such nets are used as fixed engines they will be subject to new byelaws being prepared to regulate use of fixed engines in all local sea fisheries districts. In appropriate instances these byelaws will specify the minimum depth below the surface at which fixed gill nets may be set.

ENERGY

  North-east Power Stations
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the refurbishment of north-east power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board regularly to discuss a range of issues. The refurbishment of power stations is a matter for the board.

  Nuclear Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)Official Report, 1 February, column 472, he will place in the Library a copy of the contracts signed before 1976 between British Nuclear Fuels plc and Okg Aktiebolag for spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste processing, with the specific financial arrangements covered by commercial confidentiality erased from the texts.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Details of contracts between BNF and its customers are a commercial matter for the parties concerned.

  Italian Reactor
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)Official Report, 1 February, column 473, if he has any information on why the Italian Latina Magnox reactor has been closed, and on whether this is a permanent closure.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The closure of the Latina Magnox reactor is a matter for the Italian authorities.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)Official Report, 1 February, column 473, on the reprocessing of electricity board nuclear fuel, he will list as proportions of the annual throughput of nuclear fuel from electricity board reactors in each year from 1980 to 1986, the throughput in the period 15 December 1986 to 15 December 1987.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  For the period April 1980 to March 1986, spent fuel deriving from the United Kingdom electricity boards' Magnox reactors accounted for some 90 per cent. of the civil spent fuel reprocessed at Sellafield. For the period April 1986 to March 1987, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on 16 December 1987 at column 516.

  Fuel Plants
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the number of(a) nuclear power plants, (b) nuclear fuel cycle facilities, (c) fossil fuel plants, (d) fossil fuel processing facilities and (e) renewable energy production and conversion sites he has visited since he became Secretary of State.
  590
  Mr. Parkinson
  I have visited the nuclear facilities at Dounreay and Sellafield, the Leman and Morecambe bay gas fields, the gas processing facilities at Bacton, and the Orkney wind generator.

  My hon. Friends the Minister of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State have visited Dungeness A and B power stations, the Capenhurst enrichment plant, the UKAEA at Harwell, Didcot coal-fired power station, British Alcan's coal-fired power station at Lynemouth, the Fort Dunlop CHP plant, the refuse driven plant at Byker, and the Islay wave power project.

  Nuclear Power Plants (Safety Procedures)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, in the light of the near accident involving two aircraft in airspace over the Dungeness A and B nuclear reactors in Kent on 6 February, he will review the integrity and safety procedures at nuclear power plants against aircraft crashing on(a) the reactor buildings, and (b) the spent nuclear fuel cooling ponds.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that the air traffic incident referred to took place about 20 miles from the Dungeness power stations. At that distance there was no danger to the power stations. The HSE's nuclear installations inspectorate has been reviewing the overflying restrictions as part of its consideration of external hazards at nuclear installations and will make proposals for further restrictions if necessary.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much plutonium, plutonium oxide or plutonium nitrate produced at the Sellafield reprocessing plant had been transported by air prior to December 1987; on what occasions; and whether to(a) overseas civil customers or (b) domestic civil customers.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: From May 1979 up to the end of December 1987, some 4·5 tonnes of plutonium oxide produced at Sellafield has been transported by air for civil purposes. Some 2·5 tonnes of this was despatched to Dounreay as mixed uranium-plutonium oxide for use in the fast reactor programme. The remainder was despatched overseas. Information relating to specific shipments is confidential for reasons of security and commercial sensitivity.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the grants made by the health and social services boards, the education and library boards, the probation board, the Arts Council, the Police Authority, the Tourist Board and district councils to voluntary organisations in each of the last two years, with the amount in each case and the name and address of the recipient organisations.

  Mr. Stanley
  Except as stated, the information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Police Authority does not pay grants to voluntary bodies. Those paid by the probation board are as follows:
  591

  Voluntary Body

  Grant paid 1986–87

  Grant paid 1985–86

  Extern Organisation

  204,814

  247,349

  Save the Children Fund, Northern Ireland

  176,962

  158,726

  NI Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  166,105

  173,159

  Presbyterian Church in Ireland

  56,304

  58,357

  Dismas House Hostel

  21,958

  21,154

  Ulster Quakers Service Committee

  20,151

  12,070

  Suffolk Adventure Group

  20,000

  —

  Lower Falls 'New Start'

  20,000

  —

  Laganvalley Auto Project

  20,000

  —

  Newtownabbey Auto Project

  15,000

  5,000

  Belfast Rape Crisis Centre

  11,440

  11,000

  Twinbrook Tenants/Community Association

  10,400

  2,270

  NI Victim Support Scheme

  5,778

  —

  Citizens Advice Bureau

  3,780

  1,500

  Inter Agency

  3,475

  3,367

  Prison Fellowship

  3,000

  —

  Edward Street Hostel

  3,000

  3,000

  Joe Lindsay Memorial Group

  3,000

  3,261

  Westrock/Whiterock Community Group

  3,000

  —

  Cookstown Hostel (MUST)

  3,000

  —

  Simon Community

  3,000

  —

  Dunmurry Christian Community

  1,100

  —

  Irish German Exhange Trip

  1,000

  —

  Clonard Parent/Youth Support Group

  1,000

  —

  Oliver Plunkett Education and Leisure Services

  —

  2,500

  Horn Drive Parent Youth Group

  —

  1,500

  Belfast Voluntary Welfare Society

  —

  1,250

  Farset City Farm

  —

  1,000

  Total

  777,267

  706,463

  Maghaberry Prison
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the shortfall of prisoners in Maghaberry prison, in the light of general prison overcrowding;

  (2) why Maghaberry prison will, by mid-February, after a build-up, have a shortfall of 332 prisoners.

  Mr. Stanley
  The overcrowding which occurs in many prisons in England and Wales is not a feature of Northern Ireland prisons. The current build-up of the prisoner population at Maghaberry began in November 1987 with the initial aim of having one of its four houses occupied with around 100 inmates by mid-February 1988. The build-up will continue, but because of the need to relocate staff and to give careful consideration to which prisoners should be transferred, full occupancy has to be phased in over a period.

  Administration of Justice
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, pursuant to his answer of 3 February, he will list in precise terms the concerns about the present arrangements for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland which have been made known to him by the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Stanley
  Joint statements issued after each meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference set out subjects discussed. As is customary with communications between Governments, it has not been our practice to make public further detail of the discussions.

  Prisoners (Strip Searches)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many strip searches were made of female prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Maghaberry in January 1988, giving the number of persons involved and number of times each person was searched and if any prison contraband, smuggled item or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search indicating which items; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while the search was being conducted; and what were the reasons for the search under each of the following headings: making a remand appearance at court, attending trial, inter-prison visit or other reasons.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of Searches

  Number

  Total number of searches carried out

  33

  Total number of inmates searched

  25

  Number of prisoners searched once

  17

  Number of prisoners searched twice

  8

  Number of prisoners searched three times or more

  —

  Reasons for Search

  First admission on remand/awaiting trial

  11

  First admission on sentence/final discharge

  16

  Attending Newry Remand Court

  1

  Going on or returning from home leave

  2

  Inter-prison visits

  1

  After a visit

  2

  No prohibited article was found during these searches and no prisoner refused to be searched.

  Electricity Supplies
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate the number of households by district which have no electricity supply.

  Mr. Viggers
  The best currently available information is contained in table 18 of the 1984 Northern Ireland "House Condition Survey", a copy of which is available in the Library, which shows by region and district the number of dwellings without an electricity supply.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate how many households without electricity supply have made application for supply to Northern Ireland Electricity.

  Mr. Viggers
  None. In 1987 Northern Ireland Electricity received 18,111 applications regarding electricity supply, but its records do not show how many of these concerned existing households without supply.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate the charges to the consumer for providing an electricity supply in(a) rural and (b) urban areas in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  Northern Ireland Electricity does not differentiate between urban and rural areas in determining its domestic connection charges. The basic position is that anyone seeking an electricity supply is required to pay 60 per cent. of the actual cost of connection. The cost can be reduced if spread over a number of households which are being connected simultaneously. In the case of new housing developments consisting of a group of 12 or more houses convenient to an existing mains supply, a fixed charge of £150 per house applies.
  593
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate what proportion of houses without electricity supply in Northern Ireland, by district, are farm households.

  Mr. Viggers
  None.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate the levels of social security dependency in households which have no electricity supply.

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

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate the numbers of existing households in rural areas which have been supplied with electricity for the first time in the last five years.

  Mr. Viggers
  None. During the five-year period ending 31 December 1987 there was a net increase of 43,488 in the total number of households connected to the electricity supply system in Northern Ireland. However, Northern Ireland Electricity's records do not differentiate between urban and rural areas or existing and new houses.

  Building Contractors (Attacks)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many attacks have been carried out upon building contractors or those employed by them in the last three years; how many deaths and injuries have resulted; and what information he has as to the groups responsible for each attack.

  Mr. Stanley
  Information about injuries is not readily available. The list shows the number of building contractors and their staff whom we are aware have been killed by terrorists in the last three years, together with the background of the groups believed to have been responsible.

  Murdered by Republican terrorists

  Murdered by Loyalist terrorists

  1985

  —

  1

  1986

  5

  1

  1987

  1

  1

  1988 (to date)

  —

  1

  Irish Republican Army
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the sums obtained by the Irish Republican Army from extortion in the building industry in Northern Ireland in the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  Reliable estimates of sums obtained by extortion in the building industry by both Republican and Loyalist paramilitary organisations are not available. The problem of extortion in the building industry and elsewhere is, however, recognised to be serious and major efforts are being made to combat it.

  Paramilitary Organisations (Fraud Convictions)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many convictions have been 594
  obtained in the last three years for which figures are available against members of paramilitary organisations who have defrauded the Inland Revenue; if he will give the figures divided between Republican and Protestant paramilitary groups; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  Since 1984, 114 convictions have been obtained against paramilitaries who had defrauded the Inland Revenue. All convictions were against those believed to belong to Republican groups. Convictions have been obtained against paramilitaries believed to belong to Loyalist groups for other types of racketeering offences.

  Extortion
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the operation of the Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act 1987 as it applies to preventing the use of extortion rackets to fund paramilitary activities.

  Mr. Stanley
  Under part III of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987 it became an offence, from 1 January 1988, to provide or to offer to provide security guard services for reward without a certificate issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend may refuse to issue such a certificate, or may revoke one which is already in force, if he is satisfied that a proscribed organisation or an organisation closely associated with a proscribed organisation would he likely to benefit from the issue of the certificate.

  To date 50 certificates have been issued. Although no applicant has been refused a certificate, a number of firms have not applied for one. Our understanding is that these companies have ceased trading as a result of the legislation. We believe therefore that the provisions are having their desired effect of inhibiting the exploitation of security requirements by paramilitary organisations.

  Fair Employment Agency
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for the past five years for which figures are available the bodies investigated by the Fair Employment Agency and the subsequent outcome.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: In the five year period to 31 January 1988 the Fair Employment Agency published reports of 16 investigations. Copies of the relevant findings are available in the Library. The agency has recently completed a further two investigations, reports of which have still to be published, and a further 36 investigations are currently under way. Sectors or organisations investigated by the agency are as follows:

  Sector-body investigated and outcome

  1. *Employment patterns in the Belfast areas with particular reference to engineering — Report published September 1983.

  2. *Employment patterns in the Londonderry area —Report published September 1983.

  3. Belfast Telegraph Newspapers Ltd.—Report published September 1983.

  4. The British Broadcasting Corporation in Northern Ireland—Report published November 1983.

  5. The non-industrial Northern Ireland Civil Service —Report published December 1983.

  6. The Fire Authority for Northern Ireland — Report published June 1984.

  7. The Unipork Organisation — Report published February 1985.

  595

  8. Northern Ireland Housing Executive — Report published October 1985.

  9. The ambulance services of the Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland. — Report published November 1985.

  10. The Ulster museum. —Report published March 1986.

  11. Nine building societies (Halifax, Woolwich, Abbey National, Gateway, Nationwide, Leicester, Leeds Permanent, Anglia and Progressive).—Report published March 1986.

  12. The Southern Health and Social Services board. —Report published March 1986.

  13. The principal banks in Northern Ireland (TSB, Northern Bank, Allied Irish Bank, Ulster Bank and Bank of Ireland).—Report published March 1986.

  14. Eight insurance companies (Britannic, Pearl, Prudential, Refuge, United Friendly, Commercial Union, General Accident and Royal). — Report published November 1986.

  15. Derby city council. —Report published September 1987.

  16. Hyster (NI) Limited. — Report published November 1987.

  17. Newry and Mourne district council. — Investigation completed. Report not yet published.

  18. Northern Ireland Railways—Investigation completed. Report not yet published.

  19. Moy Meats.—Investigation underway.

  20. Ulster Bus/City Bus.—Investigation underway.

  21. Queen's University of Belfast.—Investigation underway.

  22. University of Belfast.—Investigation underway.

  23. Western Health and Social Services Board —Investigation underway.

  24. North Eastern Education and Library Board —Investigation underway.

  596

  25. Coleraine Borough Council—Investigation underway.

  26. Dungannon District Council—Investigation underway.

  27. Craigavon Borough Council—Investigation underway.

  28. Limavady District Council—Investigation underway.

  29. Ballymena Borough Council—Investigation underway.

  30. Antrim Borough Council—Investigation underway.

  31. Ballymoney Borough Council—Investigation underway.

  32. Carrickfergus Borough Council—Investigation underway.

  33. Banbridge District Council—Investigation underway.

  34. Lisburn Borough Council—Investigation underway.

  35. Magherafelt District Council—Investigation underway.

  36. Ards Borough Council—Investigation underway.

  37. Isaac Agnew—Investigation underway.

  38. Irish Road Motors—Investigation underway.

  39. Philips Motors—Investigation underway.

  40. Prentice—Investigation underway.

  41. Bairds Limited—Investigation underway.

  42. J. E. Coulter Limited—Investigation underway.

  43. Dencourt Motors—Investigation underway.

  44. Desmond Motors—Investigation underway.

  45. Lindsay Cars—Investigation underway.

  46. James Eakin & Sons Limited—Investigation underway.

  47. Dornan Service Station—Investigation underway.

  48. Cars Limited—Investigation underway.

  49. R. Kennedy and Company—Investigation underway.

  50. Neville Johnston—Investigation underway.

  51. Sidney Pentland—Investigation underway.

  52. Charles Hurst—Investigation underway.

  53. Blue Circle Industries Plc.—Investigation underway.

  54. Dunmanbridge Creamery—Investigation underway.

  * Employers investigated not named.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.
Lord Coggan Lord Coggan —Took the Oath.

Arms Contracts: Overcharging Allegations
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to prosecute those British companies which have overcharged the Government on arms and equipment contracts.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, decisions regarding prosecution are for the Crown Prosecution Service and not for Her Majesty's Government. Careful consideration will be given by the service to any allegations made to it that British companies have fraudulently overcharged the Ministry of Defence on arms and equipment contracts.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether it is the case that 23 British companies have had to return over £30 million to the Ministry of Defence because of the revelation by the National Audit Office that they had overcharged the Ministry for arms and equipment provision?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence has certain rights under non-competitive contracts which enable the Ministry to review the price charged under a contract after its completion and to secure a refund if the information on which the price was based turns out with hindsight to have been inaccurate. It was that process which was followed to enable refunds to be made.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, how long have inquiries into these very serious matters been continuing? Are they being conducted by the police? If so, will the police be reporting to the Director of Public Prosecutions or to the Ministry of Defence?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, in one particular matter inquiries by the Ministry of Defence police are continuing and the investigating officers have recently sought and received advice from the Crown Prosecution Service fraud investigation group.
The answer to the second part of the noble and learned Lord's question is that the report would, of course, go to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is for him to decide, in the event of a report being made, what action should be taken.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is it the suggestion in the noble and learned Lord's last answer that with regard to all the other cases he is not aware of any breach of criminal law?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: No, my Lords, I did not imply that. It is fair to say that in one other case a report was submitted by the Ministry of Defence police to the Crown Prosecution Service. It was the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service that there was insufficient evidence to institute criminal proceedings. However, that is the only investigation of which I have any knowledge which has, at the end of the day, come to the notice of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether it is the case that over the past 10 years 36 cases of actual fraud have been reported to the Ministry of Defence police of which only two have resulted in prosecutions? How does it come about that companies can defraud a Ministry without being liable to prosecution as they would be in a normal commercial case?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I do not have before me the information the noble Lord seeks and it does not fall directly within the ambit of this Question. I shall be happy to respond to the noble Lord but all I can say, as I said earlier, is that where allegations are made to the Crown Prosecution Service it will be for the service to determine whether there are grounds for taking the matter further by way of prosecution.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is it not the case that for fraud to be established the intention to defraud must be proved? For the noble Lord opposite to suggest that fraud has been proved is utterly and completely wrong.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. That is what I was endeavouring to state but I did not do so as forcefully as did my noble friend.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it the case that the matter is in the hands, so to speak, of the Director of Public Prosecutions, or is it the case that police inquiries are still continuing?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, the matter to which I referred in response to the noble and learned Lord is one in which the Ministry of Defence police and the Crown Prosecution Service together are continuing investigations.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, far from my making an accusation of fraud, is it not the case that the National Audit Office had taken the matter to the Ministry of Defence and that the Ministry of Defence considered that these were fraud cases? It was not on my say-so but on the evidence given by the National Audit Office.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, so far as I am aware these were matters which the Ministry of

493
Defence itself referred to its police force for investigations. If I am not correct on that matter, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord.

NHS: Funding Proposal
2.42 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider a sweepstake to help finance the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, while the review of the National Health Service is in progress, the Government welcome constructive suggestions on its future funding. We will consider carefully every such suggestion put forward, including this one.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that somewhat non-committal reply. Does he realise that all over the country, probably outside the ranks of the Government, there are people who are convinced that the National Health Service is in a state of crisis and who wish to do what they can in small and large groups in the way of raising money? Will he not pay attention to these people who wish to help and who realise that their money can be used, even in small ways, for specific purposes within the NHS?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, most certainly. However, although I accept that every little helps and that this proposal enjoys popular support at the present time, it would be unreasonable to expect a national lottery to make more than a marginal difference to NHS funding. The Health Services Act 1980 gave health authorities powers to raise money locally but did not extend to local lotteries. As I said, that matter will be given our active consideration.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, although I agree with the noble Earl that the National Health Service is in a state of crisis, does the Minister really feel that this proposal is constructive? Would it not be a device that would enable the Treasury to save money from the finances that it puts at the disposal of the NHS, inadequate though they may be? Do not the Government accept the conclusion of doctors, nurses and indeed the public at large, that health care is a national responsibility paid for by the people in the fairest way; namely, by taxation and not by lotteries, sweepstakes, coffee mornings, T-shirts and so on?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I made it quite clear that in the Government's view every little helps. In 1986–87 fund-raising activities by health authorities generated around £3 million, but that was only a small proportion of all their charitable income, which totalled nearly £117 million. Charitable fund-raising
494
has been going on for a very long time; governments of all persuasions have welcomed it and will continue to do so.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when I had the chance to debate this subject on radio with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I received a vast number of letters showing that, although people hate paying their taxes, they want to give to the National Health Service provided they can have a gamble on it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, but the Treasury currently receives £800 million from taxation on gambling, and it is important for that sum not to be endangered by the new sort of gambling proposed. Having said that, I also believe that the £117 million which is already raised from charitable income for the hospital service should equally not he put in danger.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, while the National Health Service would welcome additional funds from any source, I ask the Minister to ponder very carefully the advisability of appearing to give government or NHS approval to gambling, which some of us believe is as potentially damaging to the citizen and indeed to society as other forms of addiction. Will he also bear in mind the possibility of the thin end of a rather large wedge? This could lead to the installation of fruit machines in hospitals and doctors' waiting rooms.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there are some Members of your Lordships' House, and indeed many people outside, who would not object to that. Clearly such matters would have to be considered extremely carefully. However, I am aware that the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Gambling, which were debated in this House in October 1978, concluded that it would be inappropriate to use a national lottery to help fund services such as the NHS which have a statutory source of funding, and many of your Lordships agreed at the time with that view.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, if my noble friend cannot answer me now, will he be good enough to write to me to tell me how much money is invested in the Pools every week, because that same amount of money might just as well go to a national health lottery?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall have to write to my noble friend. I have not the slightest idea how much money is invested in the Pools every week, but taxation of the Pools is around 40 per cent. and already raises vast amounts of money for general disbursement by the Government.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, in his reply to the noble Earl's Question the Minister said that this review was going on. Will he be good enough to tell us when it is likely to be completed and whether it will be published?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, I am afraid not. The review, as I have said on many occasions, will be wide-ranging and fundamental. We are concerned with the development of health services to meet the country's needs for many years to come and we shall bring forward proposals in due course.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought he said that the health authorities raised about £3 million in extra money for the services. I may have the figure wrong. I should be very grateful if he would pay special tribute to the 1,360 Leagues of Friends in Britain. He was kind enough to address our conference. Would he be kind enough to pay tribute to the £15 to £16 million they raise for the health services every year?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, most certainly. I recall only too well addressing the conference chaired by the noble Baroness in the autumn. However, the money that she refers to would be comprised in the £117 million which comes to the health service from charitable income from all sources at the moment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, with regard to the question from the Liberal Benches about gambling being the thin end of the wedge, can my noble friend tell us how much of the income from the biggest gamble of all, Premium Bonds, goes to the National Health Service and other matters?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, not for the first time my noble friend puts me in some difficulty. I have never heard of a lottery where one can have one's stake money refunded.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, various forms of fundraising for various aspects of the health service have been welcomed, by all governments, as the Minister rightly said. However, will he state quite clearly for the professional people in the National Health Service that at all times the Government accept full responsibility for maintaining the efficiency and general strategy of Britain's National Health Service?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, of course we do, and that is why that is enshrined in various Acts of Parliament.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, referring to the supplementary question of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, is the Minister aware that any move to bring in a national lottery would negative tremendously the amount of voluntary work being put in today which enables a good deal of equipment to be bought for the health service that should be provided by the taxpayer?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, one of my cautionary remarks this afternoon on the idea of a lottery has been that whatever we do should not endanger the £117 million which is currently provided from charitable sources.

Telephone Kiosks: Preservation
2.50 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking, in conjunction with British Telecom, to ensure that the traditional red telephone boxes are preserved and maintained.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently announced that he will be listing, in England, a further 500 traditional red kiosks as buildings of special architectural or historical interest.
Lord Gridley: My Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Can he confirm that in respect of the K6 red telephone boxes the 1,000 to be listed were designed in 1936 by Giles Gilbert Scott and that it is this design which we now wish to preserve for our heritage?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords. I can confirm that we are in principle talking about the K6. Out of the 1,000 that are to be listed, 554 have already been listed. In addition, more than 200 examples of the earlier K2 model have also been listed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that consultations between himself and British Telecom could be better used to ensure that traditional services are preserved and maintained? I know that we can take most things from the Ministry as read! However, when we are considering service to the consumer, surely it would be more profitable to ensure not only that red boxes are available but that the telephones in them are maintained and serviced, and that the consumers interest in respect of access to the telephone and the charges being made by British Telecom is pursued with vigour.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is ingenious in turning a Question about listing into a question about servicing.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that Dr. Who's Tardis will be included in the preservation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, can find Dr. Who's Tardis I am sure that my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who is the Government's adviser as chairman of English Heritage, will come to the rescue and recommend the listing of it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as well as the traditional red telephone boxes, will the Government in concert with British Telecom also preserve and maintain new telephone boxes by ensuring that they are kept in order, that the full coin boxes are emptied and that they are protected from vandalism?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, that is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords will my noble friend agree that red telephone boxes are very much more visible? The new ones are very difficult to see when one is travelling in the dark or in a fog. The red telephone boxes are always visible and it would be helpful if we could have more of them.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend will be pleased that we are keeping so many of the red telephone boxes.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State for the Environment on the efficiency with which the English Heritage's listing recommendations have been handled by his department? May I also assure——
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, may I also ask the noble Earl——
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu:—whether he is aware that we have had a full-time inspector employed on the listing of kiosks since last June and that we have been greatly encouraged by the thousands of letters we have received from the general public expressing their preference for the Gilbert Scott award-winning design of 50 years ago to the modern ones that have been put up, especially in conservation areas?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, and I am sure that the whole House is grateful to him for the work that he does with English Heritage in recommending the listing of these boxes.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the pleasure of holding on to a large number of these red telephone boxes will spread further than this country? When I asked a Question in the House some time ago your Lordships' discussion was recorded far afield, including in the press of South Australia, where I am sure this decision will give great pleasure.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am delighted that the red telephone box is becoming increasingly famous.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case, though, that the red telephone box is not universally approved, particularly by those people who are disabled, who find the doors extremely heavy to open, and those of us who find that they have been used as public conveniences? Is the Minister aware that, although they are not perfect, the new telephone boxes are better from this point of view?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valid point. One of the reasons for the change in the design is that some of the earlier telephone boxes which we are listing were not the most salubrious of places to go into.

Education in Inner London
2.56 p.m.
Baroness David: 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 why they are not proceeding with their plans for ILEA in a separate Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the amendments which the Government are tabling today to the Education Reform Bill will secure the transfer of education responsibilities in 1990. The introduction of a separate Bill would inevitably prolong the uncertainty about the future of education in inner London. What is needed is an early decision so that the urgent task of improving London's education service may begin as swiftly as possible.
Baroness David: My Lords, I must say again that I am shocked that a decision has been taken not to have a separate Bill, because a great deal of consultation has to go on.
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness David: My Lords, what arrangements have been made for consultation with the parents, governors and teachers in the inner London schools? If, as I gather, the clauses are to be put down today, does that not leave a short time for those to be discussed before the matter is debated in Committee in a week or two?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that may well be a matter for another place. The Government's timetable Motion in another place is the most generous for 20 years. The Government have made it plain that they will allow additional time to debate these issues. Tomorrow there is to be a full day's extra debate in another place and a supplementary timetable for the Committee and Report stages is being agreed. There will be a full discussion. As we discussed last week on the Statement, the whole question of the Government's manifesto commitment and the consultation process that followed have been taken into account in introducing these changes to the Bill.
Baroness David: My Lords, if I may briefly come back, the Minister has not answered my question about the consultations with parents, governors and teachers.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we believe that we have already had a very full consultation process on the principle behind the changes. We had it in the lead up to the general election last year.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Hooper: We had it in the consultation process which followed the general election and we are continuing to have it. As the Government have always said, they are listening to the comments that are being made, and in taking those comments into account they are making these changes.
Lord Alport: My Lords, what factors have arisen since the Government legislated in the last Parliament for a directly elected education authority for London to make them now decide to abolish it? Do the Government realise that the certain consequences of abolition will be to increase the cost of education in London to central and local funds and to gravely damage the education opportunities for the majority of children in London?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, during the debate on the Statement last week, we discussed fully why the arrangements for the break-up of the Inner London Education Authority were being changed. The Question tabled today is directed at how those changes will be taken into account.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that does not mean that there was a debate on the Statement. We do not have debates on Statements. There has been no opportunity so far to debate the matter.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I trust that the noble Baroness will forgive me. Perhaps I should have said discussion.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many school governors in central London who will be absolutely delighted at the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that professional opinion is united in the view that dismemberment of the Inner London Education Authority will lead to a decline in the quality of educational standards in inner London? Is she further aware that in the House some two weeks ago she misquoted me in a misleading way by suggesting that my views were out of line with those of other professions, when they are not? Can she say why the Government are ignoring the views of experts on the matter?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall start by apologising to the noble Baroness for referring to her in her absence last week. I had no intention of mentioning her name. However, it was expressly at the request of noble Lords opposite that I referred to her by name. Nevertheless, I believe that I quoted faithfully from her statement.
As regards the results of discussions with educationists, I believe that it has been made clear in terms of the standards of education in inner London that in recent years the whole system has been in turmoil. The step that we intend to take will provide a once and for all answer to the question of
500
responsibility for London's education service. The interests of the children and the ratepayers of inner London are paramount.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, was not the Question about why there was no separate Bill? Are not we therefore in danger of debating the merits of the decision?
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I return to the Question. Many of us feel that the Education Reform Bill, as it is at present, is a complex Bill, spreading over a wide region of the educational field. Surely, therefore, to add this issue to the Bill will only further complicate it. Will the Minister speak to her right honourable friend and tell him that many of us feel that it would be far better to deal with the matter in two separate Bills rather than in one gigantic one?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the issue of ILEA was in any event to be debated during the course of the Bill. We are not deviating from the principle; we are merely deviating somewhat in the detail. I appeal to noble Lords opposite to ask their friends in the inner London boroughs not to indulge in expensive and acrimonious campaigns, but to accept the realities of life and to co-operate in an orderly transfer of functions in the children's best interests.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, does the Minister realise that she first said that the future of ILEA was a detail—a view with which most Londoners would not agree—and secondly, that it is wrong for people who disagree with the Government to say so? Does she stand by that?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I said that the principle of the changes to ILEA and the devolution of ILEA to the boroughs was already well-established. It is merely a question of the method by which we shall do it and the timing.
Lord Alport: My Lords, surely the Minister's assertion that there is general agreement that ILEA should be abolished is not true. I remember in the last Parliament that there was strong opposition in the House to that proposal.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Alport: My Lords, does the Minister remember that in the last Parliament there was strong opposition to the abolition of ILEA, with the result that the Government had to change their policy halfway through the Bill's passage?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am well aware that there is a variety of opinion about our proposed plans. However, we believe that we are responding to the wishes of the majority on the issue.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a school in the borough of Lambeth, which I happen to be visiting tomorrow, the head teacher of which is utterly dismayed at the prospect of her school being handed over to the tender mercies of the local authority, whose leader

501
has described herself as "a militant lesbian", the Labour Party as "racist", and Tory policies as leading to the gas chambers? What shall I say to that head teacher when she asks me my opinion tomorrow?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's difficulties and those of the head teacher. We believe that, taking together all the proposed reforms in the education system, schools in small boroughs will be in a better position than they might have been had those reforms not been put in place.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the Government's policy is to destroy the largest education authority in Great Britain? Ought not such a proposal be subjected to all the procedures of Parliament?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it will be.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1988 will be taken.

Protection of Official Information (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to repeal Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, and to make new provision for the protection of official information and articles, for the publication of certain documents, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Bethe11.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Northampton Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
Port of Tyne Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Local Government Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 17 [Local and other public authority contracts: exclusion of non-commercial considerations]:
Lord Basnett Lord Basnett moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 14, line 17, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of sections 18 and (Questions relevant to code of Practice on Employment of Disabled,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carter. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 56.
The argument in support of the amendment is clear and simple: persons with a disability have more difficulty finding employment than other people; much of that difficulty is due to discrimination. Some local authorities are, through advice, guidance and counselling, currently helping their contractors to employ more disabled people. As the clause stands, it would prevent further such assistance. The amendment is designed to ensure, without involving contract compliance and taking account of all previous government objections, that some form of assistance in a manner that I shall describe, shall continue.
It is worth underlining the unemployment problems of those with a disability. I am moving the amendment at a time when unemployment among disabled people is double the rate for their peers and for some groups higher than that. For instance, nine out of 10 of those with spinal injuries had employment before their disability but afterwards only five out of 10 did so. All these groups suffer unemployment at a higher rate than others, as a recent survey of the Royal National Institute for the Blind has shown. The Manpower Services Commission review of assistance to disabled people found that the average duration of unemployment among disabled people was twice that of able-bodied people. Most important, an increasing number of companies fail to meet their legal obligation under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and ignore the quota scheme. In 1965, 53 per cent. of employers met their obligations; in 1986 the figure fell to 27 per cent.
This disadvantaged group needs all the help we can give it. Some local authorities have given positive help to improve the employment prospects of the disabled with their contractors. The amendment would help that to continue by allowing local authorities to consider contractors' employment policies in the light of the code of good practice in the employment of disabled people. The voluntary code was launched in 1984 with the support of the Prime Minister, the CBI, the TUC, the Institute of Personnel Management, RADAR and the All-Party Disablement Group. The code encourages employers to establish a written policy in relation to the employment of disabled people and the rehabilitation of those who become disabled. It provides commonsense advice and also points employers

503
towards services provided by the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment.
Too many companies have yet to adopt its recommendations and continue to operate recruitment practices that discriminate against people who are one-and-a-half times more likely to be rejected by employers if they reveal on their application form that they have a disability. Previously, the Government have argued against local authorities' rights with their contractors on the grounds that the authorities should not act as extra-statutory enforcement agencies for existing legislation. The Government have also argued that the 3 per cent. quota scheme established by the Act is unenforceable.
The amendment does not mention the quota scheme. It would simply allow local authorities to bring the code of good practice to the attention of contractors and also to establish what is the company's practice. The amendment would not allow contracts not to be awarded. It would however allow local authorities to make inquiries relating to the company's policy on the code of good practice. Contractors who had not adopted the code's suggestions could be referred to the local disablement advisory service.
It is unrealistic to expect the disablement advisory service to contact all employers. Its first priority is to deal with those who request help. At the moment there is no mechanism for identifying those companies which have not adopted the code and which ignore the potential disabled people have to offer. The amendment would provide an additional form of encouragement to employers—not contract compliance, not an extra-statutory enforcement agency, but encouragement.
Acceptance of this amendment would indicate that the Government are still committed to increasing employment opportunities for disabled people. Rejection would indicate that the Government do not see the code as important; it would mean missing the chance to reduce discrimination against disabled people. The Government would be allowing the skills, potential and abilities of disabled people to be ignored. The amendment offends no principles in the Bill; it does not offend the Bill's purpose. It is designed to provide help to those who need help. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the arguments so ably advanced by my noble friend Lord Basnett. The first point to remember is the one he made. The amendment is moved at a time when unemployment among disabled people is double the rate for their able-bodied peers. The code of good practice on the employment of disabled people encourages companies to develop a positive attitude towards the recruitment and retention of disabled people. It helps to overcome discrimination they experience in employment.
I wish to deal with an aspect of the two amendments which concerns the cost-effectiveness and viability of the contracts offered to contractors
504
by local authorities. The Government have stated that local authorities should consider contracts on the basis of their cost-effectiveness and business viability. While the Bill seeks to encourage efficiency in local authorities, Clause 17 restricts information being obtained which is of commercial importance. Disabled people have many skills to offer; they have excellent performance records. In the words of the Prime Minister appearing in New Outlook in November 1984,
"People who employ disabled workers know from experience that it makes good business sense to employ people who are loyal and hard working and have skills and abilities to offer".
The amendment allows local authorities to encourage—not to force—contractors to adopt the code of good practice which can help contractors improve their efficiency. Without this amendment, the local authorities will not be able to obtain the information which is relevant to commercial considerations, as in its current form Clause 17 prohibits questions being asked in relation to workforce matters.
The Government may argue that acceptance of the proposed amendment could lead to local authorities demanding extra resources. The new clause, however, would only allow local authorities to have regard to contractors' compliance with the code of good practice. It does not mean that local authorities will be given a statutory obligation to promote and enforce the code. Those authorities who wish to pursue this line of inquiry should be expected to meet the cost of promoting the code themselves.
The new clause would not provide a green light for authorities to harass employers. But it would allow them to ask some sensible questions which have a bearing on the efficiency of the contractor. The responsibility for the promotion of the code would remain with the disablement advisory service. It has already been stated that contractors who have not adopted the code will be referred to the DAS. If the amendment is rejected the Government will have missed an opportunity to promote the code of good practice. As my noble friend said, the code is supported by all sections of industry and by the Prime Minister. When it was introduced, the Minister of State with responsibility for disabled people's employment stated:
"The Government welcome and endorse the code. We believe that it represents an important and practical tool for ensuring that the abilities of disabled people are fully recognised and their potential at work properly fulfilled". [Official Report, Commons, 14/11/84: col. 263.]
I repeat that there are no enforcement requirements in this amendment.
Many employers will know that disabled people are often better workers than their able-bodied peers. We are not asking for extra statutory powers. We are using the existing recommendation of the Government and supporting their policy in this matter. We have said that if additional resources are required the local authorities will bear the cost. We are asking for them to have the right to exercise an option. As we have said, the Disablement Advisory Service, which is already responsible for the code, is extremely overworked at the moment. I hope that your Lordships will be able to support this amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, when I spoke in Committee on the amendments which had then been tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Basnett and Lord Carter, I suggested that invoking the 1944 Act was inappropriate. Therefore I am glad to make it clear now that that criticism does not apply to the amendments which have just been moved. These amendments do not refer to the quota scheme but to a code of practice advocated by the Manpower Services Commission. In my view this is much more realistic. I realise that the amendments may not appeal to the Government. I do not know what the Government's view is, but they are certainly a great improvement on the past ones. The Government may not think that local authorities should be concerned with these matters in awarding contracts. My noble friend will no doubt give the Government's views shortly.
However, for my part the particular objection to bringing the quota scheme into these arrangements has been removed. The 1944 Act was introduced mainly for war disabled in the post-war years. The quota scheme which it introduced has not been dropped or replaced during the subsequent 43 years, although this was suggested in 1980 by the Manpower Services Commission which was operating the scheme at the time. That was when Sir Richard O'Brien was chairman.
By consent of the majority who are involved in the quota scheme that scheme has not been enforced. The figure of 3 per cent. has been retained as a target rather than a statutory requirement. There are various reasons for that which we went into in Committee. I shall certainly not go into them again now. But the principal reason is that in important areas the related registers of disabled people upon which the scheme subsisted have been less than 3 per cent. of the working population in those areas. If in an area only 1 per cent. of the working population is on the register as disabled, it would be wrong to take punitive action against an employer who could not reach the 3 per cent. quota.
That is the basic arithmetic which has made the Act unenforceable in this respect. But the quota has still been retained because many of the disabled organisations, of which I in some cases have been an office bearer, regarded the quota as a target and still an exceedingly useful part of the 1944 Act. If enforcement had been attempted it would have been bringing the law into disrepute. In Dickensian terms it would have been making the law an ass. That is why some of us felt that it was wrong to try to invoke the quota system in this Bill.
The amendments now under discussion do not try to enforce the unenforceable. I, as I think your Lordships know, have been involved over the years in disabled organisations and I was the chairman for Scotland during the International Year of Disabled People in 1981. Over a long period in this House and in another place I have made my views clear on the general subject which the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, spoke on, so I shall not go further. I agree with what he has said about the need to achieve higher numbers of disabled people in employment so I shall not add to that. But I think that the amendments that were moved in Committee were not realistic for the
506
reasons that I have given. These certainly seem much better, but it remains for the Government to see whether they fit into this Bill or into other legislation.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches would very much like to support this amendment in the form that it now takes. I was in support of the previous amendment but I can well see that the new amendment is likely to be more acceptable to the Government and half a loaf of bread is better than no bread. It would be a great pity if the noble Earl now told us that we cannot even have our half loaf.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will remember, as I do, that the 1944 Act was based on the report of Tomlinson, who was a leading trade unionist at the time. It was not aimed only at military personnel. It was for all disabled persons.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I said the war disabled. That involved quite a large proportion of the civilian population who suffered from bombing. I do not think that the noble Baroness was present in Committee but I mentioned the fact that I was wounded and disabled just about the time when that Act came into force and I have lived with it ever since.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I was present in Committee and I heard what the noble Lord said, but I wish to stress this point, which I think some noble Lords perhaps did not quite take. The Act was intended for the whole civilian population. It was never intended to be solely for people who were victims of war.
I am sure that someone will say that if the disabled are able effectively to do a job then the market will find them jobs. If one can believe that, one can believe anything. There is prejudice against people who have disabilities. Often that prejudice is based on extremely out-of-date ideas about how disabilities affect people's ability to work. Any of us who have worked in industry and have had to deal with disabled people know that that is true. It is often extremely difficult to overcome those prejudices in getting employment for disabled people. When disabled people have been properly trained, as other speakers have said, they often excel ordinary workers because their need to have and to hold a job and their difficulty in finding another one are such that they make very good workers indeed.
The MSC is now giving additional support for the training of disabled people. It would be extremely foolish of the Government to discourage an amendment which will make it easier to find jobs for trained disabled people who will make a very good contribution to the economy of this country.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to add my warm support for these amendments. Although my name is not on Amendment No. 37 it is on Amendment No. 56 and they basically go together. These amendments enable local authorities to ask questions of contractors and they would at least make firms reflect on their policy for the employment of disabled people.
In Committee on 28th January when the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, moved his original amendment the Minister objected (at col. 811 of the Official Report) that it would mean extra resources and that

507
the local authorities would be setting themselves up as extra statutory enforcement agencies. But if this amendment is accepted, as has already been said, no one will be compelled to do anything. But local authorities could make inquiries about a company's policy on the code of good practice and those contractors which had not adopted the code's suggestions could be referred to their local disablement advisory service.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, both in Committee and now, has stressed the very important role that the advisory services play. If as the Bill stands the Government are going to permit local authorities to review companies on the grounds of their compliance with the Race Relations Act 1976, it should not be placing too great a burden on these same companies to ask them to supply information on their compliance with the code of good practice.
It has been said many times already today and in Committee that unemployment among disabled people is double the rate of their able-bodied counterparts. Yet we know that disabled people are good, reliable employees, with lower rates of accident and absenteeism than able-bodied workers, as Dr. Melvyn Kettle discovered in his study Disabled People and their Employment undertaken in 1979 when he was senior research fellow in rehabilitation studies at the University of Aston.
Your Lordships will be aware of the remarkable contribution some very severely disabled people have made to our society. For example, Professor Hawkins is a world expert on black holes. Christie Nolan is the award-winning author of Under the Eye of the Clock. For most of us, such achievements are no more than dreams. But surely disabled people should be encouraged to fulfil their potential, whatever that may be. For most people that entails having a job. If the Bill is unamended, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said, it will be unlawful even to ask a question about the arrangements made by contractors and suppliers for the employment of people with disabilities.
The Minister is a sensible and compassionate man. I hope that he will look kindly at this moderate amendment. If he accepts it or undertakes to come back with something similar of his own, he will demonstrate that the Government are committed to increasing employment opportunities for people with disabilities.
I shall end with a quotation from Dr. Kettle's study which I hope that the Minister will bear in mind when he comes to reply. The quotation occurs on page 35 of the study. He is, in turn, quoting from a paper written by two research workers:
"By way of summing up the importance of work to the individual, the words of Ullman and Davis are apposite. They have said, 'There is little doubt that work, or satisfaction with work, has ego-preservative functions. It is also clear that loss of work is a considerable threat to the ego. To work is to be needed, and to be needed is essential to life' ".
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, may I first say how excellent it is to see the noble Baroness who has just spoken in her place after a prolonged absence. It is good to hear her, as ever, making an informed and well-thought-out contribution. I agree
508
with everything that the noble Baroness has said in regard to the need for our society to help disabled people to get work. I also agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said. I am sure that all your Lordships realise that it is still more difficult than it should be for a number of disabled people to get work, and that work is what they want. That is absolutely right.
The question is whether this Bill and this context are the right place to attempt that. The noble Lords who have moved the amendment have properly—as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Campbell—avoided the legal problem which we shall be coming to in later amendments on the subject of contract compliance. This part of the Bill exists to provide a framework within which local authorities can and must put certain of their services out to tender in order to ensure that an authority gets the most cost-effective and efficient delivery of services for the people of the area.
If we put ourselves in the shoes of the local authorities who are putting services out to tender and considering the tenders which they have received, we shall understand that they must see which tender will produce the most efficient and cost-effective service. They do not have to take the lowest tender and they can take a number of matters into account, all of which should be directly related to the commercial aspects of the operation. However, if other considerations are added to the Bill, local authorities will have to engage in long discussions with each tenderer about what the tenderer does about this, that or the other thing.
For reasons which have been deployed, local authorities will have to take account of race relations legislation. That is in the Bill; whether or not it should stay in the Bill is for your Lordships to consider. Under the terms of the amendment, contractors must be asked what they do about disabled people. If one contractor employs fewer disabled people than an authority considers that it should, and another employs as many as that authority believes it should or complies in some other way with the recommendations included in the amendment, then that authority may well decide to give the contract to the wrong tenderer from the point of view of the people who are paying for the service. That is not what the Bill is about.
To my mind, contract compliance is an outdated idea. It is a side way to arrive at a conclusion. It is the wrong way. The Bill is the wrong place to attempt to do that. It would be a grave mistake and it would not be helpful to disabled people to accept the amendment. It would be counter-productive to the proper operation of tendering by local authorities. That has nothing whatever to do with one's desire to help disabled people into employment. Local authorities should be able to do that in other ways.
Lord Carter: My Lords, do I understand the noble Baroness to imply that the firms employing a higher proportion of disabled people are somehow less efficient than those who employ a lower proportion? Perhaps I may repeat what the Prime Minister said:
"People who employ disabled people know from experience that it makes good business sense to employ people who are loyal and hardworking and have skills and abilities to offer.".
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was not implying that at all. Disabled people often make the best employees. They often make more money for their employers than able-bodied people. I was questioning the place in the Bill of a discussion of the policy of a company on employing disabled people. The Bill concerns tendering and the mechanical process of tendering. I was commenting on the out-of-date nature of contract compliance and the fact that the amendment would frustrate the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment, although I refrained from putting my name to a similar amendment at Committee stage. I refrained largely for the reasons which have been deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I feel that the 1944 Act, however splendid it was in its day, is now defunct and ought to be repealed. I do not think that it is sensible to regard a 3 per cent. quota as a target. By and large, it is an unattainable target. That is true at least partly for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has already stated; it literally cannot be fulfilled. The reason is that the number of registered—I place emphasis on that word—disabled people is not sufficient.
People do not register for complex reasons. However, I fully respect the decision of those who do not wish to register. For instance, they may believe that if they reveal on an application form that they have a disability, they will thereby reduce their chances of being employed. For that reason, I believe that the 3 per cent. quota is out of date. I disagree with my colleagues who are concerned with disability in one way or another on that point. I believe that they should stop campaigning for the retention of the quota and start anew.
A new break was made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, when he was in charge of the Manpower Services Commission. The excellent code of practice was introduced under his aegis. I strongly support it. I strongly support the amendment, which is designed solely to make a partnership between the national government, who promote the code of conduct, and the local authorities. It seems to me to be an ideal partnership of national and local government, and at a time when Whitehall and local authorities are all too divided I think that that would be a very seemly gesture. It is the proper place for local authorities to intervene to activate and support government policy. Therefore, to that extent, I must disagree with the remarks that have just been made by the noble Baroness.
After all, Clause 17 is not about employment conditions, but local and other public authority contracts. It is perfectly possible with this clause—as with any clause—to make savings, not by doing what this clause is doing, but by making a saving in respect of questions relevant to the code of practice on employment of disabled people.
For that reason, I am very happy to support this amendment. I am very glad that, apart from the speech of the noble Baroness, it has had support from all round the House. I believe that discrimination should be avoided if at all possible, especially against those who are disabled. For some time I have been
510
campaigning to have a Select Committee of this House consider how such discrimination could be diminished if not eliminated. I believe that co-operation between the local authorities and the national authority—the Manpower Services Commission in this instance—could do nothing but good. I hope very much we can have a positive answer from the Minister today.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, perhaps I may make just a brief observation. I think that we all agree with the underlying philosophy of the proposed amendment and what it seeks to achieve; namely to make it more likely that employers or contractors employ a greater percentage of disabled people. That has to apply whether it is in connection with local government contracts or anything else. It just happens that we are discussing the matter in the context of this Bill.
I have some reservations. There is much in what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said when she asked: what is the Bill seeking to do and what will happen in practice? Let us imagine that the local authority receives a number of tenders on the given date. With this amendment the Bill will require the authority to take cognisance of the employment of disabled people; but to do so, it has to start by making inquiries as to the extent to which that is already done. In practice this is bound to lead to the very thing that the Bill seeks if possible to avoid—to have local authorities concerned to obtain the best contracts they can for the citizens whom they represent and all that flows from that.
This matter of ensuring that disabled people are employed is an emotive one. People are in favour of it. I am absolutely in favour of employers taking the highest possible percentage of disabled people. Indeed, if one looks at the matter in the context of this Bill, I think that it can only lead to authorities becoming involved in discussions and adjudications. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said. I am sure that he meant it. At the end of the day the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that contracting employers are conforming. That is what he is anxious to bring out, and I sympathise with that aim. However, I have reservations as to what will happen in practice when authorities start to make inquiries, as they will be obliged to do. It has to be said that there will be some who will not adopt the attitude that has been expressed today, and with which I concur. That is my concern.
Lord Carter: My Lords, would the noble Lord be prepared to support the amendment if he were satisfied that it did not require the local authorities to ask those questions but merely gave them the power to do so if they wished to exercise it? It would be up to the local authorities to ask whether contractors had due regard to this matter. They would not be required to do so. Would he be prepared to support the amendment on that basis?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if that is clearly the intention I should feel differently about that aspect of it. I should like to hear what the Minister says and whether he too feels there is the possibility of the problems that I have mentioned.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, my comments will be quite brief. One has to consider, in privatising the services of the local authority by putting them out to contract—call it what you will—that taking them away from local government control can prove detrimental to the employees who are already working for local authorities in departments where an outside contractor might take over their work.
The disabled may receive preferential treatment—if one can call it that—in that they are looked at much more kindly by local authorities, government departments and hospital services. I am involved with the blind and one instance that springs to my mind is British Telecom. All the people it could possibly help were given opportunities to train on new equipment. It has been that kind of body—public or semi-public—which accepts its responsibilities, as my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington reminds me.
Can the Minister give an assurance that contractors will take on such responsibilities? That is all that we want him to say. It can then be put into the Bill. We should know that the contractors coming forward will be just as responsible as the local authority was when it was doing the job.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I support this amendment. Visually handicapped people seeking work have to compete on unequal terms in the labour market. In the last decade there has been a dramatic fall in the number of visually handicapped people obtaining jobs in the blue-collar sector, and sheltered employment has not taken up the slack. It was concern about that which led the RNIB—the Royal National Institute for the Blind—to commission a survey which showed that visually handicapped people who are unemployed are out of work for a long time despite the fact that most visually handicapped people seeking work have a very creditable employment background. They are not people who have nothing to offer.
As the Bill stands, local authorities cannot take account of a company's attitude to the employment of disabled people. The RNIB is concerned that the positive steps which local authorities have been able to make in encouraging companies to promote equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities should be allowed to continue. Companies should be encouraged to follow the guidelines of the Manpower Services Commission in the code of practice on the employment of disabled people.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the new clause proposed under this amendment is different in form from that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, at Committee stage, but I have to say that our objections to the principle behind both amendments remain the same.
At Committee stage, the proposed new clause attempted to involve local authorities in ensuring that contractors fulfilled their obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, a role which rightfully belongs to the employment service of the Department of Employment. The new clause now
512
before us is rather different in that it attempts to involve local authorities in ensuring that contractors have regard to an advisory code of good practice.
If all that a local authority wants to do is bring the code of good practice on the employment of disabled people to the attention of firms with which it is considering doing business, there is nothing to stop the authority sending a copy of the code to a contractor with its invitation to apply for inclusion in an approved list or with its invitation to tender for a contract. However, that is not all that this new clause seeks to do. It seeks to allow local authorities to ask questions, and take account of the answers, about the non-commercial matters in Clause 17(5)(a) if they think it reasonably necessary to ensure that contractors have regard to the non-statutory code.
I do not wish to repeat the arugments I deployed at Committee stage against local authorities taking on the role, not awarded to them under present statute, of ensuring observance of the law—in this case the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. However, our objections to local authorities assuming the role of ensuring that a non-statutory code of good practice is observed are equally strong, if not more so.
Surely we all agree with the underlying philosophy behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord. Lord Basnett. I am sure that we all support the value of the code and, as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, said, wish to encourage companies to employ handicapped and disabled people. However, it would be wrong for me not to point out the possible consequences of accepting this amendment. On the one hand, there is the consequence, so well stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth)—whom we are delighted to see back in the Chamber—that the authority could refer the tenderers to the relevant agencies. However, my noble friend Lord Bellwin was absolutely right to say that there was another consequence of this amendment: that an authority could decide to refuse to do business with a particular company on the grounds that the company did not, in the authority's view, have proper regard to this particular voluntary code of good practice.
With reference to the second limb of the new clause, which would allow local authorities to refer prospective contractors to relevant agencies, perhaps I may just say that such a provision would be entirely superfluous. There is nothing in the Bill to stop authorities referring contractors to the Employment Service of the Department of Employment or the Manpower Services Commission—the relevant agencies with statutory responsibility for disabled people's employment—if they consider contractors need advice or guidance on such employment.
What is clear from our discussions today is that many noble Lords are not satisfied with the way that the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 operates in practice. But, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour said, this is not the Bill in which to make any amendments that noble Lords would like. Whether to allow local authorities to impose on contractors their views on how an advisory code of practice should be observed is the substance of this amendment, and we believe that they should not have that power.
Lord Carter: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that he did not believe that local authorities should be required to enforce a code of practice? If that is the case, do the Government intend to remove the responsibility on the local authorities to enforce the code for straw burning?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no. I believe that the noble Lord misunderstood me. I hope that I have made myself clear. Of course there is responsibility on a local authority for its own employees. I am saying that it should not have that enforcement duty on contractors and tenderers.
Lord Carter: My Lords, they do not employ the people who burn the straw.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise not to question the Minister further—and I wish to adhere to the new procedures which we are looking at for Report stage—but because there are matters which have been inadequately dealt with in the Minister's reply. We have been led astray to some extent by the well-informed, historical analysis of the nature of legislation as it relates to disabled people. It does not matter very much whether the 1944 Act is the right way to set about tackling this problem as opposed to codes of practice brought forward by the Manpower Services Commission. The important fact is that which was stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) —that the unemployment rates among disabled people are twice that among able-bodied people. That is the fundamental fact we have to face.
We therefore have to consider whether there is any opportunity in this legislation for us to make matters better—or at any rate not to make matters worse. My noble friend Lady Fisher put her finger on the matter when she said that there are already a significant number of disabled people working for local authorities in services which, if this Bill is passed, will have to be privatised. It will be generally agreed that local authorities have a reasonably responsible attitude towards the employment of disabled people. But they are more likely to pay regard to the 1944 Act, to the various codes of practice, and to the advice of the disablement advisory service than many of the companies who are likely to be tendering for local authority services. Therefore if we leave this clause as it stands the prospect is not of any improvement in the situation of the disabled with regard to employment but of matters getting worse.
In view of that, concessions from the Government to allow this to be part of the questioning and consideration given by local authorities to those who are tendering to do their services is not an immodest or unreasonable demand. It has been put forward with notable rationality and moderation by the noble Lords who sponsored this amendment. I am sorry that it has received such a dusty answer from the Minister. I suggest to them that they would be well advised to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may raise one point following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, with whose speech I very much agreed. I have no doubt that there are many good private sector employers who do the best
514
they can to provide employment for seriously disabled and other disabled people. However, the noble Lord is right in this sense. I believe that in this area many local authorities have had an outstanding record of positively working to ensure that they employ the maximum number of disabled people. If this Bill is not amended, there is a substantial risk that the position of many disabled people will substantially deteriorate. The Minister has so far in no way met that argument.
It is all very well to say, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, how much one is in favour of helping the disabled. I am sure that that is the objective of all of us. The central question, however, is not whether we wish to do something to help the disabled, but what practical steps we shall take when there is a realistic possibility of doing something, rather than just talking about it. That is why I believe this amendment is right. My noble friends and I will vote for it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords. I hope that the noble Lord has read what I said on disabled people on other occasions with regard to the Bill. If there are extra costs in employing local authorities in a direct labour organisation these can be discounted when it comes to the tendering situation.
Lord Basnett: My Lords, I make a simple, brief point. If your Lordships support this amendment you are doing something for the disabled. If you fail to support this amendment you are doing them an injury—and none of us should have any doubt about that.
I appreciate the statements of support made by noble Lords. All contributions have been supportive except two: those from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite. The noble Baroness accepts the need to do something for the disabled but wants to close an avenue whereby local authorities at the moment give that assistance. That shows little appreciation, in my view, of the continuation of the need for this assistance. In attempting to close one avenue there is no suggestion of what other avenues can be opened. Let me emphasise this. That avenue is open at the moment and we are closing it if we do not accept the amendment.
I say to the noble Earl that there is no contract compliance in the amendment, no extra statutory enforcement rights, no compulsion for local authorities and no interference with the efficiency of the companies concerned. I remind the House of the remark made by the Prime Minister and quoted by my noble friend Lord Carter concerning the efficiency of some of the disabled who work in firms already. One cannot dismiss that. I must test the feeling of the House.
4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 128; Not-Contents, 119.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Amherst, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ardwick, L.

515

Attlee, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Banks, L.

Lawrence, L.

Basnett, L.

Leatherland, L.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blyth, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milford, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Milverton, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Molloy, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Nicol, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Northfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Carter, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Oram, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Parry, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Perry of Walton, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Diamond, L.

[Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Porritt, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Ezra, L.

Rea, L.

Falkland, V.

Reilly, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Foot, L.

Rugby, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Glenamara, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shannon, E.

[Teller.]

Shaughnessy, L.

Greenway, L.

Sheffield, Bp.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Grimond, L.

Somers, L.

Hampton, L.

Soper, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hayter, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hunt, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tordoff, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jacques, L.

Underhill, L.

Jay, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Walston, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kearton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kennet, L.

Willis, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Aldington, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Allerton, L.

Caithness, E.

Ampthill, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Arran, E.

Carnock, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Chelwood, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cowley, E.

Bellwin, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Beloff, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Belstead, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Bethell, L.

De Freyne, L.

Blatch, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dundee, E.

516

Eccles, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Effingham, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elibank, L.

Morris, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Moyne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Munster, E.

Fortescue, E.

Nairne, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nelson, E.

Gainford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gridley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Pym, L.

Haddington, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Renton, L.

Marylebone, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rodney, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Romney, E.

Harvington, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Havers, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hesketh, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Holderness, L.

Sandys, L.

Hood, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strange, B.

Joseph, L.

Sudeley, L.

Killearn, L.

Swansea, L.

Kimball, L.

Swinton, E.

Kimberley, E.

Terrington, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Teviot, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tranmire, L.

Long, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Margadale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Marley, L.

Wolfson, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wynford, L.

Mersey, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle Baroness Platt of Writtle moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 14, line 17, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of sections 18 and (Sex Equality Matters),").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 38. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 48. They are paving amendments. I shall further speak to Amendment No. 57, which is the main amendment of principle, and to paving Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I am supported by my noble friend Lady Lockwood, my predecessor and founding chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I am also grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Faithfull at Committee stage.
That all-party support for an exactly parallel clause on sex to match that of the Government on race must show that this is a sensible, middle-of-the-road addition to the Bill. Indeed, my noble friend the Minister commended the wording of this amendment at Committee stage. It is designed to ensure confirmation of the consideration of sex and race on equal terms by the Government, local government and employers, as has been the case, until now, since the two Acts were brought into force in the mid-1970s.
As I said at Second Reading, it is backed wholeheartedly by the Women's National Commission, whose terms of reference are to ensure by all possible means that the informed opinion of women is given its due weight in the deliberations of government. It is a sound, responsible body housed in the Cabinet Office and includes all the well-established women's organisations: the Women's Institute, the Townswomen's Guild, business and professional women's clubs and all the women's party-political organisations. There are 50 of them in total, representing 3½ million women. It has made its views known both to the interministerial committee set up as a result of the United Nations Decade for Women to consider matters such as this and to the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment.
The consistent answer given to everyone, including your Lordships' House, is that in the Sex Discrimination Act there is no parallel clause to Section 71 of the Race Relations Act giving local governments statutory responsibilities in the elimination of racial discrimination but not sexual discrimination. Race can be a matter for consideation in contract compliance, but not sex.
The Equal Opportunities Commission and the women's organisations concerned consider that to be a technical viewpoint and that the wider public message should also be taken into account. If this amendment is not passed the message to the public at large will be that sexual discrimination is not as important as that of race.
I am not here to argue for or against contract compliance. The Government have made their stance clear both in respect of race discrimination in this Bill and religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. They are in favour of contract compliance carried out reasonably and imposing the minimum burden on industry in terms of questions to employers and their response. The Equal Opportunities Commission supports that approach. It was most concerned that different local authorities among the several hundred in this country, may ask a variety of questions. In that case potential contractors may have to answer different questions, fill in different forms throughout the country, and may find themselves weighed down by paperwork. The commission feels, as do the Government, that it is much better to have one short list of questions, set centrally but applying nationwide. The commission's view is that that should apply equally to sex as to race, and therefore my amendment is similar to the clause drafted by the Government in respect of race.
At the Committee stage the Minister said that the Government would consult the Commission for Racial Equality about those questions. It is hoped that if this amendment is passed the Government will also consult the EOC. Apart from that matter, the commission believes that it is in women's interests that contract compliance on their behalf should be as simple as possible but equal to race. Remembering the previous debate, I must emphasise the fact that there is no requirement to ask these questions. The amendment would provide only for allowing local authorities to ask the questions laid down by the Secretary of State if they wish.
Much emphasis has been placed by Ministers on the EOC putting forward amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act in our consultative document Legislating for Change. It includes that of a parallel clause to Section 71 of the Race Relations Act. It is no secret that it will put that suggestion forward strongly in its final submission to the Home Secretary in March.
The earliest legislation which could result from that would be carried in the next parliamentary Session, and may be further away than that. Even then, the only assurance given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his letter is that:
"The Commission may well decide to press the Home Secretary for a Section 71 type duty on public authorities. If that proves to be the case, and if the Government is persuaded of the need to make such changes the position with regard to the contractual process would of course need to be reflected in the amending legislation".
We are grateful that he said:
"I and my colleagues will take every opportunity during the Bill's passage to emphasise that its provisions in no way weaken the duty of contractors to observe the law on sex discrimination and that any changes to the Sex Discrimination Act formally proposed by the Commission would be given full consideration by the Government.".
That is cold comfort. There is no undertaking of a new local government Bill even if the amendments were put into force in the Sex Discrimination Act. There is not even an assurance of jam tomorrow. There is a little butter of conciliation on our bread, if we are lucky, but nothing more. That is not good enough when we are referring to 42 per cent. of the workforce and 51 per cent. of the population.
The CBI, in its equal opportunities document issued in support of the EOC's code of practice, firmly places sex and race on an equal footing. It states:
"The CBI believes that it is in accordance with the spirit of the legislation and in line with the two codes of practice for employers to have equal opportunities policies.".
We are grateful for the CBI's support for the ECO's code and for the continuing practice of employers to put their equal opportunities policies for sex and race on an equal footing. Despite the assurances of Ministers, however, we feel deeply that that equality of consideration will be undermined if the Local Government Act is passed in its present form. If it is a matter of obtaining a contract, employers are bound to give far more consideration to matters of race and sexual discrimination will become of secondary importance in their policies.
The Institute of Personnel Management has issued a document entitled Principles of Practice fir Contract Compliance based on a research project that it commissioned. It also wishes to see consistency between schemes and believes that the standard of performance with regard to equal opportunities on race and sex should then be set by the legislation and the two statutory codes of practice. As do we, the institute wishes to see sex and race regarded equally in the Local Government Bill. I plead with the Minister that, on behalf of the Government, he accepts this amendment, even at this late stage.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there are two reasons I should like to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Platt. The first relates to

519
social justice and the second to economic efficiency. Women have achieved a great deal in the past 20 years in terms of their position in the labour market. However, they still have a long way to go before they catch up with men. The best statistic which demonstrates that statement is that on average their earnings are only 75 per cent. those of men.
As everyone knows, we have a woman Prime Minister; but in many fields there are far too few women at the top. The reverse is the case. Women tend to be concentrated in lower status jobs with lower pay than men. Is that just or fair? Women want to play a full part in the nation's economic life but they do not want to end up in jobs which provide fewer rewards in terms of either pay or job satisfaction.
Turning for a moment to the efficiency argument, can the nation really afford to waste the talent and the ability of many women because they are not fulfilling their potential? Surely it cannot. Surely we must try to provide the means to prevent that happening in the future. The inclusion of sex in contracts compliance procedures is, of course, only one way of preventing it. It is not the only way because other things are needed, including better training and better child care provision; but it is an important way. To suggest that employers always know what is in their best interests is patently untrue. I am afraid to say that old attitudes die very hard. As a result, some employers are consciously —perhaps more often unconsciously—discriminating against women.
I must agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Platt. The fact that the Government have conceded that contract compliance is a desirable method of improving employment opportunities for the black community and for the religious minority in Northern Ireland will make it all the more incomprehensible to women that the Government are at present unwilling to do so as far as employment opportunities for women are concerned.
In the debate on Second Reading of this Bill I referred to the fact that the Government are taking what I believe to be quite unnecessary powers actually to determine the questions that local authorities may ask contractors regarding race. Those questions have now been published and I am afraid that they confirm the worst fears of those with experience in this field. They will not provide the information that local authorities need adequately to enforce contract compliance. If this amendment on sex is accepted I very much hope that the Government will not jeopardise its effectiveness by producing similar, over-limited and ill-thought out questions rather than letting local authorities get on with it using the existing statutory code.
In my generation women have had to fight extremely hard to achieve parity with men in many fields of employment. Some have been successful, but many others have found the struggle just too hard. There is a prospect of doing something about this through the amendment. I hope that it will be accepted so that women of my daughter's generation have a little more help than those of my generation.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, quizzes are rather fashionable at the moment, so I will begin with one.
520
What have Cleopatra, Boadicea, Joan of Arc, Florence Nightingale, Margaret Thatcher and the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, in common? They are all women who have made their way in the world without the help of the Equal Opportunities Commission or contract compliance.
I feel that there is a great deal to be said in many fields of life for expanding the opportunities for women to be employed. However, for two reasons I differ from the philosophy behind this amendment. The most important of these is that I believe it is quite wrong to link this either to the question of discrimination on racial grounds in this country or to the totally different situation of the two, alas, conflicting religions in Northern Ireland.
It is a fact—a damnable fact, but it is a genuine fact—that race prejudice in this country is widespread in all classes of society and makes itself felt, among other ways, in a denial of equal opportunities to members of minority groups. It was therefore reasonable, in my view, to give a greater area of enforcement to bringing about a remedy to this problem than in the case of women. I submit that in their case there is, in spite of what the noble Baroness said, no evidence of the kind of discrimination which is based solely upon prejudice against people who in every other respect would obviously be equally qualified.
There is, of course, some hesitation in certain areas of employment as regards the employment of a woman compared with a competing male candidate, but that arises not from prejudice but from some natural disabilities under which women labour. I have never seen a pregnant black man. I do not think it would be desirable that women should heave dustbins. I think it is a blot on Soviet society, which I understand Mr. Gorbachev is trying to correct, that women do so much physically hard labour. In other words, when we come to the employment of women, we are dealing with reasons—some may be exaggerated, some perhaps blown up out of Proportion—which are quite different from the reasons which lead us to try to protect the members of ethnic minorities.
The second reason is that, if reliance is placed upon anti-discrimination legislation of this kind—and here I differ profoundly from the 3 million women who apparently support the noble Baroness Lady Plan of Writtle; that monstrous regiment of women, as a Scottish clergyman once described them—we may take our eyes off what is, or should be, the main objective of those who are concerned with greater opportunities for women's employment. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, would agree that over the years I have shown my concern in this respect. The main objective is to ensure that women are given the same opportunities through training at the various levels of industry and other occupations which will make them telling competitors. They will get to the top, as did the famous people to whom I referred, without the inclusion of this particular form of contract compliance. It is misleading and to some extent insulting to women and the ethnic minorities to put them on a par in this way.
Lord Parry: My Lords, some of us are at a disadvantage. We do not speak Neanderthal. Is it possible to have a translation service?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain that that was a particularly pleasant remark.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I am sorry, could the noble Baroness repeat that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure that the remark made by the noble Lord was anything other than insulting to a Member of this House.
Lord Parry: My Lords, may I have the Floor? I was so amazed at the speech made in the context of this debate that I failed to understand it. My remark was not intended to be offensive but to be mildly humorous after the rather insulting nature of the speech to which the House had to listen.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I usually agree with my noble friend Lord Beloff but in this case I must disagree with him. I should like to give one example to illustrate why I do so. I am no Cleopatra and certainly not a Boadicea, and I am nothing like as intelligent as the Prime Minister, but some years ago I applied for a job and was very thrilled because the employers sent for me first. I thought I had the job.
It was a very senior job and the committee said, "You are the best candidate but we do not want a woman. Therefore we are not going to offer you the job but are offering it to the man who applied." The committee did so but he was so inefficient that two years later he was sacked. In that case, had the Sex Discrimination Act been in operation, the employer could not have done that. Therefore, I have to say to my noble friend Lord Beloff that there are times when women do achieve something but because of discrimination they are not given the job.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the account of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, of how women have made progress is most compelling. He named six women who had done very well. He had to go back 2,000 years to get his six! As far as I am aware most of them were born with a silver spoon in their mouth or married a man able to put a silver, or even a golden, spoon into their mouth. Both attributes are a very great help. Many of us have neither been born in such circumstances nor have we been able to acquire them.
The noble Lord says that there is no discrimination against women as there was in the past. Perhaps I may remind him that in 1971, before the Sex Discrimination Act came into force, the percentage of women in the Institute of Chartered Accountants was 1.6; in the Law Society the figure was 4 per cent; there were practically no women engineers at all, with a figure of 0.6 in the case of the civil engineers. There is no doubt that all of us, those who have worked and friends of ours who have worked and applied for jobs, could repeat the kind of story that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has reported from personal experience.
There is no doubt that there has been discrimination—often unconscious, I absolutely
522
agree, but all the more difficult for that. I prefer to meet the discrimination of a man who says, "I do not want you because you are as woman", than the man who says, "We are very in favour of women". As one chairman of a committee said to a female member—the statutory member of course—"Yes, Madam, we like women. Your misunderstand us. We are in favour of women, we like them, we have them at home". That has been the attitude that we have been up against. It is far more damaging than open discrimination, which I agree is less than it used to be. Because discrimination is so deeply entrenched that most people are not even aware that it is going on, we need the support of the law.
It was a mistake that such a clause was not included in the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975. If we had had the wisdom of hindsight, we should have put it in. It is proposed that we now put it in. Can the Government be so limited in their approach as to say, "No, we will not give it to you now, even though we give it on grounds of race. Wait until we find parliamentary time to make an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act and then of course you can have it"?
Let us not waste any more time. We all know what the real situation is. Let us vote for the clause quickly.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should very much dislike to find myself involved in a row between by noble friends Lady Faithfull and Lord Beloff. That would be an exceedingly uncomfortable position to occupy, particularly for one who is as faint-hearted and full of fear as I am.
I approach the amendment, and indeed the Bill, I have to confess, as I approach most Bills, with a lack of enthusiasm for modern legislation. That said, I have to add that that lack of enthusiasm applies particularly to that body of the law which aims to make people behave reasonably when it comes to questions of discrimination on grounds of either sex or race. However, we do have legislation which sets out to forbid such discrimination.
Now the Government are placing before us a Bill that says among other things that when contracts are put out for tender the local authorities must confine themselves to the question of getting the work done well and on reasonable terms and must not go outside matters that do not arise directly out of the contracts. Then, as I understand it, a degree of discrimination will be allowed. We are told that local authorities will be free to discriminate on questions of race. I find it very difficult to keep company with my noble friend when he asks us to agree that it is all right for local authorities to challenge a company as to whether it behaves itself properly on questions of racial discrimination but that it cannot raise the same, similar or parallel question where sex discrimination is concerned.
Therefore, while I have the greatest possible regard for the wisdom and judgment of my noble friend, I shall find it very difficult to support him in the lobbies if he is not swayed by the arguments so eloquently put by my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the debate is turning into a discussion about whether there is discrimination against women. Indeed, there was a debate earlier today about whether there is discrimination

523
against the disabled. Woven into the debate is the subject of discrimination on grounds of race. I have to say yes to all three charges. There is discrimination. What I am not convinced about, nor shall I be, is that the Bill should be used as a vehicle for putting right all those ills. That is not its purpose.
My noble friend will know that I have enormous disquiet over the amendment to Clause 18 put into the Bill in another place concerning discrimination in favour of people of racial minorities. I do not believe that it will necessarily work in the interests of those people. The more we legislate in this way the more we thwart what noble Lords hope to achieve.
If this exemption is made, we are moving right away from local authorities having a primary function, first, to determine the services that they wish to provide, then to put them to the market and then to see that the jobs are done properly. As a member of a local authority and of that great 3 million people alleged to be in favour of the amendment, I know that this will become an industry. It will put a layer of bureaucracy onto the private sector the like of which your Lordships have not seen.
The rationale for the Bill in the first place was to rid local authorities of the nonsenses that there have been when determining who shall do work. We have all seen the worst examples of this. Here we are bit by bit putting back into the Bill scope for getting up to further nonsenses. I do not believe that any of this will be in the interests of our coloured brethren, of the disabled or of women.
I firmly believe that the people to determine whether a company or individual is in breach of law are the courts, not local authorities. Local authorities should not act as judge and jury over commercial companies. I believe strongly that the disabled should have a Bill enshrining within it protection to outlaw discrimination against people on grounds of disability. Judgment on whether someone is discriminating should not be left with local authorities.
I make this plea to those who are wavering. If their concern is about women, not only in the work place but in the work that they do in order to take their proper and rightful place in the hierarchy of a company, this bid to enshrine the principle in the Bill will not achieve that objective. I ask noble Lords not to accept the amendment. There was an earlier reference to being weighed down by paperwork. I can confirm that people certainly will be weighed down by paperwork.
Imagine the first questionnaire that will go out—and I have the questions that are out for consultation in front of me. Question No. 4:
"is your policy on race relations set out?".
Examples are given of how it should be set out. Companies are then required to write in to say, "Yes, our policy is set out". The local authority can then require justification and proper substantiation of that information by written submissions.
I should prefer to ask a company whether it is abiding by the law, full stop. If it says that it is, whether it is in breach of the law should be a matter for the courts to determine subsequently. The
524
industry that this will spawn will not be in the interests of the people we serve or the three groups that we are talking about. It will certainly not achieve what noble Lords hope to achieve by the amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I support this amendment. In doing so I find the Government's position very difficult to understand. I understand the position of some Members of the House such as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who is completely opposed to the principle of contract compliance. I understand, with some difficulty, the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I believe his speech was an indication of the fact that discrimination against women is not completely understood. It is the deep, ingrained attitudes about women which bring about the discrimination; it is not deliberate discrimination. The noble Lord described pregnancy as a natural disability. Pregnancy is part of normal life for the majority of women, but so is earning a living and having a career. We have to facilitate both within our policy.
Therefore it is clear that some noble Lords do not yet understand the nature of discrimination against women. I believe it was the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who said in Committee that women have made tremendous progress. Quite considerable progress has been made in recent years, but I believe we must recognise that it has been made because of the legislation operating at the present time. It is the Sex Discrimination Act which has helped women to make that progress. However, progress is far too slow and much more needs to be done. That is why this amendment is so important.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I find the attitude of the Government to this amendment completely inconsistent. They have stated time and time again that they support the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Opportunities Commission and are anxious to bring about equality of opportunity for women. But they are not prepared to accept this amendment. In failing to accept it, they use Section 71 of the Race Relations Act as their shield. I said in Committee, and I say again, that Section 71 is insignificant compared with the similarities between the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act. Both Acts give the same responsibility to the commissions to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity.
This is an amendment to enable the two commissions to do their work more effectively. As has already been indicated, employers who follow an equal opportunities policy prefer to deal with race relations and sex discrimination together. One of the difficulties is that if the clause goes through unamended, those authorities which are already pursuing an equal opportunities policy on the basis of contract compliance will be able to do so in future in relation to race discrimination but not in relation to sex discrimination. If the Government's stance on promoting equality of opportunity between the sexes is sincere, it seems to be the natural corollary of their policy that they would enable this clause to be accepted.
It is the responsibility of employers to obey the law, to obey the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act, but both commissions have found that

525
from time to time employers need a nudge in the right direction. The nudge can be given by the question process and further assistance can be given in the form of advice to those organisations which seek it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, indicated, there is no compulsion on local authorities to follow such a policy.
I hope that the Government will think again and decide that they can proceed with the elimination of race and sex discrimination on an equal basis by incorporating this amendment into the Bill.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, following my noble friend who has just spoken, I should like to remind the House that we are talking about equal opportunities. I speak as one who has been involved in the fight for women practically all my life, and we still have the fight before us, I am afraid. I notice that we are all slipping back into the "Mr." "Mrs." syndrome and we must be careful that we do not find ourselves becoming the little woman behind the throne, which I thought went out with Madame Pompadour. This is about sex discrimination—equal opportunities. I went through the legislation originally because I was in government then and I can recall speaking to a group of nurses because there was discrimination against men becoming nurses and midwives. We are talking about equal opportunities for both sexes.
We know only too well that if these matters are not written into Acts of Parliament they are not obeyed. There are the health and safety Acts. Why do we have these Acts? We have them because they are necessary. Just as it is necessary to remind companies, employers and local authorities that there is race discrimination, so we must remind them that there is sex discrimination. If I had my way there would be an Act about age discrimination, because I receive many letters from people who want to know why they cannot apply for a job because they are over 50. There are many forms of discrimination. These measures must be written into Acts of Parliament, otherwise they will not be obeyed.
Lord Somers: My Lords, as a mere man perhaps I may say a few words in this debate. I am quite in favour of the amendment and I certainly feel that any discrimination between men and women should be entirely eliminated.
I should like to say something about the word "discrimination". It should mean any lack of preference in either direction, but unfortunately it has too often been interpreted as a preference for the less favoured party, whoever it may be. For instance, when the Race Relations Act was first introduced, one found that a whole number of foreign people were employed not because they were better at the job but simply because they were foreign. It seems to me that the only factor that should count in an appointment is whether people are good at their jobs and whether they are able to do them more efficiently. One should entirely ignore whether someone is male or female, English or foreign.
There are some things that women can do a great deal better than men. There are a few things that men
526
can do better than women, possibly because of their superior physical strength. Apart from that there should be no preference, one way or another. If we pass the amendment I should hate to see a whole lot of men immediately losing their jobs and women being appointed instead.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, three types of objections to these amendments have been put forward and I want to suggest to the House that they are all in their own ways either misconceived in matters of fact or misconceived in the interpretation of the amendments. I hope that when he replies, the Minister will not feel it necessary to rely on some of the points that have been made.
The first proposition was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He said that there was no need to intervene because there is really no problem about sex discrimination. I readily yield to the noble Lord, Lore Beloff, as a compiler of quizzes. I much admire the quiz that he helped to compile in The Times this morning. However, he was answered effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The fact of the matter is that there has been, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, discrimination against women throughout nearly all the time the noble Lord was talking about, and where there has been progress it has come largely because of the efforts made in legislation and in attempts to move public opinion against discrimination.
The fact that there is still so much further to go is indicated by what was said by my noble friend Lady Blackstone, who pointed out that the average earnings of women are still 75 per cent. of the average earnings of men. I did not know that the figure was as high as that. The Institute of Personnel Management which ought to know best in this matter has strongly supported contract compliance and the continuation and extension of anti-discrimination legislation.
The second argument was that put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who spoke of the bureaucratic nonsenses that would arise if the clause were to be implemented. I cannot think that she has read the clause. The clause says that the questions have to be approved by the Secretary of State and that the evidence which the local authorities are able to take into account has to be approved by the Secretary of State. If that is not an adequate power for the Secretary of State to ensure that there is no bureaucratic nonsense, I cannot think what is.
The third point was that there will be a burden on the companies in answering the questions put by local authorities. The answer to that is exactly the same answer as in the case of the race relations legislation. The burden on companies is only to comply with the law and nothing else. There is no additional burden and there is no requirement other than that of seeing that the existing law is complied with. The analogy with the Race Relations Act and the additional clauses which the Government have accepted on that subject is immensely powerful.
In the circumstances I much prefer the points put forward from the central bank of the Conservative Benches by the noble Baronesses, Lady Platt and Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, to

527
those put forward by a smaller number from the extreme Left-wing. I hope that the Minister will feel the same and that the House will see fit to support these amendments.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the main point has not been mentioned by the noble Lord. The question is whether in operating the tendering procedure local authorities should be asked to assist in enforcing a law in other companies through a tendering procedure, a law other than one which it is already a mandatory requirement for them to enforce. They have the mandatory duty to assist in enforcing race discrimination legislation. They do not have a mandatory duty to do this in relation to sex discrimination. This point was made clear at previous stages of the Bill. This is the nub of the matter.
We know that the noble Lords on both the Liberal and Labour Benches are extremely suspicious of the effect of this Bill on local authorities. They do not want to back up the whole notion of depoliticising the business of issuing tenders. They do not want a clear framework for the tendering procedure. We have seen that from the voting pattern to date. Whether this debate about the importance of continuing with the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission is linked to that desire, or whether it is completely separate, I do not know, but the effect of what we are talking about is that it would be linked.
I believe that the sex discrimination legislation has been absolutely crucial to the development of women. I do not regard even my own progress as unrelated to it because I have got there by being a mandatory woman and all sorts of things. I have been very fortunate in that regard. There is still a lot of work to do. I admire what my noble friend does and what the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, did, as chairmen of the commission. We have been discussing that issue but the real point of the amendment is to amend a Bill about the tendering process. A discussion even on questions which have been agreed by the government of the day, a discussion with firms which are tendering about whether they are keeping the law of the land in this respect, is not only irrelevant but is likely to be very damaging to the purpose of the Bill.
I believe that the debate has been put in this context for reasons additional to enthusiasm for the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I approve of the Equal Opportunities Commission, and I feel that there is a long way to go, but this amendment has no place whatever in the Bill
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, the only reason that there is the difference between the two Bills is that the Sex Discrimination Bill was first and the Race Relations Bill was second. If the Race Relations Bill had been passed before the Sex Discrimination Bill, I have no doubt that there would have been a similar Clause 71 in the Sex Discrimination Bill. I hope that the Government will take that into account.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, these amendments so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle, who unfortunately was not able to
528
take part in the Committee stage debate, are identical to those equally ably moved and withdrawn by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, at that earlier stage. I warned on that occasion that I feared that I would have to repeat my arguments against the amendments, and I am sure your Lordships will understand that inasmuch as the amendments have not changed, neither have my arguments.
Much has been made of the fact that the Bill does not deal with sex and racial discrimination on an equal basis. Indeed the debate we have had this afternoon has ranged much wider than the amendments or their effect. Although I was interested in what my noble friend Lady Faithfull said about trying to obtain a job at an earlier stage of her career, I can say to her and to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that the amendments are not about appointments. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said that we must write things about sex discrimination into Acts of Parliament. Parliament has already done that in the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act. The duty on employers not to discriminate is already clearly set out, along with the means of enforcement. Therefore the amendment has nothing do with that aspect. It is about allowing local authorities to assume a further role.
I must remind your Lordships that the Bill has been drafted deliberately to reflect the present position regarding local authority statutory duties. I say to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil that there is a basic difference in that respect between the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976. Local authorities have no statutory duties, except as employers, under the Sex Discrimination Act; but they have limited powers under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act. It is solely those powers that we have translated into the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said that that seemed to her almost irrelevant. A provision in a Bill cannot be irrelevant—
5 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I said "insignificant".
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I apologise. I shall take the word as "insignificant". However, a provision in a Bill is not insignificant; it is rather vital, which is why we have translated into this Bill that section of the Race Relations Act rather than anything in the Sex Discrimination Act, which does not relate to the issue. When the noble Baroness said that her amendment was an enabling amendment to allow the two commissions—that is, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission—to adopt the same practices, she was not quite right. I think that she will now realise that the amendment has nothing to do with the powers of the Equal Opportunities Commission and that it relates solely to the local authority's powers.
Let me repeat that in the event of the Equal Opportunities Commission deciding, as a result of consultations on its document Legislating for Change, to press my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for changes to the Sex Discrimination Act which, among other things, would impose a Section 71 type duty on public

529
authorities as part of a package of changes which the commission would wish to see made to the Sex Discrimination Act, the Government will give careful consideration to such a proposal. If that proves to be the case (my noble friend said that that is what would happen) and if the Government are persuaded of the need to make such changes, the position with regard to the contractual process would of course need to be reflected in the amending legislation.
I must also repeat and emphasise the point that the provisions of the Bill in no way weaken the duty of contractors to observe the law on sex discrimination or indeed on any other matter. I appreciate that my noble friend will be no more satisfied with my rejection of her arguments today than she has been with their rejection at earlier stages of the Bill's proceedings. But she is asking the House to set up local authorities as extra statutory enforcement agencies when the law already provides the remedies to deal with those who do not comply with the law.
My noble friend Lady Platt said that there was no requirement for local authorities to perform such duties. But some of them have already done so. That is the mischief. Local authorities have set themselves up as extra statutory enforcement agencies on a huge raft of activities, the common factor of which is that they all relate in some way to non-commercial matters, upon which they ask contractors to answer numerous questions so that they can decide whether to approve that contractor or tenderer.
The issue is not about race, which is covered by the Bill, but it is about local labour; training; the fair wages clause; whether there should be self-employed labour only sub-contractors; the South African and other policy conditions; and whether contractors have to be members of trade associations. Those are just some of the examples of the raft of noncommercial matters that local authorities insist should be taken into account before deciding whether to approve a contractor. The amendment is asking local authorities to set themselves up as further extra statutory enforcement agencies with regard to that point.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I have listened to the debate and am most grateful to your Lordships for the interest that you have taken in this matter and for the support that I have received. Many women have succeeded on their own, thank God, over the generations but many have not. As an Equal Opportunities Commission we have a statutory duty to consider applications for assistance and that we have done. We have taken cases to the courts and the courts have decided that people have acted unfairly.
I am sorry to say that often the people concerned are powerful employers with the power to hire and fire, dealing with young women who are in a vulnerable position, perhaps in their first jobs. Women need those jobs. They may not always have the job they would first choose, but they need the money. There are a million one-parent families in this country. In nine cases out of 10 the mother is the breadwinner. Three times as many families would be on supplementary benefit if the wife or mother were not working. I am pleased to say that some employers
530
are good, and have good equal opportunity policies which they carry out with determination; but others do not, and their attention should be drawn to our Act.
We should value the assistance of local authorities carried out in a reasonable manner and in terms of equal opportunities between men and women, not just for women alone. The proposal covers men and women generally. Requirements are laid down by the Government, and I am sure that they will preserve the principle of simplicity.
I am disappointed by my noble friend's reply, which I believe shows a narrow, legalistic view. Our two Acts were carried out in parallel, albeit one after the other, and our two codes of practice also went through both Houses in parallel with all-party support. I believe that in the Bill we should remain the same and that sex equality should be regarded on an equal footing with race. I must test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, does she agree with me that, whereas the race relations legislation is part of the mandatory responsibility of the local authority, the sex discrimination legislation is not, and therefore, it would be difficult to discriminate between the two?
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I did not realise that I was out of order. I thought that I had the right to ask for clarification.
5.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 38) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 113; Not-Contents, 142.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ennals, L.

Amherst, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ardwick, L.

Ezra, L.

Attlee, E.

Faithfull, B

Auckland, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Banks, L.

Foot, L.

Barnett, L.

Gallacher, L.

Blackstone, B.

Galpern, L.

Blease, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Glenamara, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bottomley, L.

Grey, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Grimond, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hampden, V.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hampton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hanworth, V.

Carter, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Chitnis, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Dainton, L.

Hughes, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hunt, L.

David, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Jacques, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jay, L.

Diamond, L.

Jeger, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

John-Mackie, L.

531

Kearton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Rea, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Seear, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lockwood, B. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Longford, E.

Shackleton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Somers, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stedman, B.

McNair, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Milford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Milverton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mishcon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Molloy, L.

Underhill, L.

Mulley, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Walston, L.

Nicol, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Northfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ogmore, L.

Willis, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Oram, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Parry, L.

Winstanley, L.

Phillips, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Young, B.

Platt of Writtle, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Gisborough, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Allerton, L.

Greenway, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gridley, L.

Arran, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Haddington, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Bellwin, L.

Marylebone, L.

Beloff, L.

Halsbury, E.

Belstead, L.

Hanson, L.

Bessborough, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Birdwood, L.

Harrowby, E.

Blatch, B.

Harvington, L.

Blyth, L.

Havers, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hayter, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hertford, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hesketh, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Hives, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Holderness, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hood, V.

Caithness, E.

Hooper, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Carnock, L.

Joseph, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kimball, L.

Cowley, E.

Kimberley, E.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Crathorne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Croft, L.

Long, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Davidson, V.[Teller.]

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

De Freyne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Deedes, L.

Margadale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Derwent, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Merrivale, L.

Dormer, L.

Mersey, V.

Dundee, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Eccles, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elibank, L.

Morris, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Moyne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Munster, E.

Fortescue, E.

Nelson, E.

Gainford, L.

Northesk, E.

Gibson, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

532

Orkney, E.

Swinton, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Terrington, L.

Pender, L.

Teviot, L.

Porritt, L.

Teynham, L.

Pym, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Thurlow, L.

Renton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Renwick, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rodney, L.

Ullswater, V.

Romney, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rugby, L.

Vinson, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Sandford, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Sandys, L.

Windlesham, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Wise, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wolfson, L.

Stockton, E.

Wrenbury, L.

Strange, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Wynford, L.

Swansea, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 15, line 9, at end insert—
("(4A) (a) This subsection applies where a local authority intends to award a public supply or works contract to the person submitting the most economically advantageous tender.
(b) Nothing in this section shall preclude the local authority from including in the criteria for the award of the contract a requirement that a reasonable proportion of the workforce shall be unemployed and residing in the area served by the authority or such other area as the authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State, may prescribe from time to time; provided that any such requirement shall be subject to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 39 was in one sense aired in Committee, but we think it is necessary to raise the matter again. The amendment is concerned with local labour, the ability of a local authority to include in the criteria for the selection of a winning contract the requirement that:
"a reasonable proportion of the workforce shall be unemployed and residing in the area served by the authority or such other area as the authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State, may prescribe from time to time; provided that any such requirement shall be subject to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome."
I am well aware that this has become a legal rather than a political or social question, which I find extremely unfortunate. I want to go on to show that it is nevertheless important that the amendment should be debated and should be received sympathetically by the Government. The principal reason for saying that this is an important matter does not rely on any arguments from left-wing Labour local authorities. It does not even rely on arguments from the local authority associations, some of which are controlled by the Labour party, some of which are under no overall control and one of which is under Conservative control. However, the local authority associations associate themselves with this amendment, including those which are not under Labour control.
No, my Lords, the reason for putting forward this amendment is that the Government have committed themselves on more than one occasion recently to the principle of the use of local labour, particularly in the regeneration of inner cities. I should like to quote from two documents which have come from the Government in the course of the last month. The first

533
was the subject of a statement in this House from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, on the White Paper, DTI— the department for Enterprise, issued in January 1988. Under the heading of "Inner Cities" we see the areas on which attention should be focused in seeking to regenerate inner cities. One of the six areas quoted is:
"the employment of local labour to provide more jobs for people in their own communities by tackling barriers to local recruitment and by encouraging local enterprise".
The matter of barriers to local recruitment is a matter for government and for the companies concerned but I suggest that the encouragement of local enterprise must be also a matter for the local authorities. Indeed in all the discussion of the White Paper that has been taken for granted.
The second document is slightly older. It dates from 16th December 1987 and is the Government's observations on the first report of the Employment Committee in another place in the 1986 to 1987 Session. In the course of that response the Government state, again under the heading
"The Inner Cities (use of local labour)":
"Increasing the use of local labour in publicly financed construction projects in the inner cities is of course an important theme of the Government inner city policies."
Again, the intention of that, as I perfectly recognise, is confined to construction projects because that is the context in which the observation is made. But surely it cannot be argued that it is proper for it to be an object of government policy to increase the use of labour in construction projects and not to try to increase the use of local labour in local authority services, particularly blue collar services which take up the bulk of the employment of local authorities.
So it is the Government themselvs and not us who are saying as a matter of policy that the use of local labour is a desirable objective and a relevant consideration, particularly in the case of inner city policy. So what is the objection? The objection, as we were told by the noble Earl in Committee, is that it is not possible under EC legislation. We are told that the European Commission is challenging; not that it has challenged or that it has succeeded in a challenge but that it is challenging particular local authorities who have put local labour conditions into contract offers which have been placed with the European Gazette.
I suggest that that is lying down and waving one's paws in the air before one is even properly attacked. That is giving up before the pressure is even fully there. Surely the self-respect of this Government and the self-respect of this country, without in any way being anti-European—I am certainly not—must mean that while it is not shown that what we are doing is illegal and while it is so clearly in accord with government policies, we should fight the matter through the courts and through the European institutions. It is not as though the matter had already been decided. There are still drafts before the Council of Ministers regarding the final content of any such legislation.
The fact that the European Commission is jumping the gun is no reason for the Government to give way on a principle which they themselves claim to be
534
important. I suggest that there is nothing significantly at variance with government policy in the extension of local labour clauses to this Bill and that this amendment deserves the support of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to the Government's attitude as lying on their back with their paws in the air because the Government drew the attention of your Lordships to the distinct possibility that action of this kind would be contrary to the Treaty of Rome. I do not claim to be an expert on the Treaty of Rome and I do not have the faintest idea whether or not this particular proposal would be contrary to that treaty, but I should have thought that it was not very good legislative practice to legislate to give to local authorities powers which there was some reason to believe might be illegal under the Treaty of Rome.
It is one thing to give way in advance on the actual conduct of the matter but it is quite another—I should have thought it was very poor practice—actually to legislate in a way which may well be conferring powers which then cannot legally be exercised by the bodies on whom they are conferred. That seems to me to be an unhappy way—I put it no higher than that—to legislate.
There is also the substance of the matter. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, quoted quite properly statements of government policy, particularly in respect of the inner cities, on the giving of employment as a result of government projects. All your Lordships are in favour of that, but of course there is a distinction (and one which this Bill brings out very clearly) between government policy and what the Government seek to do with their full political authority and what local authorities are to be permitted to do in respect of the giving of contracts.
Whatever else may be the case, it is plain that if local authorities are to act as this amendment suggests, that is a real departure from what I understand to be the principle of this part of the Bill—that their concern is with a good commercial proposition on behalf of their ratepayers. It would enable local authorities who so wished to refuse to conclude thoroughly satisfactory, economical, efficient contracts with contractors on the grounds that they were not employing the local unemployed. Indeed, it would enable them, if they wished to make difficulties, to reject almost any responsible offer of a contract and to fall back on saying that they cannot get a contract and that therefore they will have to do it by direct labour. That indeed might be the object of some local authorities because there are many jobs for which it would be quite impossible for the contractor to find workers who were both unemployed and residing in the area.
There are many skills which are not very widely held and which, being in great demand, mean that the holders of those skills are very rarely unemployed at all, particularly in certain areas. Therefore to some extent to put this provision into the Bill would have a frustrating effect on one of the main purposes of this part of the Bill, which is that local authorities should act commercially on behalf of their

535
ratepayers. To put this in, I suggest, is to frustrate this part of the Bill in a quite considerable degree.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I venture to speak in support of this amendment. In doing so I revert to the position which I held on Second Reading. In Committee, my noble friends voted against this amendment for precisely the reason which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has set forth; that is, that they were informed by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that this amendment was incompatible with two EC directives, one on public works and one on public supplies. He set that forth quite categorically, as can be found in col. 754 of the Official Report, which I shall not read out.
As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has pointed out, there are two different issues at stake. The first is whether this provision is incompatible with the Treaty of Rome. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that he did not know and had not the faintest idea on that. I have had a look at the Treaty of Rome in this respect and I have also looked at the letter from the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment which deals with this very matter. The crucial sentence in that letter reads:
"A geographical limitation on the area in which a certain percentage of the workforce must be resident, whatever that percentage, would infringe the EC Works (71/305) or Supplies (77/62) Directives if in practice it created an obstacle to the equality of treatment of contractors tendering from other Members States in the EEC.".
As I understand it, that is the legal issue. The letter and the directive are concerned with the right of contractors in the European Community to tender on equal terms. I think that that is highly desirable. I do not see that the labour force which such contractors would employ is referred to.
Take the example of a Belgian construction firm bidding for a contract to build a "carbuncle" in the London Docklands area. I am wholly in favour of the right of a Belgian firm to tender on equal terms with British firms. But no one truly supposes that a Belgian firm would bring over a Belgian workforce to work in the docklands, any more than a London firm which had won a contract in Liverpool would transfer its workforce from London to Liverpool. It might bring senior management or certain personnel. But those kinds of firms recruit locally wherever they go.
All the amendment demands is that a firm building a carbuncle in the docklands area should employ a reasonable proportion of local labour. If such labour is not available—which is the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—or if the skilled labour which is required is not available, it would not be reasonable for the firm to be expected to recruit there. However, it is not unreasonable for such firms to be asked to recruit a reasonable proportion of local labour in such circumstances. Nor can I see that that would be in any way in conflict with the directive to which our attention has been drawn. I hope that in the light of that information I and my noble friends will be able to vote in support of the amendment.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I believe that we are again up against the difficulty which I mentioned in our debate on the previous amendment. A firm which has won a contract must first decide on a desirable quota and then it must find people to fill that quota who are both resident in the neighbourhood and unemployed. That may not be too difficult in these days of high unemployment. But such a firm must then decide how many of those people are really suitable for the jobs which they are to be asked to do. That was the point which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made a great deal better than I can. Suitability for the work must come first.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I spoke on this clause at Committee stage. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord McIntosh has said that the EC directive should be tested. That was a comment which I had made; we seem to have tested all the other directives but we have not tested that one.
I referred particularly in my previous speech to the Handsworth project in Birmingham. When the Minister replied at the end of the debate, he answered my question concerning whether or not the Government would be breaking an EC convention as regards the Handsworth taskforce. He said, at col. 756 of the Official Report of 28th January:
"It would be wrong for me to comment on that case because I have not been able to study it. However. I can assure the noble Baroness that I shall look into it now that she has raised the point".
I sincerely hope that he does. It makes one wonder what the Government are up to.
On 22nd October 1987 the Minister of Housing and Planning, the right honourable William Waldegrave; came to Birmingham. Perhaps one Minister does not know what another Minister is doing. However, Mr. Waldegrave came to the Handsworth project in Broughton Road. In his opening speech he singled out Birmingham's submission on the Handsworth project as, "a great achievement" and "a major step forward".
The project was visited in connection with the National House Improvement Council award ceremony. On that occasion the director of the NHIC announced that the judges had broken with tradition in requesting that the city certificate of merit should read "highly commended". It had included the Government through its taskforce, the local authority and also the builder—Tarmac—which had taken on 24 trainees. Those were all in what is called the core area where all the money for the inner-city partnership is spent. It was delightful to learn that at the end of the contract Tarmac had not only given jobs to 24 trainees but had been able to give six of them permanent employment.
In discussing the breaking of EC regulations, it is obvious that the Government—I believe that both my noble friends Lord Jay and Lord McIntosh raised the matter at Committee stage—are part and parcel of breaking the EC regulations. I use the inner city taskforce in Handsworth as an example of money that is being used in that way. If such money is used in that way, then the Government must be breaking EC regulations. It is strange to hear a Minister sitting on the Front Bench say, "We cannot do those things".

537
In Birmingham, the International Convention centre is being built. The Prime Minister came to visit that centre. The estimated cost of that scheme, as revealed in the city accounts for 1986–87, is £121.6 million. Grant aid has come from the European Regional Development Fund to a total of approximately £40 million. That is the largest grant paid to a project of that kind in the United Kingdom.
If the European Regional Development Fund, which operates under the auspices of the EC, puts that much money into the project, surely it is aware of the contract compliance which is occurring. In that contract, because it is in the inner city core area, a great deal of' inner-city partnership money is involved. The sum of £40 million from the fund is not to be sneezed at. Surely the local authority would have been told that it could not implement contract compliance. An international firm has been awarded the contract, which contains a provision concerning the percentage of employees from the inner core area who must be taken on if they are suitable for jobs or training.
In talking of local labour one can talk of local labour which would be all over Birmingham. There is nothing to stop anybody from the city applying for a job—anyone from London, or from Germany, Belgium, Spain or anywhere can work there. However, the contract says that the people who are living in the inner core area, which has an unemployment rate of 38 per cent. according to the latest figures, should be enabled to work on jobs that are in their locality. In the main they are people of ethnic minorities. I think it is important that they should have an opportunity of working alongside other long-term unemployed people in the core areas.
Therefore, now that the Minister knows about the projects of which I spoke in Committee, when he comes to reply will he confirm that the local labour clauses that have already been introduced into such contracts are perfectly acceptable to the EC? Not only are they helping the unemployed in the areas in which they live, but they are also promoting good opportunities and good race relations. When the Prime Minister came to the city and saw both schemes she was not at all dismayed. She complimented the city, as did the noble Lord, Lord Young, on this aspect of its work in helping trainees in large cities to take up full employment.
I hope that the Minister will not tell us again about EC law because I feel sure that, if it were contested, there would prove to be nothing against the contract clauses as we know them. The local labour clauses operate in closed areas and have nothing to do with the point of view put forward by the Minister on the last occasion.
Before I sit down, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that last night he said that, unusually, I was incorrect when I asked him about the consultation paper. However, in col. 449 of the Official Report the Minister said that it was right:
"that my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Scotland and for Wales issued a consultation paper".
When I asked the question: "Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong but I thought that the
538
consultation paper referred to Scotland and Wales", the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, replied: "Unusually for the noble Baroness she is incorrect. There is a consultation paper for England and I know that Birmingham had it". But it did not say that in Hansard. It was not reported that way in Hansard. When I asked the question I did so because it related to the opinion which he had expressed.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have again had an interesting debate on an issue which has come generally to be known as local labour, and I recognise the efforts of some noble Lords opposite in attempting to draft their amendment to overcome the objections to this type of provision which were upheld in the other place.
The Government's position on the issue of local labour has been made perfectly clear. It had been our intention to include in this Bill a special provision to allow authorities to use the contractual process to promote the employment prospects of inner city residents. However, it subsequently became clear that European Community rules designed to ensure equal conditions of competition for public works and supply contracts do not permit the introduction of that type of measure into the contractual process. EC Public Works Directives 71/304 and 305 and Public Supplies Directive 77/62 set out the criteria on which the contracting authority shall base the award of such contracts, and those criteria do not include the area of residence of the workforce. Any conditions in contracts which require local labour to be used would therefore constitute an obstacle to equality of treatment of contractors tendering from other parts of the Community.
I was intrigued by the ideas and attitude of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on how we should approach the EC directives. I thought how different they were from some of the attitudes taken by his noble friends on other EC directives. It was a useful point to note. In his amendment the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has attempted to qualify the local labour provision by confining it to:
"a reasonable proportion of the workforce shall be unemployed'',
and requiring the Secretary of State to consent to the type of area in which authorities could have regard to local labour issues. It is further attempted to qualify the provision by making it subject to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, yet, as I have already pointed out, local labour clauses—by their very nature—would constitute an obstacle to equality of treatment.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear during the Bill's Second Reading in the other place, the fact that local labour requirements are unlawful in no way weakens the Government's resolve to ensure that inner city residents share fully in the benefits flowing from new investment and initiatives in the inner cities.
While I am on that topic perhaps I may answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. When I re-read the Official Report and looked into the matter I assumed that she was referring to the Broughton Road project, and indeed she confirmed that this afternoon. As was made clear by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the

539
Duchy of Lancaster when he announced the scheme at the end of 1986, the scheme in Handsworth was a unique and experimental one. The work in Handsworth had been organised by the construction company Tarmac, who were appointed on the understanding that they would sub-contract to local firms and employ and train local people to do the bulk of the work. The aim was for the sub-contractors eventually to be able to bid more competitively for the work on future projects. As I have said, the scheme in Handsworth was experimental and clearly, in view of the legal advice now available to us, cannot be the model on which future schemes should be based.
Perhaps I may answer the other point of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal (which has nothing to do with the amendment) about what I said yesterday. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for England, so there was a consultation paper for England. I should have thought that that was fairly clear. As I said to her then, local authorities have received it.
Clearly, proper training is an essential component of many inner city projects, and we need to ensure that training is well matched to employers' needs and to develop the capacity of small local firms to win contracts. Within the various inner city initiatives being undertaken by the Government, which we all welcome, the aim is to raise skill levels so that local people are better equipped to compete for jobs and employers find that it makes sound sense to hire them. The answer is not to have a blanket requirement that a certain number of jobs must go to local people, but to make sure that those people are better trained and motivated to grasp the opportunities created by our various initiatives.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, quoted from two recent government Statements—namely, the DTI White Paper and the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Employment. As he knows full well, neither of those documents mentions local labour clauses in contracts. That is what the amendment is concerned with and what is illegal under EC rules. The Government's position is clear. They will do all they can to ensure that inner city residents benefit from the jobs that inner city spending creates. That is the message of the two documents. It is just the method of achieving that policy that is not available.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he tell us which rule in the EC regulations makes this unlawful?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have already referred to the two EC directives. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to them when he spoke.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has made no attempt to answer the points I made about the strength of the Government's commitment to inner city regeneration, and their recognition of the necessity for employment for local people—which is local labour, is it not?— in order to achieve that. He made an attempt to answer the
540
points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, but I thought that he signally failed to do so.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, the provision for local labour in contracts is illegal if it is intended to discriminate between contractors from one country or from another country. That is the point. It is not that it is generally not permitted. It is not permitted if it has, or is intended to have, that effect. The Minister does not seem to understand the nature of local authority services. He has been a short time in the job in the Department of the Environment. He learns very quickly. I admire the way that he has caught up with some of the complications of local government administration. However, he has not caught up with this aspect.
Most local authority services have an essential component of local labour because people have to be on the spot if they are to clean schools, cut down trees, sweep streets or whatever else it may be. I have no doubt that the Minister will reply that the amendment is unnecessary because there will he local labour anyway. But that is not the point. The point is that there must be a presumption that local labour will be used wherever the contractor comes from. We wish to ensure that, for those services which would be better carried out by local labour, we do not have cowboys coming in. We do not wish to have roving teams moving around the country, doing nothing for employment in the area, in no way changing the asserted breach of the Treaty of Rome, and generally providing a bad service for the local communities.
As the Minister correctly said, the amendment has been very carefully drafted. It refers to "a reasonable proportion". It gives the Secretary of State the oversight of what that reasonable proportion shall be. The amendment also provides that nothing shall be done which is in conflict with the Treaty of Rome.
Do not the Government have the courage of their own convictions to accept this as a worthwhile and desirable amendment? I suggest that if the Government do not have that courage the House ought to. I suggest that the House should take a view on this matter.
5.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 39) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 147.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Amherst, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Barnett, L.

David, B.

Basnett, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Blackstone, B.

Diamond, L.

Blease, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Donoughue, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ennals, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Ewarl-Biggs, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Foot, L.

Carter, L.

Gallacher, L.

Chandos, V.

Galpern, L.

Chitnis, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Grey, E.

541

Grimond, L.

Northfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Oram, L.

Harvington, L.

Parry, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Phillips, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hughes, L.

[Teller.]

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Rea, L.

Jacques, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jeger, B.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Serota, B.

John-Mackie, L

Stedman, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Tordoff, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lockwood, B.

Underhill, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Walston, L.

McNair, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Whaddon, L.

Meston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mishcon, L.

Willis, L.

Molloy, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Mulley, L.

Winstanley, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Wrenbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gibson, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gisborough, L.

Allerton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Ampthill, L.

Goold, L.

Arran, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Auckland, L.

Greenway, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Gridley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Beloff, L.

Marylebone, L.

Belstead, L.

Halsbury, E.

Birdwood, L.

Hanson, L.

Blatch, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Blyth, L.

Harrowby, E.

Borthwick, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harvington, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Havers, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Hayter, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Hertford, M.

Butterworth, L.

Hesketh, L.

Caithness, E.

Hives, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Holderness, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hood, V.

Carnock, L.

Hooper, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Joseph, L.

Cowley, E.

Killearn, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kimball, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kimberley, E.

Crathorne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Croft, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Davidson, V, [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Deedes, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Derwent, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Margadale, L.

Dormer, L.

Marley, L.

Dundee, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Elibank, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Avon, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mersey, V.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mottistone, L.

542

Mountevans, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Moyne, L.

Somers, L.

Munster, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Nelson, E.

Stockton, E.

Northesk, E.

Strange, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Orkney, E.

Swinfen, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Swinton, E.

Pender, L.

Terrington, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Teviot, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Teynham, L.

Prior, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Pym, L.

Tranmire, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rees, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rodney, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Romney, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Rugby, L.

Windlesham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wise, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wolfson, L.

Sandford, L.

Wynford, L.

Selborne, E.

Young, B.

Shannon, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 15, line 15, leave out ("training of or the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 41, as both hang together in this context. As the Minister will recall, these amendments deal with the issue of training. I shall describe the effect that they would have on the face of the Bill. Clause 17(5) deals with what the Government euphemistically call "non-commercial matters". So far as we are concerned, the training, health and safety of a workforce of an authority and equally of a company that tenders are of importance to both ratepayers and the community.
Amendment No. 40 seeks to delete from the Government's illustrations of non-commercial matters the words "training of or the" and Amendment No. 41 inserts in their place,
"except in relation to reasonable questions as to health and safety training undertaken by contractors with a view to ensuring the satisfactory carrying out of such training".
I fear the worse judging by the parliamentary arithmetic witnessed in respect of earlier amendments and equally because of the Government's determination, I believe wrongly, to protect those who will seek to tender competitively in respect of matters which the Minister and his supporters argue ought not to be the concern of a council which in some instances will be spending ratepayers' money.
As on earlier amendments lost by this side of the House, I am again at a loss to understand why the Government view satisfactory standards of training as being non-commercial and not of sufficient weight and interest to an authority to merit on the face of the Bill an obligation to take those aspects into account.
The Minister will not need me to remind him that, despite the efforts of the Government and of many governmental agencies, the quality and the quantity of training, whether in the form of apprenticeships or something else, are falling seriously below the standards this country enjoyed for many years. I

543
make no point about any particular years, so as not to draw a distinction between parties. In my view, this is not primarily a party matter. However, when one considers the amount of time and money spent by our major competitors on training, it is nonsense to say that a local authority spending ratepayers' money should not concern itself with the training record of those who will be awarded contracts.
I quote Mr. Geoffrey Holland, chief executive of the MSC, who has stated:
"The real skills gap is that our country is under-educated, under-trained and under-skilled. That is because our approach to education and training is and has been for decades too little, too narrow, too few, with too few expectations and hardly any follow through".
That is the premise upon which I plead with the Government to allow a local authority to poke its nose into this area—even though the Government are determined to keep it out—so that the authority may try to ensure that the record of training and safety of those who receive contracts is satisfactory.
A 1984 study commissioned by the MSC showed that private sector employers invested on average only £200 per employee per year on training or 0.15 per cent. of turnover. Some 24 per cent. of establishments provided no training of any kind in the previous 12 months, and 69 per cent. offered no training at all.
The Minister might say that the recipient of a contract awarded by a local authority is entitled to that contract purely on the basis of having made the lowest possible tender, perhaps combined with a good reputation and having made a good case for the contract. He will say that it is not for the local authority to find out exactly what are the levels of that contractor's training.
One may consider the situation in a particular industry. I take the case of the building industry and refer to a survey undertaken by the Federation of Master Builders only last year entitled Manpower in the Building Industry. It makes very illuminating reading and is relevant to our discussion on the level of training that exists in other sectors. From the eastern region of the FMB survey comes the comment:
"Training youngsters is disheartening. As soon as they., are experienced they leave to become self-employed".
From the southern region:
"Training appears to be letting the industry down— huge amounts of money are spent on training but is the money spent on the right areas and is the information getting to those who need it? I don't think so in every case''.
Also, from the southern region:
"Please ensure that apprentices are trained by first-class tradesmen at least 30 years older than the apprentice. Many don't even realise that tradesmen have their own tools".
From the north-west:
"We feel that insufficient training is given, producing semi or even totally, unskilled operatives and would prefer training to be encouraged by apprenticeship schemes controlled by companies such as ours, rather than job creation schemes which give young persons the impression they are able to carry out work in the industry".
On the question of the level of skills in London:
"Our main problem is the general low standard of all trades and in particular of bricklayers".
From the northern region:
"Good joiners are not available no matter what wages are offered".
From the Midlands:
544
"Shortage of manpower is not a problem—shortage of skilled manpower capable of carrying out any quality work is the major problem'.
I rest my case by asking the Government to look more sympathetically at what they are doing by excluding the sense of this amendment.
The amendment may not be worded in a way that suits either the Minister or those who guide him. However, when we are talking in terms of spending millions of pounds in awarding contracts, it is right and proper that we should eliminate the cowboys. It would take a very derelict council to award contracts to cowboys in the building or any other industry. But we are talking here of taking a positive step, with the Government coming to the aid of local authorities by trying to improve the level of training, safety, security and health in our industries.
The Minister may say that there are other ways of achieving this, that it is the responsibility of others and that such is not the responsibility of local councils, as the Government have said in respect of the two previous amendments. I must respond by saying that any stick that is to hand ought to be used. If the Minister is concerned, as we are, that there is a disinclination on the part of many employers to spend money on training, then at least councils ought to know that certain employers are by comparison spending very little money on training and take that into account. If a council decides that it does not wish to award a contract because of a contractor's poor record of safety, training and education, among other things, then it should be allowed to do so. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, considers it right for authorities to ask detailed questions of a contractor about the training he gives his workers. One of his arguments is that an authority will not know if a contractor is competent if it cannot seek details about how his workers are trained. We know full well that a contractor's competence can be judged in various ways without the need for detailed questionnaires about any kind of training programme which happens to catch an authority's fancy. Amendment No. 40 would allow unscrupulous authorities to discriminate against contractors on many grounds and unfortunately we know that a number of councils will go to any lengths to discover such loopholes in these provisions.
The noble Lord will have heard what I said about the Government's initiative on training when speaking to the last amendment. We believe that it is right for companies to undertake, and to be encouraged to undertake, constructive training of their workforce for particular skills. However, that is a matter for the companies and not for local authorities when it comes to contracts with those companies.
It has also been argued that an authority should be allowed to take into account a contractor's training in health and safety procedures. It has never been our intention to prevent authorities taking account of contractors' health and safety records when considering tenders and awarding contracts. While I see no need for an authority to seek details of the way a contractor ensures that his workforce is competent

545
in this area, nothing in the Bill stops an authority establishing a contractor's policy on health and safety or evidence of the effectiveness of that policy by way of his past record.
Indeed, a recently published Construction Industry Advisory Commitee document, endorsed by the Health and Safety Commission and entitled Managing Health and Safety in Construction, specifically encourages customers—and that includes local authorities—to take full account of health and safety matters in drawing up tender lists. This can be done without giving unscrupulous authorities the opportunity of devising a huge questionnaire on the ways a contractor chooses to ensure his workforce's competence in that area. We believe that to be the right way forward.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it seems to me extraordinary that the Minister should not be prepared to accept inquiries into training. The building industry and notoriously the construction industry have a wide range of suppliers—from those who train well to those who do not train at all. If anyone in your Lordships' House were to have building work done, surely it would be reasonable to discover whether one was hiring a properly trained labour force. One would not know that merely by looking at the tender. Why on earth cannot one discover their policy and make a judgment accordingly? This is not a matter of protecting the labour force but of making a competent economic judgment and awarding a tender. I am at a loss to understand why the Minister opposes the amendment, except that he has a habit of total opposition.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to follow the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I have the honour of being president of the health and safety officers. One knows that the building industry is notorious for contracting and sub-contracting. At the moment I am in the process of dealing with a development by a well-known property developer in Westminster. It is appalling to watch the behaviour on the site.
The sub-contractors obtain the cheapest labour possible. They are now shipping in workers from Liverpool, who, I understand, are cheaper than those on the spot. They observe none of the health and safety standards of which even I know. I have lectured them in the street and I gather that I am known as "our lady"—there is a slight difference. There is not a hard hat among them and they carry out the most appallingly dangerous procedures. I recently pointed out to one young man that if at the age of 23 he fell off the scaffolding and broke his back because he had no safety connection, not only would he never work again but he would merit no compensation because he was not carrying out the rules of health and safety.
I had to invite the safety standards officer from Westminster council to come along; it was a major exercise to discover who he was. I gather that there is only one officer for the whole borough. I contacted him through the old-pals act only because I knew
546
someone who worked for the council. When he eventually arrived he slapped on three orders because the contractor was not complying with the health and safety standards. If the site belongs to the local authority and the contracted labour, accepted under a tender, is working for the authority but is not carrying out the health and safety standards, it is an irony: but what does the authority do? Does it claim Crown immunity as we do in this House?
It is vitally important to emphasise that the health and safety Act was a major piece of legislation. I am sad to say that training in health and safety still lags. Local authorities must lead the way in their treatment of those they employ on such schemes. They cannot take refuge behind the fact that they know companies are doing the right thing.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I had hoped that the Minister would wish to respond to some of the points directed to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who put forward a powerful argument. The Minister is virtually saying that there is no need for the words on the face of the Bill because there are ways in which a local authority can draw its own conclusions. It has access and the experience of watching people. Listening to my noble friend Lady Phillips one would imagine that the Westminster council needs its head examined if, with its experience, it engaged the contractor to which she referred. However, that is happening.
I take exception to the words used by the Minister. Apparently this subsection is designed to deal with unscrupulous authorities which would go to any lengths. I have no doubt that the Minister has illustrations of the practices of some councils. There are more than 400 authorities. If, in this subsection, the House is attempting to deal with three or four councils who have carried out a practice designed to ensure that the work being undertaken for them in their area is carried out by firms able to satisfy them in respect of safety, education and training—if we are talking about authorities which have committed that heinous crime—I cannot understand the argument put forward by the Minister.
The noble Earl makes allusions to other motives for an authority wishing to lay down terms and conditions. I believe that the Minister will throw out the baby with the bathwater, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out, no one in his right mind can object to what the amendment seeks to achieve. It is that the authority should be able to take into account the record on safety education and training of those who wish to be the recipients of ratepayers' money. It is a laudable, sensible and proper objective. I am sad that the Minister has not seen fit to say anything kind but has been derisory and derogatory in his remarks about unnamed authorities who are apparently committing the heinous crime of wanting to ensure that ratepayers' money is spent in the proper way. He ought to be ashamed of himself, although I do not believe that he will be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 15, line 26, leave out ("the country or territory of origin of supplies to, or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment and revives the matter debated in Committee about the country or territory of origin of supplies. It is necessary to do this not only because of the intrinsic merits of the case but because of the strength of feeling aroused about the matter.
I appreciate that the Government have taken a firm stand on this position. I do not expect there to be any significant change in their point of view. As one who lives in a borough with a very high proportion of people from other countries and with other ethnic backgrounds, I put it to the Minister that this is not in any way a matter of political interference by local authorities. We are not referring to local authorities doing the horrific thing that governments always say they should never do—interfering in national politics. In the case with which I am familiar, and noble Lords may well be familiar with others, the attempt by a local authority to discriminate—and we are talking about South Africa, are we not? —between goods coming from South Africa and goods coming from countries with less abhorrent racial laws and practices is not undertaken for political purposes; it reflects the composition of people in the area and their abhorrence at the prospect of being forced to use goods produced by the Republic of South Africa.
Nobody thinks that it is in any way wrong that people should exercise their individual judgment about whether to use a boycott of South African goods in their own purchasing. People have different views about whether it is a good idea, whether it is a moral issue and about the effect of sanctions on the Republic of South Africa. I respect all those different views. Nobody says that it is wrong for people to hold views different from those that one holds oneself. In this sense, although not in all senses, a local authority in an area with a high proportion of the population feeling strongly about the country of origin of the goods supplied "for the public service" has a duty to enable those people who feel strongly not to be forced to use the goods coming from a country of origin like South Africa. That is what it comes down to.
I do not think that this is in any way an infringement of individual liberty, as was suggested on Second Reading and in Committee. I suggest that the amendment and provision are worthy of the serious attention of the House.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, despite the noble Lord's attempt to suggest that this is a different approach from that on which we spent a good deal of time in Committee, the amendment is in fact fundamentally the same as that which we discussed earlier.
The noble Lord suggested that there are areas in which certain sections of the population have strong feelings about certain overseas countries. They are of course perfectly entitled to those feelings, however misguided they often are. However, there one is getting straight into matters of international politics. If one is to take the line that one will not buy goods
548
that originate in a particular country because one does not like the way in which the country conducts its affairs, one is getting straight into international politics and away from the proper functions of local government.
I do not want to waste the time of the House because we discussed this at great length and came to a clear decision earlier. I hope that we shall similarly come to the clear decision that, whatever views people may have of whatever overseas countries, that excursion into international politics is not the business of local authorities and they should keep out of it.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I hope that we shall come to a decision different from the decision we reached in Committee. Perhaps I may repeat some of what I said earlier. I believe that the issue is not whether sanctions against any country will work, but the question of whether local authorities have a right—or, as I would say, a duty—to reflect the feelings of the consumers whom they are serving.
If a large number of people in a particular local authority area do not want to eat the product brought from a certain country, I think it is the duty of the local authority not to buy and force those products on the people. This is particularly so in the case of catering for children. They have no choice. Their parents may not want them to have the goods. Therefore, the local authority should be in a position to take into account the people's views in the matter.
The Government say that the local authority must not take into account the people's wishes in the matter. That I regard as an abuse of power. Central government is saying, "This is national politics. We do not think it right to have sanctions against any country. We shall decide this. You on the other hand must never take into account the fact that your people do not want the goods from that country to be used in your services".
I cannot see how the Government regard as defensible the suggestion that, when local authorities say they will not buy, for example, South African oranges for children, those local authorities are indulging in international politics. That is rubbish. What they are doing is reflecting the views of the people in the area. In the case of catering, the people for whom they are catering are consumers. Consumers have rights. The people who sell the goods have responsibilities. Central government is saying that, regardless of the views of consumers and what they may request, the local authority must buy from where it chooses and force its consumers to accept that.
I am sure that is wrong and that noble Lords will recognise that it is wrong. It is not what should be done. If the people in a particular local authority area do not want certain products, the local authority should be free not to buy those products so that it does not have to serve them to people who do not want them. I therefore hope that the House will recognise the issue for what it is and accept the amendment.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I listened to the argument deployed in Committee and I have listened to the argument today. I think that all Members of

549
the House will respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, who has had a long, distinguished career in local government.
I pose the following question. Leaving aside whether South Africa, which I have not visited, Czechoslovakia, which I have, or any other country has a regime that is dissimilar to our own, who in the local authority will decide on these purchases? As I understand it—and I have never served on a local authority, as my remarks might suggest—it will put an enormous burden on local authorities when all parties in government are trying to make their lot easier. I believe that this amendment, sincere as it might be, will put that burden on local authorities.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the one thing that is probably more responsible than anything else for bringing local authorities into disrepute is their tendency nowadays to discuss national and international issues. I believe that local authorities should be organisations which provide local services for local people. In so doing they are guardians of other people's money; not their own, but other people's money.
If one takes a purely pragmatic view of this amendment which seeks to assume a power for local authorities to decide that they do not want South African goods. Czechoslovakian goods. or whatever it may he, the practical business of doing that is to dissipate resources which could be caring for the elderly, educating children in schools, or doing a host of things for which local authorities are primarily responsible. I ask your Lordships to consider the thousands upon thousands of products which are purchased by local authorities, from pencils and rubbers to books and food which is eaten by the children in schools.
It is not only direct links with South Africa that are affected. I belong to an authority which has passed a resolution not to deal or trade with any company which has any links, direct or indirect, with South Africa. That involves precious time—and time is money—and precious resources in not only carrying out detective work on the companies directly concerned but also on the companies with which those companies have links, and with which they have links, and so on. Frankly, I challenge my authority on whether it can do that job properly. I believe that in practice it is turning a blind eye. We have indulged in tokenism. We have passed a Motion in council that South Africa will be all right because Cambridgeshire County Council no longer buys goods that originate from that country.
I believe that we should get back to what this Bill is about. More than almost anything else it is about depoliticising our local council chambers. I am in favour of that. I believe that people are fed up with the politicking in our council chambers. The amendment will give all the scope in the world for the kind of politics that will do very little to resolve the problems of South Africa or any other country. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords. I should like to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and to what was said earlier about the responsibilities of local authorities. If one takes the argument that has just been put forward by the noble Baroness, then local authorities, people in general and governments should always buy the cheapest irrespective of the ethical issues which arc involved.
We argued in Committee, and again today, that local authorities have a moral and ethical responsibility, as well as a direct responsibility, to reflect the views of the majority of the people that they represent. This brings me to the noble Lord who spoke earlier and who asked who is to decide. Our answer is quite simple —the people. This is the issue put so clearly by my noble friend Lord Pitt. If a local authority just like a national government—takes an action which is disapproved of by a majority of the people, our constitution gives the people the opportunity to reject that decision and to turn the council out.
As my noble friend Lord Pitt pointed out, in this Bill the Government are taking it upon themselves to decide for all the people. The Government, who after all have been elected by a minority of the people, are themselves to decide what people in different localities have the right to do and what they do not have the right to do. Is that in tune with the philosophy of the Conservative Party which has constantly expressed its belief in decentralisation and in giving the people a choice?
Surely the issue here is this. If a majority of the people in any part of the country, gathered together to be represented by a local authority, express a majority view and that view is constantly put before the electorate—and 164 local authorities at the moment are applying one ban; the ban on buying South African goods—and if those people believe that they should not, and their children should not, be purchasing South African goods and that their money should not be used to purchase South African goods, surely they have the right through their representatives to take that decision.
No government can say whether there is in any local authority a majority in favour of banning South African goods. One must accept that there may well be a majority. Will that majority then be prevented from doing what it believes in because central government says, "Oh, but you are not a central government and this is an international issue. This is a matter for commerce and it has nothing to do with morals or what you believe in. We are not going to allow you, through your elected local authority, to put what you believe into practice"? That, surely, is the central issue.
Are we to have a country in which central government takes all the major decisions for all the people on all issues whatever the people in a local authority believe in? Irrespective of the question of sanctions, I submit that that is the central issue on which this amendment is based. Do we believe in big government or do we believe in the rights of people in their localities to have their views expressed and acted upon according to the way in which they have elected their own representatives.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for the moderate and reasoned way in which he introduced this amendment. He was right to say that this issue was debated at length in Commitee and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was absolutely right to say that we divided on it.
I remind the House that the issue at the heart of the debate on this amendment is whether public authorities should be able to refuse to have any dealings with certain contractors or their subsidiary companies solely because their supplies emanate from a particular country. Although the nub of the debate is the question raised more extensively in Committee about South Africa, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is absolutely right in that Clause 17(5)(e), to which this amendment is addressed, is intended to stop authorities taking a sudden dislike to any country or territory and refusing to deal with those contractors who have links with it. We do not consider that authorities should abuse the contractual process by refusing to employ contractors on solely ideological grounds or on grounds unrelated to competitiveness or competence to carry out the works or supply the goods or services required.
We believe in fair competition and in obtaining the best value for ratepayers' money. Neither would be obtained if authorities were allowed to discriminate against companies purely on the basis that they did not agree with the politics or any other aspect of the country from which those companies obtained their supplies. We believe that it is not for local government to decide to have its own foreign policy independent of the Government and to pay more than is necessary for goods or services as a result of that policy.
I give an example of the extra cost to ratepayers of such a policy; and here I rise to the bait offered by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who keeps on challenging me to give an example, so I shall now give one. This was a policy highlighted by an article in the Guardian last December. A street cleaning contract in Milton Keynes worth £2.7 million was removed from the company which had previously carried it out because that company had connections with South Africa. A new contract was awarded to another firm at a level 38.5 per cent. dearer, adding 2.4p to the rates. Yet the Milton Keynes authority admitted that it had had no complaints about the service provided by the previous company. That was the cost to Milton Keynes ratepayers as a result of such discrimination.
I respect the feelings of the noble Lord. Lord Pitt of Hampstead, who would doubtless agree with the Milton Keynes decision. I hope that he will respect my feelings, and I profoundly disagree with him because the cost of this amendment is one that the ratepayers should not have to bear.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether this Government believe that if a local authority is elected on a policy which gives it a mandate to boycott South African goods or the goods of any other country, this Government have the right to say, despite that election, that that authority shall not be allowed to do what the electors have elected it to do?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I specifically answered that earlier.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it sounds as if the Minister's answer to my noble friend Lord Hatch is, yes, that it is the Government's intention and is claimed to be the Government's right to override the wishes of local people. I cannot see any other interpretation to put on his failure to answer my noble friend's question or his silence now.
In all these matters there are of course possibilities for abuse; there is no doubt about that. It is possible for a local authority to extend its judgments and decisions too far into the areas of national politics. I do not deny that. However, I wonder whether the Government have in any way taken account of the real force of the argument against the subsection and in favour of this amendment.
We are trying to say—and I cannot say it as effectively as my noble friend Lord Pitt—that there are cases, when we are talking about physical supplies bought by local authorities to be consumed by the users of local authorities' services (welfare services, school meal services, or whatever it may be) when those who have strong feelings about this are forced to consume goods or to use equipment which they would never dream of using or buying in their own private life, which is in effect force feeding. I feel very strongly about not buying South African goods. There is a whole period in the year when I do not eat oranges, much as I depend on an orange for breakfast every morning, because I cannot buy anything other than South African oranges.
However, if I rely on local authority services—there are many noble Lords here who might qualify for meals on wheels, though I am sure very few would actually use them—and I am forced to eat South African goods because my only source of nourishment is meals on wheels, that is deeply offensive to me and I believe it is deeply offensive to the people concerned.
I do not believe that the Government have understood the force of that point and I do not believe that they have understood the degree of feeling that there is about this matter. It has now been raised and has been dealt with most effectively by my noble friend. In view of the vote that was taken last time I do not believe it is desirable to test the opinion of the House again. However, we do not in any way withdraw the strength of our feelings on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 16, line 48. at end insert ("with the exception of any body or organisation whose primary purpose is the safety of the public").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment concerns the status of the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting, which I shall refer to as N IC for short. Under Clause 17(8) of the Bill, the council is concerned with the safety of electrical installations. It is a non-profit-making trust which was set up in 1957 by the concerted action of electrical installation contractors, the electric supply industry, electrical trade unions

553
and others who saw the need for an independent inspectorate to protect the users of electricity from unsafe electrical installations.
The NIC maintains a register of approved electrical contractors. For a contractor to qualify for the register, a searching preliminary inspection of his work and resources is made and is followed up by subsequent regular inspections. All work must conform with the wiring regulations published by the Institute of Electrical Engineers and there is an effective complaints procedure under which substandard work has to be rectified at the contractor's expense.
There are now 10,000 approved contractors on the register, including electricity boards. Most local authorities and high street names can find tenders for electrical installation work by contractors on the NIC register. The Minister has assured me that, like CORGI, NIC is not affected by this clause in the Bill. However, neither I nor the legally qualified people I have consulted are clear as to how that is achieved. The drafting of this part of the Bill is therefore obscure, to say the least. It seems possible that if the question arose in the courts they might take a different view from that of the draftsmen. I therefore ask the Minister to accept this amendment or consider some other way of making the clause clearer. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on finding yet another possible way of defining bodies which in his view should not be caught by the provisions of Clause 7(5)(f). That subsection, as further defined in Clause 17(8), provides that authorities should not take account of a contractor's membership or non-membership of an organisation when deciding whether to put him on an approved list or award him a contract. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Dean, moved an amendment which would have exempted bodies which were designed to promote a particular standard of expertise, and that has again appeared on the Marshalled List as the next amendment. Now we have this particular amendment, which tries to exempt bodies whose primary purpose is the safety of the public.
I must first repeat that while I accept that a contractor's membership of a reputable trade association is often used by authorities as an indication of certain professional standards or competence, it is not the only method by which authorities should evaluate the merits of a company with whom they are considering doing business. Far more relevant is the contractor's previous work record and financial standing. What is at issue here is whether an authority can decide, solely on the basis of a contractor's membership of a particular body, whether or not to do business with that contractor. Such membership, or non-membership, would become a valid reason for an authority not to do business with a particular company, and we do not think that that should be the case.
However, I am happy to confirm to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that Clause 17(5)(f), as
554
defined in Clause 17(8), does not embrace regulatory bodies such as the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting. I confess that the reason I did not refer specifically to that body at Committee stage, when I mentioned CORGI, their equivalent in the gas industry, was that I did not feel their acronym very easy to pronounce! I therefore referred to
"inspection bodies in the electrical industry who test contractors' equipment",
but I can confirm that I did indeed have the NICEIC in mind. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Viscount will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that assurance. However, he has not taken the point that this Bill is badly drafted and obscure in this clause. I asked whether it could be made clearer. Surely we want Bills that can be understood, certainly by the legal profession and preferably by somebody who is not legally trained. This paragraph which affects the NIC is obscure, to say the least. Nevertheless, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 16, line 48, at end insert ("with the exception of bodies, associations or employers' associations of any sort which are, in the opinion of the Secretary of State. designed to promote a particular standard of expertise").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, appropriately, this amendment follows on from the point that has just been raised. I hope that the Minister can say something as kind in respect of this amendment as he has done in respect of the one moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth.
The Minister is aware that we cantered over this course at the previous stage of the Bill. I know that his ministerial colleagues in another place have expressed their worry about taking merely the membership of a trade association ipso facto as being proof of a standard. We accept that there are all kinds of weird and wonderful new bodies and that one has to be wary about accepting letters after a name. That might be an initial mistake. One has to make inquiries about the boner fides of the body. If the Minister reads the amendment carefully, as I am sure he has, he will see that in the middle of it we say,
"in the opinion of the Secretary of State, designed to promote a particular standard of expertise".
In other words, the ball is in the court of the Minister.
We know that the amendment appears in a part of the Bill which deals with terms. Here we define terms which exclude,
"political, industrial or sectarian affiliations or interests".
We have no objection to those kinds of bodies being excluded in this matter. But again I repeat the phrase "the baby with the bath water". We genuinely think that there will be some eminently respectable bodies. The noble Earl mentioned the electrical industry and there are others too. It is invidious to mention them, but the building industry has some fine standards, as have many other industries. The Minister must assure people outside the House that they are not wasting their time in setting up their own codes of

555
practice and their own measuring rods and yardsticks to try to lift the standards of the members of their trade associations. Membership of such bodies should not be the sole criterion but it should be capable of being used as a credential. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that the Government are as concerned over standards as he is, and I accept that a contractor's membership of a reputable trade association is often used by authorities as an indication of certain professional standards or competence. But, as I said on the last amendment, it is not the only method by which authorities should evaluate the merits of a company with which it is considering doing business. It would indeed be foolish to use such membership as the sole yardstick against which to judge a contractor's suitability for inclusion in an approved list or for the award of a contract. Far more relevant is the contractor's previous work record and financial standing.
As I pointed out in respect of the previous amendment, Clause 17(5)(f) does not embrace regulatory bodies like CORGI or the NICEIC. Furthermore, the Bill does not prevent authorities insisting that electrical work, or any other work, is covered by appropriate guarantees. Nor does it stop authorities specifying appropriate standards in contract documentation. Indeed, the reverse is the position. We would expect local authorities to insist on the same standards for contractors as they do for their own DLOs. If those standards are not up to scratch, it is time local authorities woke up to some of the important matters which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has brought to the attention of the House.
This amendment would involve the Secretary of State in deciding whether or not a particular organisation was in the business of promoting a particular standard of expertise. Such a definition would cover a multitude of different bodies—it would be difficult to claim, for example, that employers' associations were uninterested in standards—and we do not believe that authorities should be allowed to decide the award of contracts on that basis.
I go back to where I started. Our concern for standards is just the same and I am sure that every noble Lord has that concern. Where we differ is over how we implement that concern. I fear that we shall continue to differ but I hope that at the end of the day we both achieve what we want, which is continuing and increasingly high standards.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He said that the standard of expertise being offered by virtue of membership of an association should not be the only criterion. Of course the Minister is correct. He then said that the previous work record was equally important. It is; but what about those businesses that have no previous work record? What about new businesses? A company's previous work record may be thin because it is new and so it will not comply with that precondition. What about long-standing businesses which change ownership? What about long-standing
556
businesses which do not change ownership but change practices?
The Minister's yardstick is as fraught with uncertainty as the one I have used. However, he is right in saying that we shall have to wait and see. There are those outside the House who believe in promoting their codes of practice and encouraging their members to reach a certain standard.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps I may make one point from my own experience in regard to new companies doing work for local authorities. When I set up my own business and took the first contract from a local authority I remember that the very questions that the noble Lord has just mentioned were the type of questions that the local authority asked me. I was able to convince the local authority that I could meet the high standards, notwithstanding the fact that I had no track record at that stage.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, so in effect the previous work record is not so important, because the noble Earl has told the House that he had no previous work record. However, he had an ability to convey confidence to the authority by virtue of what he was able to say to it.
The debate has served a useful purpose. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Race relations matters]:
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 48B:
Page 17, line 14, after ("authority") insert ("or public authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not take up much of your Lordships' time. I should like to congratulate the Government on recognising that contract compliance has an absolutely essential and crucial role to play in securing the elimination of racial discrimination and in promoting genuine equality of opportunity, irrespective of race, colour and so on. I only wish that this belief in the effectiveness of contract compliance were also to apply to women.
However, that having been said, why should this obligation be confined to local authorities? There are other public authorities which are involved in purchasing from private companies, and other services. Why should they not share in the obligation to serve the public interest in securing equality of opportunity, irrespective of race, colour and so on?
This is a simple point which can be remedied by the amendment tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Seear. I suggest that, for example, those public authorities listed in Schedule 2 should be able to avail themselves of the right afforded to local authorities in this matter. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, these amendments are an attempt to extend the provisions of Clause 18 to all the public bodies listed in Schedule 2. However, Clause 18 deals with the way in which the duty under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act

557
1976 should be carried out. That duty applies only to local authorities. Therefore, in that respect these amendments would have no effect.
The principle behind the amendments is to extend the provisions of Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. In all our discussions on Part II of the Bill, I have often made the point that the provisions dealing with the contractual process have been drafted to reflect the present statutory position. Just as the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 does not contain a Section 71-type duty, Section 71 itself does not place a duty on bodies other than local authorities.
The Section 71 duty applies to local authorities when exercising all their functions, but I do not regard it as appropriate that this Bill should be amended to place a duty on other public authorities in this one narrow area.
Clearly any proposals to extend the coverage of the Race Relations legislation are, as I said to my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle a matter for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I do not consider it appropriate that such provisions should be contained in a local government Bill.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, those public authorities are the creation of Parliament. There is no reason why Parliament cannot say that those public authorities should observe certain regulations. All that the Government are being asked to do is to say to those public authorities that they too should observe Section 71 of the Race Relations Act. We do not need to pass any law to do that. When they are created to do certain things they should observe certain conditions. What is so difficult about that?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the response of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, to my amendments is hardly surprising, although naturally disappointing. Of course it was my intention to extend the arm of the Race Relations Act to a rather wider field. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, in that I do not see that this is something dreadful. After all, these are matters to which all of us are committed on both sides of the House and in all parties. By making this simple change in the Bill, we could make the battle for securing equality of opportunity, irrespective of' race, more effective. I regret that we received that rather negative reply. I am sorry, but not surprised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 17, line 19, leave out ("approved").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 49 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 50 to 55. Recent experience has proved what some of us suspected: that the Government's commitment to include this clause on race relations is far from complete and perfect. The Government included the clause only because they
558
were required to do so under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act. The Government have resisted, not always successfully, attempts by the House to extend the principle of decent and fair trading to the privatisation of local authority services. We thought that when it came to the implementation of the Race Relations Act, the Government had no real scope to weaken the intention of the clause, but we were wrong. The Government have now issued—I am grateful to the noble Earl for sending me a copy of the consultation paper—the questions that they propose should be authorised and approved—that is the significance of the amendment—for use by local authorities when asking about race relations matters.
I have been in the business of asking questions as a survey researcher for the past 30 years. I can only say to your Lordships that this is the most pathetic little list of questions that I have ever seen in my professional experience. I doubt whether it is intended to elicit any significant information. The first question is:
"Is it your policy as an employer to comply with your statutory obligations under the Race Relations Act?"
If I answer no, do I say it with handcuffs on? The second question says:
"Is it your practice, in relation to decisions to recruit, train or promote employees, not to treat one group of people more favourably than others",—
and so on. Recruitment, training and promotion are different. It is possible for someone to say, "Yes, because I am fair about training, I can conceal the fact that I am not fair about recruitment or promotion". Because the document asks three questions at the same time, it is technically grossly deficient. The third question asks:
"Has your firm in the last three years been taken to court or to an industrial tribunal",
and what was the result? Again, those matters are matters of public record. They do not go far into the exploration of' a contractor's racial equality programmes.
The document continues and asks whether the policy on race relations is set out in instructions, documents or recruitment advertisements, and
"If so, can you provide examples?"
I accept that those are fair questions.
Then:
"Do you observe as far as is appropriate and reasonably practicable the Commission for Racial Equality's Code of Practice"?
What is fair and reasonably practicable is a matter of opinion. I cannot imagine any contractor who wants a contract failing to interpret "fair, appropriate and reasonably practicable" in a way which suits his own purposes. The defect in all those questions is that they are about the theory of equal opportunities in racial terms; they are not about what actually happens.
Until we have questions about what contractors do, we shall not get away from the grotesque racial discrimination which exists in employment. It exists in part in the public sector, but even more conspicuously and frequently in the private sector. Those questions are inadequate. I move the amendment now to give fair warning that the responses to the questions will not be favourable and that the Government are trying to evade their responsibilities. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I ask the noble Earl who drew up those questions? I confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh, has said. If a student doing a survey had produced those type of questions one would have failed him.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in recognising that the provisions of this Bill should not prevent local authorities from carrying out their statutory duties under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, we have had to consider how the provisions could be drafted in a way that does not permit abuse of that duty and does not place too excessive a burden on contractors.
By providing that the Secretary of State should specify the questions to be asked of contractors (that point answers the noble Baroness, Lady Seear) and specify the evidence to be supplied in respect of race relations matters, we consider that uniformity and order will be brought into an area where, at present, contractors face a plethora of different questionnaires, some of inordinate length. We also consider that the questions to be asked should be asked in writing, in order to prevent unscrupulous authorities from pestering certain contractors about their race relations policy in interminable meetings or by frequent telephone calls.
My Lords, we believe that Clause 18 as drafted strikes a sensible balance between allowing authorities too much or too little latitude in the way they exercise their duty under Section 71. We propose that the questions to be specified should be drawn up after consultation with industry, the Commission for Racial Equality and the local authority associations. Those consultations are at present taking place and we need to have views by 29th February so that authorities can take account of the approved questions once the Bill is enacted. Indeed, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is looking forward to receiving comments from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Clause 18 received considerable support in the other place as a reasonable way of dealing with local authorities' duties under Section 71, and acceptance of these amendments would, we believe, reintroduce uncertainty and confusion into an area where we are seeking uniformity and sensible practice.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think the noble Earl will recognise that he has already had the comments which he is looking for from the noble Baroness. Lady Seear, and myself. The matter is not closed, the consultation is not finished. There is evidence that the Government are entering these consultations in a spirit of Indeed, I am afraid so, otherwise they would not have put in such grossly inadequate questions. However, because the matter is not closed it is appropriate that I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 55 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 56:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Questions relevant to Code of Good Practice on Employment of Disabled.
.—(1) Nothing in section 17 above shall preclude a local authority from—

(a) asking questions seeking information relating to workforce matters and considering responses to them. or

(b) referring prospective contractors to relevant agencies.

if, as the case may be, consideration of the information, is reasonbly necessary to ensure that contractors have due regard to the Manpower Services Commission Code of Good Practice on the Employment of Disabled People.
(2) In this section "relevant agencies" shall be defined as those bodies with statutory responsibility for the promotion of disabled people's employment and the Manpower Services Commission Code of Good Practice on the Employment of Disabled People.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, which has already been spoken to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Provisions supplementary to or consequential on section 17]:
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Transitional duty of public authorities as regards existing lists]:
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 65 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Commencement]:
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
7.15 p.m
Clause 27 [Local authority publicity]:
Lord Hayter Lord Hayter moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 28, line 18. at end insert—
("( )After section 2 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section.
"2A. Nothing in section 2 above shall prevent a voluntary organisation which is not a political party or associated with a political party publishing material which appears to be designed to promote the aims or objectives of the voluntary organisation." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, yesterday a colleague of the noble Earl said in the House that he liked paving amendments. This is not even a paving amendment: it is an amendment tabled in a spirit of inquiry. But my concern is what I think we all agree are the legitimate publicity activities of charities and voluntary organisations.
I can best describe exactly what we are after by reading out to the House the wording of this amendment:
"Nothing in section 2 above shall prevent a voluntary organisation which is not a political party or associated with a political party publishing material which appears to be designed to promote the aims or objectives of the voluntary organisation."
The Government have argued both here and in another place that the amendments to Section 2 of the 1986 Act contained in Clause 27 are intended to clarify and not strengthen the prohibition of political publicity. But, as I said in Committee, I believe that, far from clarifying the position, the clause makes it all the more confusing. Confusion leads to uncertainty, which in turn leads to the danger of over-zealous self-censorship.
So I should like to use this amendment to clarify the position: in other words, to clarify the Government's clarification. To do this, I want to outline two fictitious but plausible and, I think, legitimate examples of the sort of publicity that voluntary organisations may want to put out. I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate in his reply to the amendment whether or not he thinks they would be caught by the Act. Then we shall know where we stand. I would stress that in both cases which I am inventing, the style and content of the material are careful and responsible. Also, in particular the voluntary organisations have taken the advice previously issued by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. That advice suggests that voluntary organisations should:
"not mention…a political party: not mention or picture a leading politician: avoid intemperate language—"
That sounds rather a good one—
"and abide by the NCVO's code of practice on relations with the statutory sector, which broadly speaking encourages a healthy independence, and asserts the primacy of the voluntary organisations' freely chosen aims and objectives".
I am speaking in part on behalf of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and there are over 700 organisations associated with that body, including many small organisations. But it also includes some which are very well known to all your Lordships, like the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, the Council of Voluntary Services and Age Concern. They are almost all very worried about the position as it stands at the moment.
Let me get on to my first case: perhaps we may look at a local tenants' association which receives a small grant from the local authority to produce a newsletter. The tenants' association, perhaps supported by information from a national organisation concerned with housing, publishes in its council-funded newsletter an article about the current housing Bill. The article spells out what the proposals in the Bill are and offers some criticisms. The article does not rely on simple slogans and the language is reasonable. But of course the article roundly opposes some of the Bill and finishes with a call for local people to write to their MP pointing out the arguments made and urging him to vote against the Bill. The article is throughout motivated by concern about what will be the effects of the provisions of the Bill on the members of the association. Publication does not take place particularly close to a national or local election.
So in this case the article certainly,
"promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy which is identifiable as the view of one political party and not of another".
The House will remember that that is the phraseology incorporated in this Bill. It also "refers to a political party" to the extent that it refers to the Government as the promotors of the housing Bill. I should like to ask what the Minister thinks about that one.
For my second case, let us assume that one of the extremist racist political parties suddenly becomes active in a local authority area which includes a substantial number of people from the ethnic minorities. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has tabled an amendment
562
which also deals with this issue later on. But it is not on the same point as the one which I am taking.
The extremist party starts distributing leaflets, selling publications and putting up posters and stickers. This activity leads to a heightening of racial tension in the area which perhaps appears to include an increase in racial harassment and assault. So the local community relations council, although it is partly funded by the local authority and partly by the Government through the Commission for Racial Equality, decides that to promote its aim of achieving good race relations it must combat the arguments. To do this, it distributes its own leaflets and sends a press release to the local newspaper. The leaflets and the press release do not refer to the extremist party by name, but they counter its arguments. Again, they do not rely on slogans or over-simplification and the tone of the publicity material is level-headed, but it does robustly condemn the message which the extremists are trying to spread. It draws attention to the consequences of their policies.
In this case there has been no direct reference to a political party, although the material,
"promotes or opposes a point of view".
Again I am quoting from the Bill. In addition, if the publicity of the community relations council is successful, it could well be that the,
"likely effect on those to whom it is directed,"
to quote again from the clause, is that there will be a diminution of support for the extremist political party.
It should be clear that the point of these two cases is that the voluntary organisations are not producing material which,
"appears to be designed to affect support for a political party."
Again I am quoting from the clause. The material does, however, fall foul of one or other of the items listed in Clause 27 as being matters which the local authority and the voluntary group should "have regard to". That is another phrase out of the clause.
During our debate in Committee the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said on 1st February at col. 853 of the Official Report:
"The purpose of Clause 27(1) is to provide a comprehensive statement of the range of matters to which regard must be given".
If that is so then it follows that it is possible that failure on some, most or even conceivably all of the matters does not of itself lead one to infer that the basic test of apparent design has been failed. It is that message which above all needs to be got across if Clause 27 is not, possibly accidentally, to lead to unwarranted interference in the public activities of voluntary groups.
Just recently politicians have found fault with religious leaders, but sometimes religious leaders find fault with politicians. The voluntary organisations go calmly on with their work picking up the pieces that are left from the quarrel. I say "calmly" but that is not really true because at this moment—I know that the Minister will compliment me on the fact that I am always sincere—those organisations are very worried about this problem.
I still believe that the legislation would have been better if it had been left alone. If the Minister were to accept my amendment I should be delighted but if he could endorse what I have said tonight and agree that

563
the cases I have suggested do indeed constitute a legitimate use of publicity then we can hope to minimise the confusion and the uncertainty caused. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment to which I have added my name. We had a long and not always totally calm debate on this clause in Committee. We on these Benches expressed a great deal of concern about the wording of the clause and about the fact that the Government were reintroducing into the criteria as regards what local authority publicity was going to be acceptable not just the question which Widdicombe wanted to have considered, which is the content of the publicity, but also the question of the intention and the effect of the publicity.
We argued as strongly as we could that the resulting wording was not only badly intentioned in the sense that one cannot take account of all of those things in considering what publicity is acceptable from a local authority any more than one could from central government, but that it was also confused and did not always mean what it set out to mean.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, has drawn attention correctly to a particular example of that. Voluntary organisations which are funded in whole or in part by local authorities must, I presume, be subject to the provisions of the clause. If that were not the case it would presumably be very easy for local authorities to avoid the effects of the clause altogether by not issuing any publicity directly but doing it entirely through funded voluntary organisations. There would be no difficulty for an ingenious local authority doing that. But of course 99·s9 per cent. of voluntary organisations are not creatures of that kind; they are genuine voluntary organisations with their own real purposes in the community which no doubt gratefully accept local authority funding in order to achieve those purposes. But they maintain an independence of spirit, an independence of objectives and an independence in the way in which they go about their functions.
Those functions very frequently abut upon public debate and indeed upon political debate. When governments like this Government and all governments take an active part in legislation which affects communities and which may be about the rating system or about housing tenure or about social security benefits —all of those matters could well be within the remit of voluntary organisations —they will find that voluntary organisations are bound to be affected by government legislation and those organisations will want to say so.
The amendment refers only to genuine voluntary organisations which are not political parties or associated with political parties. It refers only to publicity designed to promote the aims or the objectives of voluntary organisations. so they cannot just shoot off their mouths about anything that takes their fancy. But if they are funded by local authorities and they are genuine voluntary organisations and they restrict their publicity to the aims as stated in the amendment then any publicity which they issue which chances to conflict with subsection (2)(a) shall not be made illegal by the provisions of this clause. I cannot see that that is unreasonable or in conflict with the Government's objectives.
564
I hope very much as the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, suggested, that the Government will either say that the amendment in its present form is acceptable or if for drafting reasons that is not possible that they are willing to give effect to the objectives of the amendment in a more suitable form at Third Reading.
If the Government were willing to do that they would give a great deal of relief to individual voluntary organisations and to the associations representing voluntary organisations. If they are not willing to do either of those things I would say seriously to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, that he should press this amendment. I know he expressed it as a probing amendment but it is our last chance to get either concessions or a withdrawal from the Government.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the arguments advanced in support of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, have concentrated on just one of the factors identified in Clause 27(1)—that is, whether the material:
"promotes or opposes a point of view On a question of political controversy which is identifiable as the view of one political party and not of another".
But that is only one of the factors to be weighed in the balance when assessing the apparent design of the publicity material. It is not a separate test. Any of the factors identified in Clause 27(1) may point to a publication being party political but equally any may be decisively outweighed and negated by other factors which point to the contrary. The question that has to be asked in each case is whether material appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party as opposed to some other legitimate purpose.
The noble Lord. Lord Hayter, has sought with his Amendment No. 67 to test the effect of the provisions of Clause 27(1) with two hypothetical examples of publicity issued by voluntary organisations in respect of local authority funding. With such examples any view requires knowing and examining all the relevant factors and considerations. These hypothetical examples do however provide a useful basis for debating the effects of Clause 27(1) on the voluntary sector and there are a number of points which I should like to make in reply to the noble Lord's portrayal of the examples.
The essential feature of the noble Lord's first hypothetical example was that the material issued by a tenants' association was critical of government legislation. Furthermore it sought to encourage the association's members to write to their MP urging him to vote against these proposals.
The essential question is: what is the material apparently designed to achieve? From the measured way in which the noble Lord described the hypothetical letter he almost seemed to be giving a description of exactly the way in which a tenants' association might conduct a campaign without creating any difficulty at all for a local authority which supported it. I can therefore assure the noble Lord that a hypothetical case limited to what he said and without any further evidence to suggest that there was an ulterior motive would not cause problems. But I must stress that additional factors could just change the

565
picture. If. for example, a tenants' association implied that its members should not vote for their MP at the next election if he supported the Government's proposals, there might clearly be a different and inappropriate apparent design.
The noble Lord's second example appears to be more straightforward. In the circumstances which he described, it seems clear that the apparent design of the community relations council publicity is not to affect political support for a political party but rather to promote better race relations, and as such it is entirely legitimate.
In short, the examples given by the noble Lord serve to demonstrate that his amendment is unnecessary. Although I appreciate and understand the concerns of the voluntary organisations, I firmly believe that they have nothing to fear from the clause, provided they are not seeking to use local authority assistance to affect support for a political party.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It was a comprehensive answer to the cases I mentioned and of which I think he had prior knowledge. In the circumstances, I believe that it would be unworthy of me not to withdraw the amendment, and I beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments. Nos. 68 to 71 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh: My Lords. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until not earlier than 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1988
7.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) rose to move. That the draft order laid before the House on 25th January be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the draft order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which did not comment on it. The effect of the order will be to renew the 1984 Act for a further 12 months from 22nd March. This is the last occasion on which the Act can be renewed, and it will expire in a year's time on 21st March 1989.
It is a fact that more than three years have now elapsed since the last outrage was committed by Northern Irish terrorists on the mainland. That is a tribute to the vigilance of the police. But the sombre threat remains undiminished. It comes from any and all parts of the world. In Northern Ireland last year, the terrible catalogue of terrorist atrocities was augmented by a further 83 deaths resulting from internal terrorist activity. But the international threat is a real one. In 1987, six murders in Great Britain were attributed to international terrorism.
There have been successes against terrorism, both on the mainland and in the Province. Those successes were due in no small part to the existence of the
566
powers which are provided by the prevention of terrorism legislation which we are now considering. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said in the past that those powers are extraordinary. People are right to be concerned, both about the existence of the extraordinary powers and about their operation. It would be a victory for the terrorist if he were to force a government into exercising powers so draconian that he could claim, with credibility, that they were oppressive.
A difficult balance must be struck in which the powers are, on the one hand, effective in combating terrorism yet, and, on the other hand, result in the minimum curtailment of civil liberties. We believe that the Prevention of Terrorism Act powers strike that balance. The powers are necessary to protect the public against the very real threat of terrorism. While that threat persists, they will continue to be necessary.
Because of the exceptional nature of the powers, when it considered the Bill which became the 1984 Act, Parliament rightly pressed for it to be scrutinised annually by an independent person. Last year the task was undertaken for the first time by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross when he reviewed the operation of the Act in 1986. His review of the operation of the Act in 1987 was placed in the Library on 8th February. I apologise if some noble Lords have not been able to get a copy of the review. In his scrutiny my noble friend makes it clear that he is generally satisfied with the operation of the Act in 1987. He gave many figures and statistics with which I do not propose to weary your Lordships this evening but which illustrate the way in which the Act was operated last year.
As the 1984 Act will expire in March 1989, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary last year asked my noble friend Lord Colville to widen his brief. In addition to the scrutiny of the operation of the Act in 1987, my noble friend was asked to undertake a wider review of the effectiveness of the legislation. That was published as a Command Paper on 9th December 1987.
I wish to express the gratitude both of the House and of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to my noble friend for the considerable effort and care which has gone into both of the reports. In the course of his work, my noble friend has visited no fewer than 49 air, sea and hoverports around the United Kingdom. He has acquired a degree of knowledge about the working of the port controls in which he can have few rivals. He has had discussions with a wide range of individuals and organisations which have an interest in the legislation, and he has taken care to represent their views in his reports.
In his main review of the legislation my noble friend made a number of recommendations for changes in the legislation. The most significant recommendation is that the central provisions of the prevention of terrorism legislation should become permanent and that they should no longer be subject to annual renewal. As my noble friend says in his report, it would be foolish, although it is a disagreeable and sad prospect, to pretend that terrorism in some form will not continue to threaten lives and property in Western countries in the foreseeable

567
future. It would be equally foolish to pretend that we could contemplate dispensing with legislation against terrorism in the near future. It is realistic, therefore, that the powers should now be continued for as long as they are needed.
However, in recognition of the exceptional nature of the powers, we propose that the new legislation should be renewed and reviewed annually so that it will be the subject of regular scrutiny. It will require a deliberate decision by Parliament each year to retain it. It will remain possible to discontinue any part of it at any time. Since annual renewal is to be retained, we shall be going back to the position under the 1976 Act. The new legislation will not have a fixed life similar to the five-year term of the present Act. It will continue for as long as—but only as long as—Parliament decides.
The report of each annual independent scrutiny of the operation of the Act will continue to be published as at present so that Parliament can take an informed view of the way in which the Act is used. The Act will, as now, be renewable wholly or in part. My noble friend argues in his report that the provisions, which apply solely to terrorism concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland—proscription and exclusion—should be placed in a separate part of the Act and should be on a temporary basis. If the requirement for annual renewal and the power to discontinue any part of the Act are retained as proposed, Parliament will be able to drop those powers if and when it considers that they should be dropped.
The Government intend to accept my noble friend's recommendation that the port powers, which are now contained in the supplemental orders, should be enacted in primary legislation. The port powers include important provisions such as the examination, searching and detention of passengers, and we believe that it is right that they should become subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.
The Government have considered very carefully my noble friend's recommendation that the police powers at ports should be extended to ports which handle traffic which comes from outside the common travel area as well. The police already have the crucial powers to examine and detain people at any port in the United Kingdom in order to establish whether they are involved in terrorism. There is a small number of police powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act which apply only at ports which are used by people travelling within the common travel area. Powers under the Immigration Act 1971 provide a substantial measure of control at ports which are not covered by the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and we are not at present convinced that there is a case for extending police powers at these ports.
We see merit also in my noble friend's proposal that the procedures which apply to people in police custody in England and Wales under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act should also apply to those who are detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We are considering how best this recommendation might be implemented without compromising police investigations.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already announced the Government's conclusion that they cannot accept my noble friend's recommendation that the exclusion power should not
568
be retained. The Government recognise that this is a severe power, restricting as it does the free movement of a person within his own country, and as such it is not used lightly. But until an alternative means is found of giving the public the degree of protection which is currently provided by exclusion, the Government believe that the power must stay.
My noble friend suggests that Section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act could usefully be extended to cover international terrorism, and that there should be further exploration of other means of acting against terrorist funds. The question of attacking the sources of terrorist finances is complex but the Government accept that they should look very carefully at how it might be possible to extend the existing provisions along the lines which are proposed.
The measures which I have outlined will form the basis of the Bill which the Government will introduce and which will replace the existing Act when it expires in March 1989. The contents of the Bill are subject to further consideration, but I thought that it was only right to give your Lordships an idea of the Government's thinking about the future of this legislation as your Lordships consider the renewal of the 1984 Act for the last time.
I hope that my noble friend's account of the use which was made of the powers under this Act will reassure your Lordships that they are exercised properly and with due regard to their special nature. The Government believe that this legislation should remain in force only if Parliament is satisfied that it continues to be necessary. I commend the draft order to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th January be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
7.42 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I make no apology and I do not think that the House would expect one, for asking the House to give the gravest possible consideration to the annual renewal and continuance of the legislation asked for by the order before your Lordships.
Before I address myself to the very important elements of freedom of the subject and breaches of our constitutional law, perhaps I may make two points abundantly clear. The first is by way of a protest which I hope I can make courteously in regard to a matter to which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has already referred. We are supposed to consider these matters in the light of the annual review. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who has already been thanked by the Minister for his work in the review of the operation of the Act itself. deserves thanks, I am sure, for the work he put in in regard to the annual review for 1987. The review arrived in the Printed Paper Office while I was waiting for it precisely five minutes ago. That matter ought to be looked into very closely. Those of your Lordships participating in this debate—and I am included in that number—have had to read through that report with a rapidity which quite obviously does not do it justice.
My second point is one that I wish to make very clearly from these Benches. I imagine that there is

569
nobody in your Lordships' House who, in any way at all, will wish to defend acts of terrorists or do anything but safeguard our citizens from such dreadful deeds and murderous enterprises. That is a matter on which there will be unanimity in your Lordships' House. However, we have to balance the threat to the security of our citizens and their homes against the invasion of our centuries-old liberties, which are dealt with most peculiarly and extraordinarily under the legislation we are now considering.
Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to quote the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in regard to the effect of this legislation, for example, on our Irish fellow citizens in this country and Northern Ireland and on the Irish in southern Ireland. On page 36, at paragraph 7.2 of his scrutiny of the operation of this Act in 1986 he says:
"The Prevention of Terrorism Act is extremely unpopular with the Irish community in Great Britain and, as with all the emergency legislation, in Northern Ireland too".
He goes on to say:
"I heard from one staunch republican who denies the right of Westminster to legislate for the Province at all. Others denounce terrorism, whether domestic or international, but say the legislation has cast a blight over the Irish population in Great Britain and is counter-productive in Northern Ireland because amongst other things it alienates the population and discourages the public from any attempt to help in rooting out terrorism. It creates martyrs and tends to cause misplaced sympathy for people who on any rational view have committed terrible crimes. It is not for me to advise whether it would be possible to abolish all emergency legislation in Northern Ireland and rely on the ordinary criminal law, but it is a suggestion seriously made to me".
One comes to consider the situation in 1988 in the light of the report made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in respect of the operation of the Act during 1987 and indeed all previous years. When one comes to consider that report I should like to remind your Lordships of what I endeavoured to say in the debate in your Lordships' House on 19th February 1987. I introduced that matter by quoting what the then Minister of State at the Home Office, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said when introducing a similar order to the one that we are now considering. He said:
"The Government welcome the opportunity provided by the annual review, and by the debates on the continuance order in this House and in another place, for a thorough scrutiny of this legislation. The Government believe it should only remain on the statute book if Parliament is satisfied both that the powers it gives continue to be necessary, and that they are being properly used".—[Official Report, 19;2/87; col. 1241.]
On that occasion, in regard to that remark, I said:
"Again on this occasion especially I ask the noble Earl to consult his right honourable friend and say whether, in their joint view, it is consistent with what is repeatedly said year by year, that we should consider these powers and pass them only if necessary, if we have no opportunity whatever of dealing with the powers separately". —[Official Report, 19/2/87; col 1242.]
That is extremely material on this occasion because the Government have accepted in their wisdom a recommendation to which I wish to refer in a moment; namely, that we should have a permanent Act on the statute book dealing with the powers of the Government and other authorities in regard to fighting terrorism.
In that selfsame report there were two recommendations in the main that the Government have seen fit not to accept. They are in regard to exclusion orders,
570
and Section 11 of the Act that deals with the offence of withholding information. Perhaps I may immediately refer to the passages of the report which deal with the question of exclusion orders. I am looking at the review of the operation. At page 37, paragraph 11.1.2, the report quotes what the Secretary of State can do by way of making an exclusion order. It states:
"The Secretary of State may make an exclusion order against any person who he is satisfied (a) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts of terrorism: or (b) is attempting or may attempt to enter Great Britain or Northern Ireland with a view to being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts of terrorism".
If noble Lords refer to page 38 they will see the statistics for new orders made in Great Britain. In 1985 there were seven; in 1986 there were nine; in 1987 to 30th June there were 12. The figures for Northern Ireland are at the bottom of that page. In 1985 no orders were made; in 1986 no orders were made; in 1987 to 30th June one order was made.
I turn to the case against exclusion, which is contained at page 39. I intend to quote only from the first part of paragraph 11.4.1, which states:
"Exclusion orders deprive certain people of the right to move freely around the United Kingdom and to live where they please. The evidence against them is not tested in a court of law nor made known to the person excluded and it is possible that some of it may be inaccurate".
At page 40 there is the assessment, from which I quote at paragraph 11.6.1. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, says:
"I renew my recommendation, made in the annual report on the Act for 1986, that Part II of the Act should not be renewed in 1988, or not replaced in the new Bill. The Home Secretary announced earlier this year that after careful consideration he had decided it would not now be wise to discontinue this power. I recognise that the alternative is a hard decision, but I express the view that it would be the correct one both in terms of civil rights in the United Kingdom and this country's reputation in that respect among the International Community".
I address myself to the Minister and ask him this. First, is it not regrettable that again this year we are in no position to say that we approve of the order continuing the terms of the Act but we disapprove, for example, of this right of internal exile, as it has been called? We have no such power to do so in this House in spite of the fact that we have called for such measures as would enable us to do so when the Act came up for renewal as it does under the order today. I again make that protest to the Minister. I also say this to him. Will he kindly tell the House the reason why—after two years of labours in looking at the situation in Northern Ireland, and in general in regard to terrorism—the Government are not accepting this recommendation.
I turn to another recommendation made in the report with regard to Section 11 of the Act. At page 50 of the report, after dealing with Section 11 of the Act, it describes the power under that Act as follows:
"if a person has information which he knows or believes might be of material assistance in preventing an act of terrorism or securing the arrest, prosecution or conviction of a person for a terrorist act, it is an offence for him to fail without reasonable excuse to disclose that information as soon as reasonably practicable to the police".
After dealing with previous objections to the inclusion of that offence in the Act, on page 51 at paragraph 15.1.3, the noble Viscount says this:
"There does not appear to me to be anything special in withholding information about terrorism. If the police seek to pre-empt a terrorist

571
attack, they can detain principal or subordinate personnel under Section 12 for questioning. The existence of an offence of withholding information provides at that stage no more than a point of pressure".
Later in that paragraph he states:
"I am recommending elsewhere that a core of anti-terrorist legislation should be made permanent. So long as the Act was 'temporary' there may have been justification for retaining Section 11. For any other purpose, the law should not make peculiar provisions for terrorism. It should apply to all serious crime, and particular regard should be had to any conflict with the common law in Scotland".
Again I say to the Minister what a shame it is—indeed, what a disgrace it is—that this House has no opportunity of saying to the Minister that this order should be continued but again Section 11 should disappear from the Act as an offence.
Perhaps I may make this general observation before I sit down. Parliament has the very treasured duty of safeguarding principles of our criminal law, the liberty of subject, and human rights that have been enshrined in our law for many a long day. Even in difficult times such as we have experienced with the acts of terrorism, both international and in Ireland, Parliament obviously has the duty of seeing that those rights, privileges and liberties are sustained if they possibly can be. They ought only to be infringed as a temporary measure where an emergency exists.
We on these Benches can see no reason at all why the annual review should not continue in the same way that it has done—except that procedural provision should be made for our being able to debate the various powers and offences under the Act, to see whether they should be reviewed. We believe it is a retrograde step to think in terms of any permanent legislation, especially at a time when tempers have been unnecessarily inflamed in Dublin, quite apart from Northern Ireland, by recent decisions of the Government that we on this side of the House have deprecated: namely, not to hold a public inquiry into the offences that were quite obviously committed by some minority members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
To make an announcement of permanent legislation at this time is—if one wants to be kind about it—an act of supreme tactlessness. If one wants to be unkind about it, then it is an act of supreme lack of diplomacy.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I totally disapprove of making the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act a permanent Act. I believe it will appear that we have given up and have actually thrown in the towel. It will be seen as a retreat; that we have failed and that will be a fillip to terrorism. I believe it would be far better to step up the anti-terrorist profile and show our people we are determined to root out terrorism.
Also, the timing of this announcement is a classic example of psychological silliness and insensitivity. I prefer the annual review as at present—a parliamentary debate that brings the Government to account. It also offers the hope that as we succeed against terrorism the provisions in the order will be eased and gradually removed from the statute book. That hope, which is the main aim of the annual debate, may well go. Permanency will overrule, and
572
the declared permanency of temporary provisions will be indicative of our failure to defeat the terrorists.
The renewal of the order dealing with the prevention of terrorism has my approval. The powers contained in the order will be required for at least the next 12 months, as the Government initially requested. We must not forget that the objective of terrorism is usually to bring about political change by means of terrorising peoples and governments and through intimidation by bomb and by bullet, hoping to weaken the democratic will and effect a ruthless, military-style takeover.
One method is to create such a backlash against the forces of law and order that the democratic government of the day appear to be so dictatorially oppressive that they help win support for the terrorist cause. That situation must be avoided, and that is why orders to help prevent terrorism must be subject to democratic scrutiny before approval.
I should like to deal with this order in the context of Northern Ireland, although it applies also to the activities of international terrorists. Members of the Provisional IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army visit Britain in their various guises. They are observed at the Irish exits and at the entry points to Britain; namely, ports and airports. They visit friends and relatives, mingle with football spectators at west coast football matches, attend boxing matches in London and other sporting occasions, and occasionally divert en route to leave a message at a covert drop, awaken a "sleeper" here and there, assemble an active service unit, collect and store bomb-making equipment, establish safe houses, and so on.
All the time there is in our midst some terrorist activity taking place by Irish terrorist groups and their friends in Great Britain. Constant surveillance is therefore absolutely necessary, and the maintenance of emergency provisions is an arm of the law that must be continued.
Our security and intelligence forces manning the airports and seaports of Northern Ireland and Great Britain must have the right, and the backing of Parliament, to watch all the faces, to track suspects' movements, and to recognise the "mug shots" of wanted men, especially those who manage to remain free after the mass escape from the Maze prison, that college of high learning in Irish nationalism, military discipline and terrorist activity. Yet even some of those men have escaped the net.
When we hear or read of some outcry concerning one or more persons being held at a port in Northern Ireland or Great Britain who protest their innocence (and they may well be innocent), we must recognise that the prevention orders in operation may cause some nuisance and inconvenience and that some libertarians may rise in anger at such intrusion into our peaceful and democratic way of life.
I do not complain when such people say our civil liberties are being breached again. I consider this: what if, among those persons that the Special Branch has held, there are a couple of people who wanted to effect a post drop, awaken a sleeper or activate an active service unit? In the time that those suspects can be held under the emergency provisions and

573
prevention of terrorism legislation, it will become a failed mission. If there is insufficient evidence to prefer charges then, their return home or their objective having been frustrated their mission will have failed.
No doubt that has happened time and time again. There is no telling how many lives have been saved. Some completely innocent people may have been held with them, perhaps having been used as a shroud when only one in a group of travellers was a suspect. That is the price we must pay when terrorism and terrorists abound within our shores.
It is also important to understand that the Prevention of Terrorism Act and legislation extending detention have given police time to check forensic evidence they may have concerning fingerprints on guns or on bomb-making equipment and to match it in the time available. I ask your Lordships not to relax those laws this year. They are just as important now as at the time of their inception. There may be fewer terrorists in total but there are proportionately more hard-line, callous men.
In the light of all that I have said. I ask my colleagues also not to parley with Sinn Fein. That organisation and its councillors are the political agents of the Provo terrorists. I am aware that meetings have taken place, and still do. A number of Sinn Fein councillors are former Maze men. They are not ordinary criminals as we understand them. Having served a sentence and wiped the slate clean, they have been retrained, rested, refurbished, and are now more political too. Let us not be kidded by their political activity, with which they attempt to cloak their terrorism.
It is not just a ballot box and bullet policy now, frightening though that is. It is now the ballot box and mass slaughter—Enniskillen being the most recent example. Since the humiliation of Sinn Fein in the Republic elections it is clear that the hawks in the Provisional IRA have now been given a free rein; hence their attempts to import more sophisticated weapons of war and to raise the profile of terrorist activity. That is another particularly strong reason to maintain anti-terrorist provisions.
To defeat the terrorists there is a price to pay. There is the inconvenience, irritation, annoyance with police and Special Branch Officers, and the curtailment of our total freedom and civil liberties. But to combat evil men we must maintain the full legal armoury that Parliament has decreed should be available, and that is what I urge my party and this House to do.
From my experience as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for almost three years, and from the protected life I lead—I know what the loss of privacy really means—I am left in no doubt that active service units still operate and are activated within our shores. Therefore the utmost vigilance is absolutely essential. Our security forces must be backed to the hilt, without cavil or complaint, because I believe that our freedom and security are in their hands.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I apologise for failing to list my name as one of those wishing to take part in the debate. I have explained the position to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I should like to join with my noble friends who have already spoken in expressing appreciation of the difficult and extremely tortuous task undertaken by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. It was a difficult task to review this politically unsavoury legislation. I understand from his report, and from people from whom he received representations and views, that he made every effort to inform himself of the ramifications and implications arising from the operations of this PTA legislation. I am convinced that he did not put forward his report and proposals without giving considerable thought and care to the outcome for the community and to the possible political consequences.
The outcome of this renewal order and the proposed further legislation, and of the pending debate in another place, have received wide media coverage. That has not been unexpected. Throughout the United Kingdom there has been a growing public anxiety about the serious rise in organised terrorism, especially about the availability and use of sophisticated new technological weaponry and devices with lethal results for the security personnel and the general public. There is no doubt that in Northern Ireland there has been a build-up of such deadly equipment. It has been used with murderous intent against those responsible for the maintenance of law and order and to the imperilling of the life and safety of ordinary citizens going about their daily business.
I am concerned about the further enactment of this legislation, as are other noble Lords and responsible and peaceable citizens. I am unhappy about the territorial application of the inclusion orders. I am also concerned about some of the difficulties experienced by the overlap between the PTA and the emergency provisions Act, especially the difficulties as regards proscribed organisations.
I am pleased to learn from the Minister that the new arrangements for legislation will be considered in more detail and, it is hoped, will provide for a continuous scrutiny and review of the legislation. I hope that the provisions may allow for annual debate with amendments to the new legislation to be considered. I join with my noble friends Lord Mishcon, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, and Lord Mason in their general concern about the stamp of permanency on the legislation. I hope that any consideration will give the lie to the idea that this is a no-hope situation.
Finally, in considering the order and whatever may arise from the renewal arrangements, I am compelled to take into consideration the situation in Northern Ireland. I am well aware that this legislation is concerned not only with terrorism in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom and internationally. I should like to voice my agreement with the words spoken by Archbishop Eames at the memorial service held last Sunday in St. Anne's Cathedral in Belfast for the killed RUC officers and other security personnel. He said:

575
"There is no alternative to a police service answerable to the community it serves and protects. There is no substitute for a constitutional police force serving the whole community with integrity, courage and devotion. There is no alternative to a police service that is seen to have only one enemy—those who challenge law and order".
As with most people in Northern Ireland, my hopes are for a peaceable and prosperous community. Along with other law-abiding citizens, I fear not the police nor the rule of law but, sadly, I live in fear of the terrorist and a community dominated by ruthless paramilitaries. For those reasons I support my noble friend Lord Mishcon and I do not oppose the renewal of this 1988 PTA order.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am not sure that your Lordships should pass this order tonight. In previous years my noble friend Lord Henderson and I have complained about the delay in the provision of the annual report. I did not know that it was available—although I ought to have guessed—until my noble friend Lord Mishcon mentioned it. I then went to the Printed Paper Office, where I was told that it had been received a few minutes before. My noble friend Lord Henderson had not seen it either. It is a major failure and it is outrageous that this House should be asked to pass the order without having had the benefit of considering the report. However, I have read enough of it to say that the important subject for discussion is the main review carried out by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I should like to congratulate him.
It is worth recalling that governments in difficulty always carry out a review. I had to undertake that in the days of the Labour Government; the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, had to undertake that; now the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, has done so. The noble Viscount's report is far and away the most thorough, far-reaching and valuable and we are grateful to him for it.
However, I am not satisfied. If noble Lords think that we should continue with the previous procedure I can say only that in my judgment it is very unsatisfactory. It is absurd that we are debating a major issue such as this, with all the points and recommendations in front of us, when we do not have time, when we cannot move effective amendments and when we devote only an hour late in the day.
I shall not enter into the arguments as regards the new permanent Act. It is not quite as bad as we were afraid it might be, because there will be an annual order. I assume that there will be an order and that it will be possible to discuss the workings of the Act in a way that has not been possible. Perhaps the noble Earl can comment on that in his reply.
I have supported this from the beginning and I still support it except with regard to one matter. I am not convinced about the question of exclusion. I should like to hear that issue properly debated, but we cannot do so. I appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about that matter. Incidentally, I should like to congratulate him on becoming Deputy Leader. In that capacity he has particular responsibility for the welfare of this House and for the conduct of its affairs. I hope he will take this matter seriously and
576
ensure that there will be reasonable opportunities for debate. We shall have the Act, which will be fully debated, and in future years we shall have an order. Will it be possible in that order to drop major provisions from the Act? As I understand it, we could be doing that today if the Government were inclined so to do.
I am amazed that the Government are still persevering with Section 11. I objected to it strongly in my first inquiry. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, accepted that it should continue. We now have this thorough investigation with more powerful reasons than I put forward. I merely said that the provisions stank and did not state the reasons as given by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I appeal to the Government seriously to consider dropping Section 11 and the provision of a penalty if one does not give information, which does not apply in Scotland, as we have been told, or in other parts of the criminal law.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley. We need this or similar legislation. I hope that the Government will pay rather more attention to making provision for adequate discussion when the new legislation is introduced in future years. There is a great deal of concern. Those of us who have gone into the matter thoroughly are convinced that it is necessary, but many people are not convinced. It is for Parliament to discuss this, to hear the arguments and then to make a decision.
I wonder about the need for a permanent Act. I really do not see the argument for it. I fully accept that the legislation will have to go on for many years yet. As I understand it, we do not have a permanent army Act. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, could tell me that. I do not know whether the Government will have a permanent army Act in future. This is a little unwise, and I hope that the Government will think further when they bring in the new legislation. There should be clear provision for making changes so that we do not go through this farcical procedure again.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like briefly to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. on his fine report. We have all had the benefit of reading it. It was published before Christmas. I regret most bitterly, with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the report of the noble Viscount for 1987 was in our hands only about an hour ago. I note that the 1987 report is dated 2nd February so the noble Viscount cannot be blamed for this. Why it has taken from 2nd February to 7.30 p.m. on 16th February for the report to reach us, I am at a loss to understand.
In the letter introducing the report, the noble Viscount says to the Secretary of State in words that ring rather hollow:
"I hope that it will be useful to both Houses of Parliament when they debate the renewal order".
How useful can it be when one receives it after the Minister has moved the annual renewal?
I must say this also to the noble Earl. Lord Ferrers, whom I congratulate on becoming Deputy Leader of the House: when this quinquennial Act was passed,

577
an undertaking was given that there would be a full report on each year's activity under the Act in time for the annual debate. I had discussions, as I am sure did the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, with the then Leader of the House. We made representations that the annual report should be a Command Paper so that it should appear in time and properly printed in sequence with other important state papers. It was represented to us that it would not be possible to print It in time to be numbered in the command series if it was to deal properly with the year preceding the annual renewal. We therefore settled for a report in the kind of format that we now have in our hands, but only on the understanding that it would be available in plenty of time for the annual debate. That undertaking has clearly been breached. That is an important and regrettable breach of a parliamentary undertaking.
That said, I join other noble Lords in expressing my deep disappointment that it has not been possible to dispense with exclusion orders and. for that matter, with the offence of withholding information. I remember that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in his report said that he found consideration of the system of exclusion to be the most difficult part of his work and that exclusion was in many ways the most extreme of the Act's powers. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, recommended its discontinuance, and the Home Secretary has turned down the suggestion that it should be dispensed with, no doubt for very good reasons. I cannot help but say that in future one must have the opportunity to question the Government each year and to propose in Parliament the discontinuation of exclusion orders. If not, the annual debates will have no reality.
I ask the noble Earl whether he will convey to the Secretary of State the feeling of the House that we are very anxious about the proposal permanently to renew these important provisions. I say this for two reasons. One has already been well covered by the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, and other noble Lords. There is no need for me to dilate upon it. However, now seems to me to be not the opportune moment, to say the least, to make such an announcement.
Secondly, and for just as important reasons, I would say that for parliamentary and constitutional propriety this should not be done. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, I strongly support these terrorist regulations. Of course they are necessary. I would not wish them to be dispensed with for one moment. But are they to have parliamentary control? After all, the constitutional settlement, which is now 300 years old, determined that the army Act should be annual. If the army Acts are to be annual—they were until shortly after the last war, when they were made quinquennial, although annually renewable—surely important legislation such as this, which infringes civil liberties to a very dire extent, should also be quinquennial and subject to annual renewal.
Those were the proposals of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. In the report he suggested—and the Government agreed—assimilating the parliamentary provisions of the Armed Forces Act and the parliamentary provisions of the terrorism legislation.
578
That seemed to me exactly right and just. Quite recently the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in an article in The Times drew attention to the importance in a parliamentary democracy of the Government's duty to observe parliamentary decencies and procedures. If Parliament requires the Armed Forces Act to exist only for a quinquennium, surely Parliament's view, which should be respected, is that the terrorism legislation should be considered likewise and not on a permanent basis.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, I must express concern about the renewal of the Act and the proposals to enshrine it in permanent legislation. I should like to pick out what I believe to be two of its most obnoxious provisions. The first, which has been mentioned by many noble Lords, is the exclusion order. It is a fundamental interference with human rights. We are trying to set an example. Our Foreign Secretary is in Moscow talking to people who are not allowed to leave their home country, yet we are approving continuation of a provision preventing citizens of this country from travelling freely round it, and we are doing so in the face of a recommendation from the Government's own adviser that the exclusion order is no longer required.
The second objectionable provision to which I wish to draw attention is the provision for detention for up to seven days under Section 12 of the Act. We now have one and a half years' experience—certainly over a year—of the workings of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which allows detention of suspects up to 96 hours subject to particular safeguards, including the appearance before a magistrate. However, subject to a magistrate's approval there can be detention for up to 96 hours.
Reading the provisions, people have been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act but they can only be detained because they are suspected of being involved in crime; that is, acts of terrorism. Very few have been detained for more than 48 hours. The figures for 1987 total 19. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, does not specify how many were detained for more than 96 hours. I wonder whether he and the Government inquired as to what proportion of those detained could properly and legally have been detained under existing legislation without the need for the much more draconian provisions of the Act. The powers are not needed and if it had been possible to amend the order to have the exclusion of those two objectionable provisions I would have wished to do so.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, may I say at the outset that, to put it as politely as possible, he has slightly overstated the case when he makes a comparison between the exclusion orders under this Act and the way in which political detainees are treated in the Soviet Union. His case is not strengthened by overstatements of that nature. I do not believe that that part of his contribution deserves a great deal of respect in the House.

579
However, on one issue I think we are probably all agreed; that is, that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has perfomed an outstanding service to the House and to the Home Office in carrying out this very thorough review. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and nearly everyone else, in expressing my substantial disquiet that this report was not made available until only a few moments before this debate commenced. After someone has worked as thoroughly as the noble Viscount, travelling to all parts of the United Kingdom conducting, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, probably the most thorough review possible of this legislation that has ever taken place, it seems little short of astonishing that these documents did not appear until just before we commenced this debate. If I did not know the Home Office to be a department which—and the noble Viscount will agree with me as we both served in it—does its best always to be courteous one would assume it was almost a studied act of discourtesy. I very much hope that following the observations made by a number of noble Lords we will receive an absolute guarantee that this problem will not arise on any future occasion.
This year's debate is taking place in a very different atmosphere from those which we have had on previous occasions. There are perhaps two reasons for that. The first is undoubtedly the suggestion made on television last night and in some of this morning's newspapers that the Government were proposing to make this temporary provisions Act permanent legislation. Admittedly it is clear that some of the worst fears that exercised some of us last evening and this morning have not been realised, because it is now obvious that we are at least to have the opportunity of a debate on the annual renewal order. However, I still question the desirability of making this permanent legislation.
I speak as one who broadly supports the general attitude of the Government on this whole question. But when there is serious disquiet expressed in many parts of' the House about particular features of this legislation, the idea that we shall be deprived of the opportunity of having detailed discussion of this legislation every four or five years seems to me unacceptable and I very much hope that the Home Secretary, his advisers and his colleagues in the Government will review the matter. If they do not they will, I believe, stir up a true hornets' nest.
The second reason why I believe that this debate is taking place in a very different atmosphere is the apparent impact of the announcement last night, repeated in this morning's newspapers, on Anglo-Irish relations. Following the whole series of problems created by the Stalker affair and at a time when it appears that serious problems are being encountered by the Attorney-General in obtaining the agreement of the Irish authorities to extradition arrangements it seems to me, to put it as mildly as possible, a very strange day to make an announcement of this character.
I do not want make heavy weather of the issue because the timing of policy announcements is a matter of considerable sensitivity and there may be more plausible arguments for the Government's
580
decision than appear obvious to us. Nevertheless, I find it odd and, coming after a whole series of other problems in relation to Ireland, a most unfortunate business.
The issues involved in this order raise questions involving the safety of the public at a time when there is a continuing threat of Irish-related terrorism (and as the noble Viscount's report makes clear, international terrorism too) and also our civil liberties. The first issue before us is obviously whether this order should be renewed and it is clear from the speeches made that it will be. I agree with that. The House will recall that the legislation of 1974 on which this order is broadly based received Royal Assent only eight days after the Birmingham public house bombings in November of that year. At that time I was Minister of State at the Home Office and my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead was Home Secretary. Certainly we had no doubt that the legislation would have an effect on the civil liberties of a number of our fellow citizens. Indeed, we said so during the passage of the legislation. However, we believed that its enactment was vital if we were to protect the lives of many of our fellow citizens; and so it proved.
I dealt at that time with some of the first applications for exclusion orders. There were many in the first months after the enactment of that legislation. I had no doubt, nor did my noble friend, that on the evidence before us, had those exclusion order powers not been included in that legislation many people in this country would have died. There is no doubt that at that time we cleared out of this country a number of extremely dangerous men and women who were involved in the organisation of terrorism in this country. When serious concern is expressed about the exclusion order powers it is necessary to realise what the consequences would have been if we had not had them.
I now turn to the issue of port controls, dealt with in paragraph 3.1.5. of the noble Viscount's report. Only a few days after the passage of that legislation 1974—indeed the day after it received Royal Assent—I remember going to Liverpool to watch the Merseyside police bringing those port controls into effect and for the first time cross-examining a significant number of passengers disembarking from ships in Liverpool. I do not doubt, and I did not doubt at the time, that many of those people bitterly resented the fact that they were questioned. I have no doubt that when they were delayed, as some were for a significant period, they were even more angry. However, in view of the terrorist threat I believe we were right to do it and like the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, I believe that those controls at our airports and seaports remain absolutely vital.
The terrorist threat to this country remains substantial. I believe it would be foolish to remove those controls, which act as a significant deterrent to the travelling terrorist. That is a view held by all the senior police officers who deal with our counterterrorist arrangements in this country and, again, I agree with them.
I close with one important and sensitive issue. The Home Secretary has decided not to implement or adopt a very important recommendation of the noble

581
Viscount which relates to exclusions. As I have indicated, I believe that when they were introduced they were vital. The noble Viscount has reviewed the matter and, in the light of the different situation which now faces us, has come to a different conclusion. He adopted the same attitude in the last report that he submitted to the Home Secretary and was equally unsuccessful on that occasion. The noble Viscount has accepted in his report that there was unanimous police opposition to his proposal both by the Association of Chief Police Officers and by the Association of Scottish Chief Police Officers. He also accepted that recommendations for exclusion orders were processed with the greatest care by the Home Office, and I am sure that that remains the situation.
I am sure that many of my noble friends agree with the noble Viscount. I found it exceedingly difficult to come to a conclusion on this matter but on balance, speaking for myself, I came down on the same side as the Home Secretary. For the moment I believe the power is desirable but I would be deepy concerned were we not to have the opportunity of regular debate on this issue at a time when many responsible Members of this House and Members of another place take a contrary view. That is the case for regular review by Parliament and I hope the noble Earl will take account of that view and the whole range of issues involved in the idea of having permanent legislation. I believe I have made my position and the position of my colleagues clear. We believe the present order should be renewed, which is essential given the terrorist threat facing this country. I am sure that the House will agree with that conclusion.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships who have spoken for the general support which has been given to this draft order. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was kind enough to congratulate me on becoming Deputy Leader of the House of Lords and to say that it was part of my business to ensure that your Lordships are happy.
I detect—one does not have to be very clever to detect—that your Lordships were not particularly happy with one aspect of this matter this evening. I am sorry that a matter as sensitive as the one we are discussing tonight should have had the jolt which it has had by noble Lords not having to hand the report of my noble friend Lord Colville. In fact, the Command Paper was in the Printed Paper Office on 9th December and the report was placed in the Library on 8th February, so it has been available. I realise it was not available in the Printed Paper Office. Inquiries I have made indicate that 25 copies which were sent over by my department to the Printed Paper Office were for some reason not there. I will conduct inquiries to discover what went wrong.
Nevertheless, the fact is that they were in the Library. I even answered a Written Parliamentary Question on 8th February from my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux in which I said:
"My right honourable friend has received the report from Viscount Colville of Culross on the operation of the Act in 1987 and copies have been placed in the Library".— [Official Report, 8/2/88; col. 94.]
582
Therefore, they have been in your Lordships' House but I realise that they were not where your Lordships expected them to be and can only apologise profusely for the fact that something has gone astray. I shall endeavour to find out why and to ensure that that does not happen again.
It is unfortunate that a matter as sensitive as this should have had such an unhappy start. However, I am grateful to your Lordships for what has been said. I should like to take up the main point at issue and the main point of concern; that is, this matter being described as permanent legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the timing, and I think his words were that at best it was tactlessness and at worst a supreme lack of diplomacy.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, who was himself a distinguished Secretary of State for Northern Ireland — I was glad to hear him say this—said that we should not relax against the terrorists now, but on referring to the timing of this said it was silliness and insensitivity. Other noble Lords have also been concerned about that. I want to make this perfectly clear because there is a slight dilemma and a sense of misunderstanding. This is a law which at present requires renewal every year and is under an Act which lasts for five years. Next year it is intended that there should be a similar Act. The Act itself may be of a more permanent nature — in other words, it does not have a specific end to it —but the content of that Act will be subject to parliamentary approval each year.
The dilemma is this. Either one produces a Bill for consideration every year or one has a Bill, like most Bills, which is in operation until Parliament decides to repeal the law. We have tried a third alternative, which is to have a Bill which becomes an Act of Parliament but which is renewable every year. We have tried to do that in view of the fact that this is a particularly sensitive issue.
Therefore when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in the way that he has of being extremely courteous but firing an Exocet at the same time, refers to this as a supreme lack of diplomacy, I can only say that if we are going to have Parliament approve an order every year, it means that there is a timescale. The timescale is that the new order has to be in by 22nd March. The undertaking given by the Government was that Parliament should have a month in advance of that time to discuss it. Therefore along come the Government. They produce a draft order for discussion by your Lordships and they are described as being insensitive, silly and lacking in diplomacy.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister, who is extremely courteous but is also extremely able in debate, remembers what is in fact the complaint. The complaint was not that the order was coming before the House at this moment but was about the announcement that temporary legislation was to be replaced by permanent legislation. In case he believes that I am peculiarly unkind from this Front Bench, which of course is quite inaccurate, I refer him to today's article on the front page of The Times which states:
"It is a move that will further exacerbate relations between Dublin and London which have already been severely strained in recent weeks by the Stalker affair and the failure of the appeal of the Birmingham public house bombers".

583
I do not think that The Times is unfair to the Government, but that was its reaction to the announcement about the permanent legislation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is as usual courteous. In fact the newspapers and indeed the BBC got it wrong. What will happen is precisely what is happening now. There will be legislation as there is now, a similar kind of legislation, but that legislation will be renewable every single year as it is now. When the Bill comes before your Lordships then the whole panoply of the contents of the Bill can be considered. I really think that it is misrepresenting what is happening when the inference is that this legislation will be permanent and immutable. Even my noble friend Lord Colville—I say "even"; I should leave that word out. My noble friend Lord Colville has said that it is unreasonable to assume that the problem of terrorism will go away. If the problem of terrorism does not go away the Government have a right and a duty to bring in legislation to protect citizens against it.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked whether we could discuss the workings of the Act. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made this point clearly too. He wanted to be able to discuss various aspects of the Act. It is possible to discuss all aspects of the Act under a regulation, but the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, knows full well what the parliamentary procedures are. If an Act requires renewal, it is done by order. My understanding is that it is proper and usual for there to be one order. If there is concern about the contents of the Act the Government can remove various aspects of the Act in the order which they lay.
It is true that it is more difficult for noble Lords to remove parts of the Act by the order because the order has to be accepted as a whole or not at all. Of course if the worst were to happen the House would be perfectly justified in saying that it would not accept the order as it was. It could be renewed on another occasion. I am not inviting the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has suddenly perked up with interest at that prospect, to follow that course, but I am saying that Parliament has the right to say, "We will not accept the order as it is at the moment. Take it away and bring it back in a different form". Parliament has that capacity.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, a second and I hope a final intervention which the noble Earl has so politely allowed me to make: he knows as well as I do that there is a convention that the Opposition do not oppose orders that are brought in this way. If that were not the convention, I might, with some of my noble friends, have had to take a certain course tonight. I do not want our attitude to be misunderstood. We are obeying the convention.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord for explaining that and for obeying, as he puts it, the convention. I would rather have said that he was following the convention. I shall certainly take account of the real points of concern which have come from all parts of the House this evening.
584
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also referred to the effects of the order on the Irish population. I hope that the Irish population will understand that the Act is not aimed at law-abiding citizens in Ireland or in Britain. It is aimed at protecting us all from the scourge of terrorism, wherever it comes from, whether it be from Irish terrorists or international terrorists.
The noble Lords, Lord Gifford and Lord Mishcon, referred to the problems of exclusion, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I was glad that he said that, recognising the problems, he nevertheless felt that on balance the Government were right to include the exclusion provisions. I understand the strength of feeling on this issue, because it is a tough measure and views differ. Exclusion is a severe power, but, as my noble friend Lord Colville acknowledges in his main review, there is at present no alternative means of giving the public the same degree of protection which the existence of this power provides. The Government have accepted a number of recommendations which will improve the administrative arrangements for exclusion in a number of respects. I hope that that will be of advantage.
The noble Lords, Lord Shackleton, Lord Gifford and Lord Mishcon, were concerned about Section 11. The Government have considered this proposal very carefully. In the exceptional case of terrorism, where lives may be at stake if a person does not disclose a vital piece of information, it seems to the Government right that it should be an offence to withhold information. The police believe that the power has value and it is proposed that that provision should be retained. Under Section 11 it is not an offence to fail to disclose information about one's own activities. The offence is to fail to disclose information about the activities of other people.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, referred to the powers of the police. The police may become aware of plans for a terrorist attack but the information may be insufficient to link it to a specific offence or an attempted offence, and to let events unfold until the point at which it is possible to make an arrest under the ordinary criminal law would be to risk a bomb going off or possibly even an individual being shot. The police must have the power to detain on reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism in order to thwart a terrorist attack.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, surely in those circumstances the police would have reasonable suspicion of the existence of a conspiracy to commit an explosion. They have the powers under the existing law. I hope that before we debate it next year the noble Earl will look into that aspect of the matter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall certainly look into it because it is a very important matter and these penalties are severe. All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is that we realise these particular difficulties. We believe that it is right to continue these powers for the safety of the people as a whole, but I realise that there are drawbacks to which the noble Lord has reasonably referred.

585
Some noble Lords have referred to various points which I have not answered. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, referred to a no-hope situation in regard to this new legislation. It is not a question of a no-hope situation. It is a question of a reality. Terrorism is the use of violence to instil fear and thereby to extract concessions. Terrorists seek to achieve a political goal by intimidation, wherever that terrorism comes from. A principal means to this end is to demonstrate that the state cannot guarantee the safety of ordinary people. A secondary aim is to provoke the Government and the security forces into over-reacting. It is a difficult and delicate balance and the trap must be avoided. The measures that are taken must be effective but they must not be so severe that they risk losing the confidence and support of the public. I hope that we have the prevention of terrorism legislation correct and that it meets both these criteria. I realise that it is sensitive and I shall certainly stake into account all that your Lordships have said this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
9 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 28 [Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 72, I should say that if this amendment were to be agreed, I could not call Amendments Nos. 75, 77 and 78.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 28, leave out lines 29 and 30.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment would restrict the operation of Clause 28 to schools. Most Members of the House will have their own views, perhaps very individual views, about this difficult problem, which arouses such poignant feelings. I shall quickly state my own background. For many years I have been haunted by the problem, which will not go away whatever is decided tonight, of being kind, tolerant and fair to homosexuals without actively encouraging homosexuality among the young. That remains a basic problem. No one can get around it, but we must try to cope with it in an enlightened way.
Thirty years ago I opened a debate in the House in favour of the Wolfenden report, which at that time, I am sorry to say, another place would not touch with a bargepole because it was far too sensitive a matter. However, I opened that debate. I still think that I was on the right lines because 10 years later legislation followed, although not as a result of my efforts.
>At the end of 1986, I spoke in favour of a Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in an attempt to curb the excesses of some local authorities. At that time — I do not mean to recriminate — the Government were indifferent and somewhat hostile, or at any rate unfriendly, to that Bill. Now, for
586
whatever reason — no doubt the coming of AIDS and the unpopularity in the community attaching to homosexuals has been a factor; I do not say that it is the only factor—the Government's attitude is totally different compared to what it was at the end of 1986. So much, therefore, for the past.
I am bringing forward an amendment which, despite some evidence to the contrary, I hope will command the support of the majority of your Lordships. After long debates on Second Reading and in Committee, I suppose that most Members of the House feel that something must be done to cope with the excesses of a few local authorities which have been referred to. "Something must be done" is a dangerous phrase. Such a phrase got the Duke of Windsor into trouble and led to his abdication some years ago. However, the general idea was that something had to be done.
On the other hand, even when they voted for the Bill many noble Lords, to my certain knowledge, did so with a heavy heart or a perplexed mind, because they recognised that there were possible dangers to the arts, to education and to the rights which at present are accorded under the law to male and female homosexuals. Many who voted for that measure would undoubtedly have liked to see something slightly different, but they felt that something had to be done.
I speak only for myself. I do not ask anyone else to agree with me. I think that all homosexual activity, as distinct from homosexual feelings, is morally wrong. However, I say the same of adultery, but no one suggests that we should launch a mass campaign against adultery; or at least I have not not heard anyone do so. If there is anyone, perhaps he would stand up and say so. I say that homosexuality is as wrong as it was in 1957 when I supported the Wolfenden report. To say that homosexuality is wrong is not an argument for saying that we must stamp it out by legislative action. Of course there are some who may think that that is not such a bad idea. Even those extremists may feel that this almost incidental clause which crept into a local government Bill is hardly the place to initiate a mass campaign against homosexuals.
Again, I speak only for myself when I say that I sympathise with the aims of Clause 28 in so far as they are for the protection of children. On Second Reading, I could not convince myself that the clause, as drafted, could be confined to that purpose. I could see a distinct and troubling possibility of danger to the culture, to education and to a minority of homosexuals. Therefore when it came to the vote I did something that I have not done for 40 years: I abstained. That course is usually regarded as cowardly. I do not know whether anyone has mentioned my abstention, but it was the only thing I could do compatible with my conscience. One can only resolve to try to suggest something better.
Today, I come forward in a moderately optimistic spirit. I would be more optimistic if the noble Earl had supplied me with any reason for optimism. I cannot pretend that he has encouraged me in any way. My optimism is therefore not quite what it was when I prepared my speech. I hope that the Government will agree—I shall press the noble Earl

587
on this issue— that the basic object of Clause 28 is the protection of children. Either it is or it is not. I must ask him whether that is the basic object of Clause 28; or is it something else? Is it a general queer-bashing campaign?
So far as I can make out, many of those who voted for the clause at the last stage were under the impression that the protection of children was the basic object. I spoke to one of the most highly respected members of the Conservative Party, who cannot be here tonight, soon after the vote. I told him that I intended to move an amendment which would confine the operation of the clause to schools. He implied, "I thought that was the situation already", or words to that effect. Heaven knows how many people who voted for the clause thought it was in fact a clause to protect children.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in his resolute defence of the clause, laid his main emphasis on the danger to children. In his final speech before the vote the other day he picked out a particular brochure as epitomising the menace. I have not told him that I intended to quote his words but he will not be surprised if I do so. This is what he said:
"Most worrying of all the items on the brochure is a display of press cuttings, commentary and photographs of the battle for positive images of lesbians and gays in schools".—[Official Report, 2/2/88; col. 1018.]
That was where the emphasis was laid by the noble Earl in his final speech in favour of the clause.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, in a speech which made a considerable impression not only on his and my co-religionists but more widely, laid a similar emphasis. The noble Duke, who cannot be here tonight, said that,
"some local authorities have been promoting homosexuality by teaching it in state maintained schools. This is a gross abuse of their duties and a breach of trust to the parents whose children are put in their charge".—[Official Report, 2/2/88; col 996.]
That was where the emphasis lay in the speech of the noble Duke. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff— I mentioned to him that I might be quoting him — said something to the same effect. He said:
"We on this side of the Committee care first and foremost about children".—[Official Report, 2/2/88; col. 1014.]
That is what the people who voted for this clause supposed themselves to be caring about— children. I cannot see how anyone taking that point of view can possibly object to what I am putting forward. It seems to me to be simple enough for anyone to understand. Certainly, on the face of it, it goes a long way towards protecting the children of our country. That can be achieved if this amendment is agreed to. The clause can go forward without any threat to the arts or human rights of any section of the adult community.
I am bound to say— I hope this is not too provocative— that anybody who votes against this amendment is saying that they have some wider purpose than the protection of children. I hope that in the course of the debate we shall know what it is. I hope that that view will not prevail. I beg to move the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I intervene at this stage solely to try and help the House. There are a
588
number of amendments on this subject and I understand that a form of grouping has been agreed. I hope that if your Lordships are agreeable we should take the amendments of the noble Earl, Amendments Nos. 72, 86 and 88. Then we should take Amendments Nos. 73 to 75, 78, 80, 81 and possibly 104, depending on the views of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. Then we should take Amendment No. 76 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, followed by the government Amendments Nos. 77 and 85 and Amendment No. 87, then Amendments Nos. 79, 82 and 83 as a group. Then we should take Amendments Nos. 84, 89, 90 and 91 on their own. It is in order to be helpful that I mention that at this stage.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I intervene to make sure that I have understood. The noble Earl is suggesting that we should take my main amendment and one or two subsidiary amendments first on their own. I would not agree to anything else; I believe I have my rights.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is exactly as I understood the situation, because the noble Earl, Lord Longford, wished to take his amendment separately. I gather that his Amendments Nos. 86 and 88 are consequential on Amendment No. 72 which he has just moved.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I do not think this proposed grouping could be said to have been agreed because I certainly was not consulted. I did not receive my copy of the groupings until half-past seven tonight. I would have wished to reserve my right to move any amendments I deem suitable to be moved separately rather than have them grouped as the noble Earl has proposed.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I think that the proposed grouping is sensible. I should like to support it. If the House is agreeable, I should like to say a word in support of the amendment of my noble friend.
I must begin by saying that I am in favour of the amendments to which I have added my name rather than the whole of the speech which my noble friend made in support of those amendments. He and I frequently disagree on some measures; but in spite of that we form a rather exclusive mutual admiration society of two because even when either of us is doing things with which the other one profoundly disagrees, we rather like the way that the other does it. Therefore we manage to get along all right. But as regards this matter, at this stage as we see it— or rather as I see it, because I must only speak for myself— we are at the damage limitation stage.
For myself I dislike the clause as a whole but at this stage in the development of the Bill we have already discussed the clause as a whole. Therefore, as I see it, what these two clauses seek to achieve and what I am now seeking to achieve is precisely that— damage limitation. It seems to me that, although I dislike the clause as a whole, I should nonetheless support this amendment and I have made that clear by putting my name to it.

589
I believe that my noble friend is right and that a lot of people may very well have supported this clause under the misapprehension which was so clearly explained to the House. Under these circumstances it seems to me to be entirely right and entirely proper that two amendments which seek to rectify that particular point should come before the House. Without any further ado or explanation or reasons why, I wish to say that it is my fervent wish that the House will decide by supporting this amendment to limit the provision to what I think many of us would support although I would not necessarily include myself among them. I hope that the provision will be limited and therefore that the Government will implement a clause which many of us thought was limited already in that respect.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Earl and to say that Amendments Nos. 86, 87 and 88 could I think be taken with this amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney; I regard this amendment as a damage limitation exercise.
I gather from what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said in Committee that it was not the intention of the Government that Clause 28 should, for instance, impose censorship by the back door. The noble Earl was at pains to say that in his belief the fears expressed were unfounded. However a number of us were not persuaded and pointed to the ways in which we thought censorship could creep in.
I do not propose to rehearse those arguments but I do believe that the only effective way of allaying our fears about censorship is for the House to accept this amendment which, as the noble Earl said when he moved it, confines the clause to schools. That also is I believe the purpose of Amendment No. 73 on the Marshalled List which is due to be moved later.
I should at this stage say what I understood to be the fundamental purpose of the Bill which was introduced into this House by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. But even the limited objectives of that Bill were not acceptable to the Government. The Government's response to that Bill was to my mind exactly right. I cannot understand what has made them change that advice which they gave to the House. They said that his Bill was unnecessary and inappropriate. Those words were used both by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who were speaking advisedly and on behalf of the Government. I ask the noble Earl specifically what has caused the Government to change their mind.
I find it interesting to examine the words of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. I wish to quote what was said on behalf of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said:
"This Bill seeks to add a new section to Part II of the Local Government Act 1986, a part which…is concerned with the regulation of local authority publicity…provisions to stop local authorities promoting homosexuality do not sit easily alongside the existing party political prohibition".—[Official Report, 18/12/86; col. 333].
590
If that was said only a year ago why is it considered that a clause providing for the prohibition of the promotion of homosexuality should sit easily alongside Clause 27 which is about the prohibition of party political publications'? There has been a change of mind within one year. The Bill contains exactly the matters which were considered to be inappropriate a year ago. To quote further:
"It is by no means clear to me"—
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was speaking—
"that local authorities are empowered to promote homsexuality in their publicity, as opposed to providing some forms of information".
That was clear to the noble Lord, who was speaking from the Front Bench only one year ago. Why is it not clear to noble Lords now? What has caused the change of mind on the part of the Government?
Section 4 of the Education Act 1986 is relevant. It could be of direct assistance to the objectives of the noble Earl. That section enables his right honourable friend to issue a code of recommended practice as regards matters such as the content, style, distribution and cost of local authority publicity. He went to to say:
"The code will, in due course, be placed before your Lordships' House for approval. Your Lordships may well think, with me, that this code should contain clear principles to be observed on the questions we are debating today".—[Official Report, 18/12/86; col. 334.]
Why has it not been possible to proceed by way of a code of practice which has been incorporated in legislation and which has been given clear legal force and effect in the Bill now before us? That was announced by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on Second Reading. It was contained in the Explanatory Memorandum and it is plainly stated in Clause 27 of the Bill. Why cannot those provisions be used, as the Government said they could only a year ago'?
I think that we are entitled to know what has made the Government change their mind. Why are the matters which were then thought to be sufficient now found to be insufficient? It is important for the Government to state clearly the mischiefs which the subsection is designed to catch. Why add to the panoply already available and why place the clause immediately following Clause 27 when, in the Government's own words, it does not sit easily alongside that previous clause?
In my view, it is the duty of the Government to come clean and state openly why they are extending the scope of the Halsbury Bill to prohibit or inhibit local authority contributions to adult homosexual clubs, for instance, so that in effect they can only have their money if they refrain from promoting homosexuality— whatever that may mean, and it is the subject of a later amendment standing in my name.
I have not quoted all the arguments which were adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. Perhaps it would strain the patience of the House if I did so. It will suffice to say that they both said that legislation was unnecessary and inappropriate. They gave their reasons for saying that. I should like to add one more reason. Some of the objectionable material which has been brought forward by the noble Earl, Lord

591
Halsbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, could easily be amenable to prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act. With those powers available, what is the justification for bringing the clause and, in particular, the subsection before the House? I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose the amendment, which seeks to excise the first limb of Clause 28 notwithstanding that in principle Clause 28 stood part by a very substantial majority in that form.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton — always persuasive and ever convincing— rehearses all the same arguments that your Lordships heard at Committee stage; not so the noble Earl, Lord Longford, whose contributions are always refreshing and individual and always sincerely made. The noble Earl expressly recognised the interaction between paragraphs (a) and (b) which are the first and second limbs of Clause 28. During the passage of the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, he made a most courageous and memorable contribution. Of course anyone is free to change his mind but he accepted then that (a), the first limb, which by his amendment he now seeks to excise, was of general application and included within the scope of its prohibitions the intentional promotion of homosexuality in schools other than the kind expressly prohibited by (b), the second limb. That interaction, which we shall come to presently, is emphasised by the recognition of the government amendment, Amendment No. 85.
In the friendliest possible way, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that there was no question of "queer-bashing" in the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, which he supported. There is no question of "queer-bashing" today; nor indeed has there ever been.
We are concerned, and always have been concerned, with an abuse of rates by this type of conduct generally and in schools. It is not a question of bashing anybody; it is a question of protecting the ratepayer. At least that is how we see it. We see it sincerely, without emotion and, one hopes, without any unkindness or want of objectivity.
One must always examine the arguments. What are the objections to the first limb? The first category of objection is that it is dangerous and unnecessary. That was the view expressed by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York whom I do not see in his place. He was expressing a view for which he rightly claimed the support of many noble Lords, including expressly the noble Lords, Lord Hatch of Lusby and Lord Graham of Edmonton and, up to a point, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Hutchinson of Lullington.
The second category of objection is that the first part of the clause is "totally unnecessary". Those words are taken from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, on the Arts Council amendment.
The third objection— and there is only one more, having combed Hansard for the highest common factor of objections— was that this limb uses the word "promotion"— the subject matter of the subsequent amendment on drafting of the noble Lord, Lord
592
Henderson of Brompton— in relation to the abstract concept of homosexuality not in conjunction with concrete objects or objectives. I am referring to the objection in Hansard.
The last objection is that the incidence of this clause will adversely affect theatrical productions, voluntary bodies, counselling services and so forth, as those fears were expressed on the Arts Council amendment. If we examine the first head of objection with total objectivity, the most reverend Primate conceded very fairly that Clause 28 deals with a very serious problem— the promotion of homosexuality by a local authority. He went on to say that this justified the introduction of legislation.
Yet against those concessions he stigmatised Clause 28 as dangerous and unnecessary. This was by a process of reasoning akin to that which could condemn the keeping of a house dog as dangerous and unnecessary because when the dog is attacked by intruders it defends itself. By some curious process of logic, he would prefer to leave the house unguarded against further intrusions. Surely this stands the whole argument on its head, because but for the motivated attack upon the traditions of local government which raised this very serious problem, the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, would never have seen the light of day to pass in your Lordships' House. If it had not, Clause 28 would never have found its way into this Bill.
The most reverend Primate, using the terms "evil"— it was he who used it, albeit in a relative context— said in terms that the clause had the support of certain noble Lords. He preferred to countenance the continuance of the activities sought to be proscribed by Clause 28— that is to say the local authority going over the top— as a lesser evil to the greater evil of government interference in the affairs of local government. Those are two sides of the argument. I hope that I have stated them fairly. Surely it is wrong on that ground to have any real or sane objection to the clause.
The second and third categories of objection can be dealt with together. They emanate from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. Is he going to deal at all with my amendment?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the essence of the noble Lord's amendment is to excise the first part of Clause 28, contrary to the principle established by the agreement that the clause stand part. Furthermore, that would be contrary to his own support for the interaction between these two clauses on the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
If I am not mistaken, the noble Earl's amendment is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. If I am right in saying that, then the noble Lord is rehearsing many of the arguments already rehearsed at Committee stage and surely it is reasonable to deal with them. Those arguments go to the essence of the noble Earl's amendment. All I have to say, having dealt with the first ground of objection, is that the second and third grounds are totally

593
unnecessary and that the objection that Clause 28 seeks to proscribe an abstract concept of homosexuality is equally ill-founded. Words must of course be construed in their true context—and so construed, any intentional conduct by any local authority to promote homosexuality is no more abstract or separated from matter or practice within that or any other dictionary definition.
The last objection is that concerning the fears of the Arts Council and voluntary bodies. As regards that, it has been emphasised over and over again by many Members on all sides— including my noble friends the Minister and Lord Boyd-Carpenter; the noble Lady. Lady Saltoun; and even myself —that nothing in this first limb prohibits any local authority from giving financial assistance for any of the purposes that have been called into question; namely, theatrical productions, art exhibitions, books in public libraries, counselling and advisory services, and the work of voluntary bodies.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Lord is telling the House about all the things that the clause does not do. Since I understand that he is at least part author and probably the main author of this clause, can he not answer the noble Earl's question: what does it do beyond protecting children? If it only protects children, then why is the second part not sufficient?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Lord ask me to answer that question? The second part is not sufficient because, as I have sought to explain, the first part applies generally to abuse of responsbiility in the promotion of homosexuality, and it applies to the type of situation envisaged by my noble friend Lady Cox, who widened the second limb to teaching. It would cover that—teaching in schools — and the first limb can cover conduct in schools as well as the general application outside schools. The second limb is concerned only with the specific type of conduct in schools. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, time goes on and if I have not done so then the House must judge. On examination of all the objections, there is no reason whatever for the excision of the first limb, and to do so would defeat the general efficacy of the prohibition and would run counter to the decision of the House on clause stand part.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I think that I can help the House by reminding the noble Earl that he does not have a monopoly in going back to the days of the Wolfenden report; I too was there. One of the findings of that report was that people's sexual orientation was not fixed at any particular age but that it more or less stabilised around the middle 20s. If one confines that fact solely to the protection of those whom the noble Earl has called "children", they could leave school at the age of 16 and still be open to seduction by those enlisted by local authorities on the grounds that it was a perfectly
594
legitimate exercise because it was not being conducted in school. I believe that that is wrong and it is why the two limbs—as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway— are needed. This should be stopped both inside and outside school.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend Lord Henderson, but I largely agree with my noble friend Lord Halsbury. I contend that Amendment No. 72 would give us the worst of all worlds. It would confine the restrictions which are to be imposed by Clause 28 solely to the question of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship, whatever that curious phrase may mean. Thereby it implies that promiscuous homosexual relationships—such as those which, until recently, were said to be found in the bathhouses of San Francisco and New York in which men were said to have sexual relations with 200 or 300 different men every year—are in some way preferable to stable, quasi-family homosexual relationships. Given the AIDS epidemic, that must appear to most people to be quite insane.
Surely it is the case that Clause 28 has two quite distinct objectives. The first and more important objective is to prevent the corruption of children and adolescents. The well-drafted Amendment No. 73, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, goes a long way towards achieving the first objective, though perhaps not the whole way. However, it does nothing to help in achieving the second, albeit perhaps less important, objective of preventing unwilling ratepayers from having to subsidise one specific form of sexual deviation, and one only. After all, if one is to have gay pride weeks on the rates, why not bondage pride weeks? The possible permutations are endless.
Amendment No. 72 does not achieve the second objective, and there may be noble Lords who consider that to be a good thing. I do not mind too much about that. However, it does not achieve to any extent the first and more important objective, as my noble friend Lord Halsbury has pointed out—that of protecting young people and adolescents.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Longford. I should be happy if its acceptance meant that it was not necessary for me to move Amendment No. 76, which I regard to be second best. Surely it is the case that the one new serious threat to society which has necessitated new legislation, whether tabled by my noble kinsman, Lord Halsbury, or by the Government, was that the practise of homosexuality was being encouraged and condoned in schools. That is the one case for which legislative action is necessary. If my noble friend's amendment were accepted it would mean that the prohibition was confined only to that teaching in schools, as I believe many noble Lords thought it to be; and that is what we should see.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I find myself in considerable difficulty. I hope that your Lordships will think it sensible if I briefly share that difficulty. I do not suppose that I can be alone in finding this cat's

595
cradle of amendments before the House exceedingly confusing. I have gone far enough to understand that there are two later amendments which are consequential upon this amendment. I have also gone so far as to understand that if this amendment were to be agreed the next five amendments, or thereabouts, would not be applicable because the words that they seek to amend would by then have disappeared. Further than that, I am in a state of confusion because among the amendments which would disappear if this amendment were to be passed are matters which I rather like. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that to abstain on such a Motion is usually regarded as cowardice. Occasionally one can abstain not simply because one is cowardly but because one is flummoxed. However, it is not simply that I am flummoxed.
As I understand it—I sat through every word of the debate in Committee—two elements united all parts of the Chamber. One was that the wilder shores of local government behaviour should somehow be controlled and that no one wished to see local government proselytising for, commending or advocating homosexuality, particularly to the young. For my own part I do not particularly wish to see local government advocating it to any age. I do not particularly wish to see it advocating any form of sexuality. It seems to me that it is not its business. That I imagine was felt in general by most Members of the Committee.
What I sensed that almost all the Committee felt was that the Bill must not to be allowed to erode the reputation for ordinary tolerance and compassion or indeed the rights of the individual on which the country so prides itself. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, frequently reassured the Committee that the intention of the Bill was in no way to do so. Those two elements, I sensed, were uniting the Committee in spite of a very complicated and often hard-fought debate.
However, when I look at the Bill, it seems to me that it does very well for the former but not so well for the latter. I think that for one precise reason. The entire force of the Bill, particularly in the first two clauses, which are the important ones, depends upon the word "promoting" or "promotion". With the greatest deference to the learning of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I still find that that single word is too vague. I looked down the list of amendments with some interest. I noted, for example, in Amendment No. 74, which would disappear if Amendment No. 72 should be agreed to, the word "commend". Suddenly I begin to see that the word "commend" had a force in it that "promote" does not. It is more precise. I should have quite liked to see the word "adocate", which seems precise.
It is therefore upon grounds of precision that I find myself in difficulty about the clause. I know not whether to support the amendment to leave out the clause or not to support it so as to be able to speak to amendments which contain other solutions that I prefer.
That is probably the most inconclusive speech that noble Lords will have to suffer this evening. I hope that at least it puts before the House a difficulty that I am sure that I am not alone in experiencing.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, is of course right in saying that he may move any of his amendments singly or in a group. I was only trying to be helpful. Indeed, I took no part in the grouping that was going on while we were in discussion on the Bill. I know that those who were trying to put some order into this rather convoluted mass of amendments tried to contact the noble Lord: they sought him here, they sought him there, but they did not find him. This was put forward in a spirit of co-operation. Of course the noble Lord is right in what he has said.
Perhaps I may put to bed a myth that the noble Lord tried to perpetuate—namely, that the Government's views on this matter have changed. Of course they have not. They have been consistent throughout. Both my noble friends made it clear at an earlier stage that the Government entirely supported the purpose of the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, as indeed did my right honourable and honourable friend, in another place when it was discussed before the last election.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was right to point out in opening the debate that there are many individual approaches to homosexuality. The question raises some sensitive issues and I know that many of your Lordships have given long and serious thought to the drafting of Clause 28. The Government share the noble Earl's objective of ensuring that the legislation is drafted in a clear way. We have common cause in wanting to get it right. Amendments Nos. 77 and 85, tabled in my name, which we shall be debating later, are evidence of the Government's wish to meet legitimate concerns.
The Government begin from the proposition that it has not and never has been the role of local authorities to promote homosexuality. In recent years there has been evidence that some councils—a small minority of councils, it is true, but nevertheless an active and committed group—have decided that it is appropriate to use ratepayers' and taxpayers' money to attempt to influence public attitudes towards homosexuality and homosexuals.
No one is denying that homosexuals are entitled to council services on the same basis as all other electors and ratepayers. There is no case for any public authority discriminating against anyone solely on the grounds of either sexual orientation, or seeking to persuade others to do so. However, this clause is designed to deal with the other side of that particular coin —that it is not right, either, for a local authority to favour particular persons or groups on the grounds of their sexual orientation or to promote that sexual orientation at the public expense. There seems to be a wide consensus that there is a problem to deal with. This is borne out by the fact that the concerns about the provision relate more to its possible unintended effects than to its basic objective. It is generally agreed, therefore, that something must be done.
The Government have naturally considered very carefully the views that have been put to us from both outside and inside Parliament. We have looked with care at each of the suggestions that have been made for approaching the problem from a different angle, for clarifying the drafting and for putting it beyond

597
doubt that legitimate activities will not be affected. We have made some important amendments which remove any question that we are concerned with anything but the intention of a local authority in carrying out any activity. I will respond to the detailed provisions as we come to them, but I can say now that we believe that the terms of prohibition are properly focused and clearly set out.
The issue raised by the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is whether it would be right to limit the prohibition to certain activities of local authorities in relation to schools. Let me please explain why the Government believe that this would not do. We are clear that the most acute public concern arises from the policies of some local education authorities for presenting positive images of homosexuality in the classroom. Those policies have bred understandable fear and resentment in parents whose children's education is in the hands of these councils. That was one of the reasons why the Government took steps under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to remove responsibility for sex education from local authorities. The Act gave that responsibility to governing bodies of schools, on which parents now have a substantial representation.
Local education authorities have a general responsibility under the 1986 Act to state their policy on the secular curriculum and this may include reference to sex education. Governors must have regard to the authority's statement in deciding what sex education their schools provide, but they are in no way bound by it. The 1986 Act also places a duty on local education authorities, the governors and head teachers to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that any sex education is given,
"in such manner as to encourage those pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life''.
In practice, therefore, a prohibition limited to what local authorities may do in relation to schools would have very little additional effect except perhaps of a presentational kind. Action to stop the real damage that might be done through sex education in schools on the instruction of the local education authority has already been substantially taken.
There is a further argument against the noble Earl's approach. The proposed Section 2A(1)(b) alone has an extremely narrow effect. On its own it is inadequate to achieve the basic objective of stopping local authorities encouraging teachers to promote homosexuality. As my noble friend Lady Cox pointed out in Committee, the proposed section deals only with one very narrow aspect of promoting homosexuality: promoting the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship. It is only an emphasis to one aspect of the general prohibition in paragraph (a), not a general substitute for it.
However, there is a further reason for refusing to accept the noble Earl's proposal which rests on a matter of fundamental principle. It is quite clear to us that the problem of local authorities promoting homosexuality is not one confined to schools. I entirely accept that much of the concern expressed in our debates on this issue is related to schools and the effect of local authorities' policies on pupils in the
598
classroom. This is certainly the aspect of the problem that has led to widespread public resentment.
However, although public concern has been understandably heightened by the education policies of some councils we believe that the public in general shares our view that young people are susceptible to these intolerable influences in many other contexts. Public money has been used in a number of other ways which target on young people in an apparent endeavour to glamorise homosexuality; for example, general local authority support for homosexual youth groups. One of these, the South London Gay and Lesbian Group, caters for the leisure, social and personal needs of young lesbian and gay people in the age range 16 to 21, which of course is the age range, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, of those who have left school. It does so by organising discos, discussion groups and social events which bring gay young people together. Activities such as a lesbian and gay strength and pride week are, in the Government's view, as least as likely to achieve the aim of glamorising homosexuality in the minds of impressionable young people as anything a teacher might do in the classroom.
The Government therefore do not accept the argument that this clause should be limited to schools. That would be tantamount to saying that activities designed to promote homosexuality in the classroom are wrong but it is perfectly legitimate for the same purpose to finance at public expense promotion in an informal social setting. I have children coming up to a particularly impressionable age. I do not want them to be exposed to such situations, and I hope that on reflection neither will the noble Earl.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise for following the Minister. I confess that I was taken aback because I did not realise that he was going to rise to his feet so early. I shall not abuse my position by asking him further questions or commenting on what he said. However, I believe it is incumbent on me to say something from the Front Bench, even in a personal capacity; because, as is well known, we have no Whip on this matter.
The Minister will recall that immediately after the debate two weeks ago I went to see him and expressed the view that a number of people in the House were unhappy about the way in which Clause 28 had to be debated in Committee. I believe that I reflected views on many sides of the Chamber when I said that many people felt that the two choices that we had—the first one being the valiant attempt by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, to redraft the whole clause, and the second one being to fall back on a vote on clause stand part—did not really reflect the variety of views that had been expressed in the Committee. A number of people—I am not talking particularly about people on the Opposition Benches—were left with a feeling that there must be further attempts to refine, elucidate and improve the wording of the clause. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Longford has done just that, and I am surprised that he should be attacked for repeating previous arguments. I thought he did exactly the contrary.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I did not do that. I only said that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, had repeated previous arguments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am surprised that supporters of the amendment should be accused of repeating previous arguments, particularly when they were accused in a speech of such length which exactly repeated the arguments made at Second Reading and in Committee.
If one looks back at the debate which took place in Committee, two matters are quite striking. The first is that 99 per cent. of the defence of Clause 28 was a defence of the clause as it relates to schools and school children, and to some extent to young people out of school. I believe that is an important qualification which it would be wrong for me to omit. However, when it came to the point of giving examples of wrongdoing by local authorities and when it came to hard evidence being put forward of something that needed to be corrected, nearly everything that was said was about schools.
Yet when one looks at the complaints about the clause—and not just those from this side of the House—I would say that 75 per cent. of them relate not to how the clause affects school children but to how it affects adults. I suggest that a great deal of the concern was about the knock-on effect of the clause on the other services of local authorities—on the libraries, on the arts, on counselling services and on attempts to overcome discrimination against homosexuals; services which were not particularly attacked by noble Lords who were in favour of the clause.
Under those circumstances, although I still have grave doubts about what is left in the clause if my noble friend's amendment is accepted, I would urge my noble friends to support the amendment. I suggest that it is a damage limitation exercise. I do not suggest that it deals with all of the problems but I suggest that what results from this is very much better than what is available at the moment.
The Minister said a moment ago that something must be done. Here I depart from my undertaking, for which I apologise, although I do not think it is unhelpful. When he said that something must be done what he meant on this occasion was that something must be done about the wording of the clause, and not that something Must be done about the problem which gives rise to the original drafting of the clause. He is right. The wording "intentionally promote homosexuality" has, under intensive scrutiny from your Lordships, proved to be far too wide and far too vague. One major benefit of the amendment is that it takes that out and leaves a specific and reasonably well defined attempt to counter an evil which can be identified and which is of proper concern to your Lordships. Under those circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will pursue this amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he permit me to ask a question? Does he agree that heterosexism awareness courses or anti heterosexism training are a good use of ratepayers' money?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is a supporter of the clause I ask her whether she thinks that they can be defined as promoting homosexuality. It has never been suggested that they are covered by the clause.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it seeks to suggest that one lifestyle is desirable over another. Anti heterosexism is certainly promoting lesbian or gay existences.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think it would be improper for me to pursue this but I do not think that any of the phrases which the noble Baroness uses can be found in the clause.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the House will not wish for another speech from me. After that long address from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I thought that I would be allowed to run for another quarter of an hour. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has done a wonderful job for the Government in this House in recent months and I hope that he will go on to greatness and one day become the Leader here. Tonight I hope that he will blot out his speech as an unhappy memory. It was no good at all. I wish to press the amendment.
10.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 72) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 90.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey. L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McNair, L.

Blease, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Parry, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

Darcy (de Knayth). B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs. B. [Teller.]

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gifford, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Putney. L. [Teller.]

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Kilbracken, L.

E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Arran, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Caithness, E.

Belstead, L.

Caldecote, V.

Blatch, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Borthwick, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

601

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Goold, L.

Carnock, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Colvillc of Culross, V.

Greenway, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Halsbury, E.

Crathorne, L.

Hanson, L.

Croft, L.

Harvington, L.

Davidson. V. [Teller.]

Havers, L.

Denham. L. [Teller.]

Hesketh, L.

Dormer, L.

Hives, L.

Dundee, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Joseph, L.

Ely, Bp.

Kimball, L.

Faithfull, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon. E.

Ferrers, E.

Long, V.

Fitt, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Fortescuc, E.

Lyell, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Glenarlhur, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

602

Macleod of Borve, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Margadale, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Marley, L.

Sandford, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Mersey, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Milverton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strange, B.

Monson, L.

Swinfen, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Swinton, E.

Morris, L.

Teviot, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Moyne, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Munster, E.

Ullswater, V.

Nelson, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wolfson, L.

Pym, L.

Wynford, L.

Rodney, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.10 p.m.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if Amendment No. 74 is agreed to, I cannot call 'Amendments Nos. 75 to 88.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 28, leave out lines 29 to 37 and insert—

("(a) permit the teaching or use in any maintained school of any material which commends sexual activity between persons of the same sex:

(b) permit the publication of any material for such use.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to keep your Lordships here a moment longer than I need to. I shall not say anything about paragraph (a)—the first limb of the amendment—because I feel that enough has already been said by those with much abler, subtler and more sophisticated minds than mine, notably the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I agree with what they said. However, since we began to debate this clause, which must have been debated more than most clauses in most Bills, we have been saying that certain terms in it are vague and too generalised. They are namely the words "promote" and "homosexuality" and the expression "pretended family relationships". Yet, although we have been saying this since we began the debate, nobody has yet really attempted to suggest anything else. This is what the amendment attempts to do. The word "promote" in my view is vague because, just to bring it down to brass tacks, one of the meanings given in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary for example, is "to put forth into notice or publish". There is no harm done there. It may be that a local authority, in offering services or in offering counselling to homosexuals, might be putting it forth into notice or publishing it. But it is not promoting it in the bad sense, in the sense of encouraging it or suggesting that it is a good idea.
The word "homosexuality" is a vague abstraction. This has been said a number of times, but here again nobody has suggested an alternative. Is the fact of two men living together or two women living together an example of homosexuality? Some people would say so. Is a creation by a male artist which obviously shows admiration for the male anatomy an example of homosexuality? Nobody could say that Shakespeare's sonnets were a very interesting example of homosexuality. Your Lordships all know that the earlier and finest ones were written to a young man. Are they entirely platonic? Noble Lords will find it very interesting, when they have a spare moment, to study Sonnet No. XX in detail. In it the poet said that the loved one should have been a girl but at the last minute nature made an addition which changed that, prevented this young man from being his loved one and reserved him for the ladies. Does that show that Shakespeare was passing through a homosexual phase or not? It is completely in the air. We know in fact that the Bard was only too heterosexual for most of his life. But, as I say, that is an example of the vagueness of the expression. "Pretended family relationship" is better left out entirely, and that is what this amendment does.
We are dealing with a subject in which there are deep divides. Very roughly I would say that we divide ourselves into three groups. There are those who believe that any form of homosexuality is wicked and unnatural. I would say that perhaps they are a minority. There are those who think that it is a regrettable deviation from normality and a thing towards which they must show tolerance. They appreciate that homosexuals have much to offer but, as I say, they regard it as a regrettable deviation from normality. They, I would say, are the majority. And finally there are those who regard it as nothing more than a genetic variant, comparable almost to being left-handed, which is totally acceptable.
It is this group which is really causing the trouble. They have some influence in a small minority of local authorities and those authorities have considered it part of their duty to offer assistance to people who are suffering—I am using the wrong word—to people, I should say, who have this predilection by offering them counselling and facilities and protecting them from discrimination and harassment. Such activities on the part of local authorities are easily misinterpreted. I am not exactly defending those local authorities, but one must appreciate how easily the protection of what might be or what has been a disadvantaged minority could be interpreted as promoting its interests.
In these circumstances, when so much vagueness hangs around these expressions, I think it is better to do without the whole of the first part of this clause and to concentrate on protecting school children from what we might call inappropriate reading matter.
I might say in passing that very little proof has been produced as yet that any of this has actually happened in schools. A certain amount of it has been discussed, debated and proposed by certain authorities but there is very little evidence that anything we have spoken about has actually taken place in the classroom.
Let us protect children and let us allow adults to make up their own minds and to use their votes to dispense with councillors who, they think, are pursuing policies that they disapprove of or disagree with. That is a process, I might say in passing, which would be much easier if we had proportional representation. Let us not commit adult human beings to a written law which in its vagueness may do more to spread confusion, fear and prejudice than it will ever do to uphold public morality. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I should not have thought that even a Liberal Peer would find it possible to introduce the doctrine of proportional representation into a debate dealing with the problems of homosexuality.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sorry. I am not giving way for the moment. Will the noble Baroness resume her seat?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I shall give way, but not in the middle of a sentence. I therefore continue to say that I suppose that it may be, although it is not obvious to me, that there is some connection between the two doctrines. I now give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord has made it plain, as we have always known, that he enjoys a jibe at proportional representation and does not understand its significance.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I did not hear most of what the noble Baroness said. As it apparently was not intended as a compliment, I shall not worry myself too much about it. I suggest to your Lordships that the amendment is basically a waste of time. By proposing to delete lines 29 to 37, it virtually removes the clause.
Your Lordships spent a great deal of time at Committee stage discussing whether or not the clause should stand part. We had one major wrecking amendment and one debate on clause stand part. Your Lordships decided on both occasions by substantial majorities that the clause should remain. It therefore seems a pity, if I can put it that way, that on Report the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, should produce an amendment which virtually involves the elimination of the clause and the substitution in part of some other phraseology which he appears to prefer.
The other great weakness of the amendment is that it appears to limit the prohibition of the promotion of homosexuality to schools. It has been pointed out again and again in the course of our earlier debates today that there are equally dangerous situations outside schools. I think that one noble Lord referred earlier to discos. There is also the promotion of a number of gay and lesbian clubs by local authorities. Those are aimed basically at young people. It is self-delusion to believe that if we confine the protection given to young people to schools, we shall protect them from those who seek to corrupt them in those other ways. I shall of course give way to the noble Lord, although I was about to conclude.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I simply wanted to learn whether or not the noble Lord was willing to recognise the rather important distinction between activities in schools and in discos. School children are obliged to go to school. Therefore, they might be thought to be the victims, if you like, or the unwilling recipients of any propoganda. Discos are entirely voluntary. No one can force anyone—least of all me—to go to a disco.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Many of us are thankful that there is no compulsion to go to discos. I accept at once that there is a distinction. I do not know whether the noble Lord is arguing that it is wrong to corrupt children in schools and that it is all right to corrupt them in discos. I do not know if that is his argument. But the fact remains—I shall give way to the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am of course not arguing that it is all right to corrupt children at a disco. I am saying that there are many voluntary activities which take place all over the country which are designed for adults and there are many at which most of us would not wish to he present. It is not possible for a local authority to corrupt someone who goes to a disco unless it can force that person to go to that disco or any other comparable activity.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not agree. If a local authority promotes homosexual ideas at public expense, with attractive trimmings and music that a great many people like, then, whether or not the noble Lord is right in calling that "compelling" such persons to listen to such things, I do not know. But I do not think that even the noble Lord can deny that that is promotion of homosexual ideas and that if you promote homosexuality by attracting people to a function, that is just as much promoting it as if you promoted it by compelling them to go to school. Therefore, though they are different activities, and properly dealt with by different paragraphs in the original clause, they are both evils which I suggest to your Lordships it should be the purpose of public policy to avoid. While offering what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, believes—I think wrongly—to be some protection in schools, this amendment offers no protection whatever to young people against activities promoted out of school. I hope that, without wasting much time on it, your Lordships will reject this amendment.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, I have a difficulty with the amendment of the noble Lord. We have to recognise that, particularly in view of the vote in the last Division, the House has accepted paragraph (a) of the new clause as a provision that it wants to be included in the Bill. In so far as the amendment deletes the whole of the clause it goes over the same ground which we have already covered and it would perhaps be wrong to press it to a Division.
Given the amendments which the Government are about to promote, I believe that the single outstanding difficulty about this clause, with which we have not really grappled, is the wording of paragraph (b):
"promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
I rise to speak on this amendment because of all the proposed tinkerings with paragraph (b) which are to follow and which do not really get to the root of the problem as does the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. In so far as the words in the first three lines of his amendment could be used to replace paragraph (b), they would seem to be far more specific, clear and acceptable. As we shall obviously be returning to this topic, I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to look at alternative wordings on the lines of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, for paragraph (b) in particular.
No doubt an argument can be raised on a later amendment, but I shall argue that the whole of

607
paragraph (b) is unnecessary because once one has enacted a general clause against the promotion of homosexuality, a particular example of that promotion which is meant to be contained in paragraph (b) is no longer necessary. The fact of the matter is that paragraph (b), which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, is looking at in his new wording, is fraught with terrible difficulties for those who have to teach in schools. Paragraph (b) says that one is not allowed as a teacher to say to a child that a homosexual relationship may be acceptable. That is going much further than the general prohibition on the promotion of homosexuality.
The Guardian of 10th February carried a very eloquent letter by Angela Mason which exactly illustrates the point that I have in mind. She says:
"I have a 3½-year-old daughter. She lives with myself and the woman with whom I have lived for 15 years. We have a wide circle of friends and relations who totally accept her circumstances.…
Soon she will be starting primary school. We are aware that as she grows older she will have to deal with anti-homosexual prejudice. We had hoped that if such prejudice is expressed by her peers at school her teachers would be in a position to challenge it and perhaps even to create an atmosphere of greater tolerance and understanding within the school. The effect of Clause 28 will be to make it unlawful for the teachers to offer any support to children in my daughter's situation, i.e. to stop bullying. It will be a licence for bigots to torment a child because her parents are 'queer'. I believe my child has as much right as any other to have her home and family respected and not to be tormented or harassed because of her family circumstances. I hope that in coming to their decisions on the proposed legislation the members of both Houses of Parliament will actually think about what is actually going to become of children such as mine (and there are many of them) and what kind of bigoted and vengeful world they are creating for her to live in".
The concern expressed in that letter is well founded. Where the child of a homosexual relationship was being bullied at school, any teacher who was trying to introduce tolerance, to help the child and to give it support, would be in terrible difficulty. Once the teacher sought to say. "Don't worry. Your parents' relationship is one of many kinds of relationships in the world. There is nothing wrong with it. It is just different from other poeple's and you should not be bullied because of it", then that teacher would be raising in the classroom the,
"acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
Unless the local authority upon, let us say, a complaint received by another parent—and one knows how such complaints can be made and can be distorted—takes some kind of action against that teacher for raising the question of the acceptability of those parents' relationship, the authority will be in danger of being said to promote the teaching of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
I raise the matter at this stage because I hope the noble Earl can tell us that he is prepared to have some further thoughts. I do not think that we can accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. However, the words on the lines of those it embodies as a substitute for paragraph (b) would go a long way towards allaying people's fears that this very wide paragraph, with its extremely generalised phrasing, will cause the kind of difficulties I have described.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, there is an inherent defect in this clause which renders it quite
608
unacceptable. The local authority cannot "permit" the teaching, or "permit" the publication, because, since the Education (No. 2) Act 1986–1 think it is Section 18–it has no control. All the local authority can do is to promote, which, according to the Oxford Dictionary definition, means active support or encouragement. Promote is totally apt; permit is impermissible.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has just said, I feel that it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak now to the amendment standing my name, and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rea—Amendment No. 76. That amendment omits all words after "intentionally promote homosexuality". As my noble friend said, what follows after those words are nothing more than examples of promoting homosexuality, which would already be prohibited by the words that I would leave in. Under my amendment the clause would simply state that,
"A local authority shall not intentionally promote homosexuality".
All the other matters that are provided under either (a) or (b) are merely examples of promoting homosexuality—two words that I do not like, but we are stuck with them. It is clear that publishing material intended to promote homosexuality is promoting homosexuality, as is,
"promoting the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
—whatever that means.
I like the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. However, if that is not acceptable I see no reason for going into all the detail that is in the Bill at present. If my amendment were accepted it would mean the deletion of eight or 10 lines of the Bill without weakening it in any way.
Lord McNair: My Lords, perhaps it would be better if we returned to Amendment No. 74. Otherwise we shall get into a terrible confusion.
I should like to follow the very eloquent plea from the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, to the noble Earl, to think again. From all our discussions in Committee and tonight it is perfectly clear that this word "promote" will never be acceptable to majority opinion. I say that fully recognising that the noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Alloway, who may have discovered it in the first place, is not going to agree with me.
I spent quite a long time trying to define the word "promote" in order to produce an amendment in the form of a definition. I started in an obvious way, by consulting Roget's Thesaurus. If one looks up the word "promote" in the index of Roget's Thesaurus, one finds it refers to no fewer than seven different sections, and there are very few other words having so many references.
Incidentally, upon reading through all seven, one finds that they are not very helpful so far as concerns this Bill, because I do not really think that "promote" is the word for which your Lordships are looking. We hit upon the words "commend" and "advocate", which the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has also mentioned this evening. But we did not get them by looking up "promote" in Roget's Thesaurus.

609
There is something semantically very wrong with the phrase in question and I hope that the noble Earl will listen to the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, before Third Reading and do something about it. Meanwhile, naturally I support the amendment that bears my name, and everything that my noble friend said
Lord Monson: My Lords, I understand everything which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, is aiming for with this amendment and I have a certain sympathy with it. I certainly agree with his criticism of the words "pretended family relationship". But I wonder whether the noble Lord has his wording quite right.
It is perfectly true that one can use material that commends sexual activity of one sort or another, but can one really teach such material? I think not. One can teach children, one can teach history, and one can even teach the Bible. But I do not think one can teach The Milkman's on his Way. Even if it were not for that grammatical fault, the amendment would leave the door open to teaching that makes no use of material, such as off-the-cuff praise of homosexual behaviour. For that reason alone I do not think the amendment will do. I much prefer that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I assure the House that I shall he very brief. One point that I was unable to raise at the Committee stage ought to be made, and it should run through our thinking in considering all these amendments. I hope that I may have some support from the spiritual Benches in this. In considering homosexuality in all its forms and in its various manifestations, one must realise that, basically, it undermines family life.
The Minister made that point briefly, but as far as I know—and I have listened carefully to all the speeches made—it has not been emphasised. That concept is endorsed by three organisations whom I am happy to support. One is the National Family Campaign, one is the Conservative Family Campaign, and the other is the Care Campaign. All of them, having considered this matter with the utmost sincerity and in great detail, support the original amendment. I submit to your Lordships that all the other amendments tending in any way at all to undermine the influence of the family should be resisted.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I want to echo the comments of the noble Viscount. There are some of us—call it prejudice if you like—who feel serious disquiet at the description of two females in a sexual relationship bringing up a small child. Clearly there is considerable support required for that child in the circumstances in which it finds itself and there are particular difficulties for the teacher in handling that situation. I should be seriously concerned if it were being advocated that such was any kind of a normal relationship and a desirable family relationship.
I believe that underlying much of our discussion is a strong conviction that the future of our society
610
depends upon the relationship between man and woman and the product of man and woman—the child. I feel particularly strongly about that matter.
I also believe that we must all exercise Christian tolerance about anything which deviates from what one would call a "normal family relationship". For that reason I believe that we are skirting around that in which we believe. We can talk about the precise meaning of the word "promote" but I suspect that that is not the real issue between those who wish to support the amendment and those who wish to stick by the intentions of the main clause.
I believe that the amendment leaves out the most fertile ground for activities of this kind—that is the age group from 16 years onwards who attend youth clubs and discos. There has been a great deal of scoffing about activities in discos but the most impressionable age is from the beginning of puberty until about 25 years, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I believe that we must do everything that we can to protect young people during that time, when they have a great deal of battling through that stage of their lives. We should encourage them to follow a lifestyle which is for the health and future of our society. There is no future for society in women with women and men with men. I am saying quite clearly that I do not believe that such a lifestyle should be advocated, promoted or condoned. In the light of the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I shall settle for the word "promote". I do not think that we should be in the business of furthering and encouraging particularly as regards young children in school and those up to the age of 25.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I agree entirely with what has been said by my noble friend Lady Blatch. Although a great deal has been spoken on this subject, I should like to say a little more. It is a subject of great delicacy and anything I say will be like an Aberdeen Angus in a glass factory. However, I shall try to tread gently.
When there is a question of protecting the innocent, which this is, one has a plain duty to speak out. A baby comes into this world fresh, warm and safe from the loving confines of its mother's womb. For the first months of its life it is wrapped close and tight in swaddling bands of physical protection from the world. For the first years of their life children also need the close confines of the moral protection of right and wrong. Later, when they become teenagers and their bodies grow and develop, they question everything that they have been taught. Sometimes they have homosexual tendencies because that is part of growing up. Freud believed—and here I misquote W. S. Gilbert—that:
"Every little boy or gal
Born into this world today
Is either a heterosexual
Or a homosexual gay".
That I do not believe but I should like to concur with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, on the misuse of the splendid word "gay". Some of my best friends are homosexuals but all my best friends are jolly and gay. Although human beings have different quantities of male and female hormones, I do not share Freud's

611
belief that sexuality is fixed at birth. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that circumstances and teaching have much to do with it.
I speak for parents everywhere. We want our children to have the best possible chance of happiness in this world. We want them to have the least possible chance of catching the dreaded disease AIDS and so dying prematurely. We hope that they will have children so that we can see our children's children and love them too. A human being is a gift of God created by the love of a father and a mother of a different sex. The basic principle is the family, on which all life and civilisation depend. We owe it to our forebears, to ourselves, to our children and to God, who created us, to keep it so.
10.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are two quick answers to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, as to why I cannot accept the amendment. First, we have just voted on the previous amendment, which confined the ambit of the clause to schools, and is very similar to what the noble Lord wants. Secondly, the amendment uses the word "permit" which, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, is totally wrong, as I explained in Committee, because of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. The permitting of teaching is a matter for the local authorities, while teaching is with the headmaster, the governors and the parents of the school.
The point that concerns the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, is the term "promoting homosexuality". That is another difficulty. A number of amendments are trying to get at that. Therefore, while dealing with Amendment No. 74, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 75, 78 and 81 as they are all linked on the common theme. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, mentioned Amendment No. 76. I do not know whether he wants me to deal with that in detail now. It is a separate point.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, later.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall leave out that part.
The scope of what I shall say concerns whether the phrase "promoting homosexuality" is a sensible choice in its own right. To do so I must go back to the mischief with which we are all trying to deal. The local authorities concerned are, in the Government's opinion, trying to carry out some social engineering. In so doing, they are not doing anything so simple as encouraging people to undertake homosexual acts. Nor are they simply encouraging people to form homosexual relationships. That may be an outcome of what the local authorities concerned are doing, but it is not what the local authorities do.
What they arc doing is something rather more subtle. What we are seeing in some places is an attempt to sell homosexuality, to ensure that people see it in a favourable light. For this purpose we see all the techniques of modern public relations deployed—entertainments, exhibitions, campaigns, posters. Every local authority service that can possibly be used in some way to put over the message is twisted to serve the same purpose. We see gay
612
library collections, gay consciousness courses for local authority officers and homosexual material produced for children's playgroups. We have homosexual and lesbian units which comment on every report that is going to the council. Everything then is done to glamourise homosexuality, to make all aspects of homosexuality seem attractive.
It is this hard sell of homosexuality that is so worrying. As I said earlier, in many ways it is the more insidious approaches that cause more concern than anything that is done in the classroom. They allow young people uncertain of their sexual orientation to be brought into contact with people who have decided on a homosexual orientation for themselves. Such contacts can have great effects on impressionable young people. That is not a proper use of resources collected from the community as a whole through the power of taxation. I therefore argue that the core of the mischief that we are concerned with is something very akin to a public relations campaign in that it has little to do with the proper tasks of a local authority. I therefore think that it is correct to use the vocabulary of the advertising trade to describe it.
In this case, the product is the whole gamut of homosexuality, homosexual acts, homosexual relationships, even the abstract concept. All these are the subject of the promotional campaign which some local authorities are undertaking, and which the Government think they should not.
It is when we look at the matter in this way that we can see why it is that the formulation in the Bill does not give rise to the problems which have concerned so many noble Lords. While a local authority is going about its legitimate business there is no reason for it to be promoting homosexuality. It may well want to take steps to ensure that in providing services it caters for homosexuals as well as for the rest of the community. Provided that those steps are properly judged in relation to that problem and are not a disguised form of promotional campaign of the kind to which I have referred we can see no reason to object to them. Steps to ensure that homosexuals are effectively served by the local authority in the same way that other sections of the community are served are one thing; promotional campaigns are quite another. When an authority sets out to proselytise, to impose its views on homosexuality on the rest of the community, then matters have gone too far. We think that this distinction is well caught by the phrase,
"the intentional promotion of homosexuality"
to describe what local authorities are not permitted to do.
On a detailed point, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in his Amendment No. 81, suggested referring to the acceptability of homosexuality as "the basis of'' a family relationship rather than simply "as" a family relationship. That does not seem to alter the sense of what has been said. It simply adds three words to the paragraph which we believe are unnecessary to its sense. On that basis I cannot support that amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, supported by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, asked whether I would look at an alternative wording for paragraph (b). I believe that the noble Lord is mistaken in his reading

613
of paragaph (h). He suggests that it will prevent a teacher teaching in certain ways. It will not do so. The paragraph is directed solely at the local authorities, not at the teachers. The local authority's only function in this field is now to state its views in a statement under Section 17 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. As I have explained, the governing body is not bound by that statement. The teacher is answerable to the governing body and not to the local authority.
Lord Gifford: May I intervene on a very important point? If a teacher, whether in the course of a sex education lesson, a literature lesson, or in any other way, is heard to express a view or even discuss the acceptability of homosexuality and there is a complaint by a parent of a pupil who is upset by what that teacher has taught, surely the local authority must pursue or discipline that teacher. If it does not, it will he failing in its duty under the Act. It will be permitting or promoting the activities of that teacher. There is a real problem here because of the wording of paragraph (b). I hope the noble Earl will take that seriously.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed I take the matter seriously. That is why I have taken time to reply specifically to the noble Lord. I come back to what he said. It was, I confess, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in Committee that was largely responsible for the Government's amendment which we shall shortly deal with. However, what the teacher does is now the responsibility of the head teacher and the governing body, not the local authority. What we are talking about in the Bill is the attitude of the local authority. I hope that covers the point.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, that I am unable to accept his amendment. I hope I have explained to your Lordships why we believe the wording in the Bill is the right wording.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down perhaps I may point out that he gave his reasons for not wishing to accept my Amendment No. 81 although I have not yet moved that amendment. I cannot refer to my amendment while interrupting the noble Earl but I intend to move it when it is called.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, of course I understand that. However, as I said earlier, the difficulty that we are facing on this clause is that so many amendments are inter-related that when I was trying to define the Government's attitude to the words "promoting homosexuality" I had to touch upon the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, the noble Earl has made the point that no local authority could be taken to task for promoting homosexuality if a teacher made a wrong step or a suggestion in the classroom such as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, referred to because that teacher is not answerable to the local authority. Are we to understand from that
614
that governing bodies and head teachers can promote homosexuality but local authorities may not? Since the teacher is answerable to the head teacher and to the governing body, presumably they could advance such matters but local authorities cannot. It does not make sense to me.
With regard to what the noble Earl said about the promotional campaign of local authorities, I can only revert to what I said originally—that it may well he according to the way one looks at it. On the one hand, a local authority may be trying to achieve equal opportunities which to certain people may appear to be a promotional campaign. There was a period in our last exchanges when I hoped we might be approaching a consensus and I hoped your Lordships might agree that even a slight rewording would clear up many difficulties.
In Committee and now we must have spent a great many hours debating this clause, and it would be nice to feel that something had been achieved. I would regard a more precise wording as a very satisfactory achievement. Unfortunately, that moment seems to have passed, and in those circumstances I am hound to withdraw the amendment. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government may think again and alter one word or words which may make a difference.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 75
Page 28, line 29, leave out ("homosexuality") and insert ("homosexual behaviour or activity").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, and I shall speak also to Amendments No. 78 and 80. I am much obliged to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, because he has—whether he knows it or not—answered the question which I asked in my opening speech, which was why a clause that was considered to be both unnecessary and inappropriate is now considered to be necessary and appropriate. I believe that the list of matters he read out about the promotion of homosexuality amounting to the hard sell of it, so to speak, may be the answer which he now gives to the House and which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, were unable to give.
My own problem is not with the word "promote" but with the word "homosexuality". A11 I have asked in the past and wish to ask again is: has the word "promote" ever been used before in a statute without a concrete object? I am perfectly happy with the use of it in Clause 27 and in the Education Reform Bill. I am not happy with its use here in conjunction with the word "homosexuality". In the Oxford Dictionary homosexuality is given as the quality of being homosexual. Can one promote a quality or its homosexual character? I do not think one can do that or promote homosexual nature. Instead of homosexuality, I propose two concrete things that can be promoted—homosexual behaviour or activity.
I have asked two questions. The first is why an abstract word is used when a concrete word will do. Secondly, has the word "promote" ever been used in a statute before with an abstract concept as its object. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, it is quite obvious that the noble Earl is agonising over some of the semantical problems in this clause. We started out originally with, if I recall correctly, "the promotion of homosexuality". That was amended by a government amendment to "intentionally promote". In Amendment No. 77 it is to be amended again at the behest of the Government to "intend to promote". This indicates to me that there is a certain difficulty and second thoughts on the part of the Government about the actual application of the words "promote" or "promotion".
I should like to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Henderson because I think that the words "promote" or "promotion" and "homosexuality" have an effect upon each other being somewhat semantical. However, if one defines more narrowly, as the noble Lord suggests, homosexual behaviour or activity, instead of using the rather loose word "homosexuality", which may be taken in a very wide context, as we have been discussing at great length in the arts and in the whole education field, the problem of whether one uses in this clause "intentionally promote" or, as proposed by the noble Earl, "intend to promote" is solved at least to a large extent. Therefore I think that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Henderson is very well taken.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, it seems to me that as usual the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, is absolutely and completely right and what he is saying cannot be disputed. The word "homosexuality" is described as an abstract concept, quality or state, or the condition of being homosexual. That is not something it is possible to promote; nor can it imaginably be a relationship. Homosexuality cannot be a relationship. That is the reason for my Amendment No. 81 in which I talk of homosexuality being the basis of a relationship. But a relationship it cannot be. Therefore I strongly support the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches in all of these amendments.
Lord Monson: My Lords, until just over 48 hours ago I thought that this amendment had everything to commend it. After all, it seemed a reasonable assumption that one could undoubtedly promote bisexuality—in other words, encourage people to "try it out" with those of the same sex so as to discover whether it was slightly more pleasurable or amusing than heterosexuality. But one could not promote pure homosexuality, if I may coin a phrase, which is something one is either born with or acquires at a very early age.
However, only two days ago the Sunday Telegraph published an extended interview with a very well known English author whose amusing novels many of your Lordships will have undoubtedly read. They are generally set in an imaginary Oxbridge college with frequent excursions to Greek islands where the pagan gods still hold sway. When asked by the Sunday Telegraph interviewer whether he had enjoyed his school days at Charterhouse the author replied:
616
"There were sports which I enjoyed; there was intrigue for power which I enjoyed; there was homosexuality which I enjoyed".
Mr. Raven, for it was he, did not mean by "homosexuality" some abstract, philosophical concept; nor did he mean some spiritual relationship of a totally celibate nature. What he meant by that word in that context was a homosexual relationship leading to physical homosexual activity. If such a master of the English language treats homosexuality an synonymous with homosexual activity and behaviour, one can only assume that many other people must do likewise. That being the case, my rather reluctant conclusion is that the word "homosexuality" ought to stand.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, in about ten words. We do not legislate against abstract criminality; we legislate against criminal behaviour.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not sure that I can add much to what I previously said about these amendments when I spoke to the previous amendment. I endeavoured to explain that we are concerned about all aspects of homosexuality and not just homosexual acts. We wish to cover the sum of homosexuality—homosexual relationships and sexual orientation; in short, every aspect of the way homosexuality manifests itself. That is what the local authorities to which we take exception are trying to promote. Therefore, we believe that the wording in the Bill is appropriate.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, that the Government are not having second thoughts about the words "promoting homosexuality". If he waits until I move my amendments, he will see that we have confirmed what I said in Committee we were trying to do, which is to make it the intention of the local authority. The whole point in the Government's amendment of changing the wording is to ensure, as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said in Committee, that where there is an ambiguity, there is no ambiguity, and that the clause focuses solely on the intentions of the local authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, is right to say that homosexual activity and homosexual behaviour are important. However, I believe that that misses out a vital ingredient: that local authorities are promoting—in some stages, as I said—the abstract concept which the noble Lord's amendment would not catch. It would expose children and young people at a vulnerable age to the powers of persuasion, using ratepayers' and taxpayers' money, and I think that the House would live to regret that if we were to accept the noble Lord's amendments.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him a question about the remarks he made about my intervention? I hope that I did not imply that the Government had any intention of promoting ambiguity. I suggested that the ambiguity of the subsection would be removed, or at least modified, by changing the abstract word "homosexuality" to the words proposed by my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think I can add very little, except to say that the two aspects which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, wishes to put into the Bill limit the ambit of the clause and will not catch a very great deal of the activity that the local authorities are promoting at the moment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, would the Minister care to answer my other question which I specifically put to him? It was whether the word "promote" had been used in a statute or legislation in conjunction with an abstract concept.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not reply to the noble Lord on that point. Perhaps I may look into the matter and check before I give him a definite answer on it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, it was a question which I raised in Committee so I had hoped that the noble Earl would have had an answer by the Report stage. I am very grateful to him, however, for giving me the opportunity of receiving a letter or some kind of communication from him in due course.
I am glad to have aired this subject. I think we know a great deal more about the Government's intentions as a result of having put down these amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 28, line 29, leave out from ("homosexuality") to end of line 37.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Kilbracken because it gives us another opportunity to look at that odd phrase "pretended family relationship". I think that this wording has been questioned on both sides of the House and at the Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to it as an "invidious" phrase. I thought that the noble Earl on the Front Bench said he would do something about it, but perhaps I was wrong.
I personally find this phrase particularly offensive, for rather the same reasons as the lady who wrote that very eloquent letter which my noble friend Lord Gifford has just read out. I say this because from the age of seven, after my parents separated, I was brought up by two women, one of them my mother, in an actual family relationship. There was no pretence there. Quite frankly, I cannot see why this should be considered in any way objectionable. It was a good family, and I maintain that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a homosexual couple bringing up a child. I consider that I had as rich and as happy a childhood as most children who are reared by heterosexual couples, and far better than many I see in my daily practice as a doctor. I do not think any of the defects in my character, of which I have an average number, have arisen from my being brought up by two women. My sexual orientation is, I am told, also pretty average and so is that of my children.
Let us look at what has now become a rather famous book, Jenny lives with Eric and Martin. It has
618
been mentioned several times already at the Committee stage of this Bill. Apart from being a monumentally boring little book, it is now enjoying considerable and probably undeserved fame. However, it was not produced to promote homosexuality, either intentionally or otherwise, but, I submit, to protect those children who were being brought up by single sex couples, whether male or female—and most schools contain a few of these, sometimes quite a few—to protect them from the intolerance of their schoolfellows. Many of those, I am afraid, are brought up to believe that homosexuals are perverts or have AIDS and are generally an unacceptable and inferior branch of the human race.
Hence, I am sorry to say—and here I borrow a phrase from my noble friend Lord Longford—gay-bashing expeditions by some of the less pleasant youth in our schools are now becoming more common. This is not mere conjecture on my part. I have evidence of it. Only the other day, a teacher came in to see us, badly beaten up because he had been suspected of being gay. He was a male dance teacher in a local secondary school and he had been beaten up by the children in the school. It so happened that he was not gay, but they thought he was.
This book which I have mentioned was intended to rebut this misinformation that gays are despicable. It was meant to show that a pair of gay men can be as caring, as affectionate and also as humdrum as any orthodox couple. There is a picture of a small girl in the same bed as two men who are presumed gay. Some might find that shocking. I would suggest that the small girl was actually a lot safer in a bed with two gay men than some small girls are in the same bed with their own heterosexual father. The paediatricians of Cleveland may have been a bit trigger happy in diagnosing childhood sexual abuse. But there is now no doubt that it is far more common than has been publicly admitted. In the great majority of cases the guilty parent is living in a heterosexual relationship.
As has been said by other noble Lords, a sizeable minority of human beings—it is often estimated at 10 per cent.—by some jinx of crossed wires or programming, prefer to live in the intimate company of their own sex. And nothing that we pass in this clause will change that. People living in these relationships often wish that they did not feel more comfortable that way. It would be far easier for them to conform, and some deny their homosexual tendencies and live unhappily in heterosexual marriages which produce children.
When those marriages break down, it is sometimes the case that the homosexually inclined partner is the more stable of the pair and takes on the care of the children. Are these good citizens who are making a good home for their children to be denied the chance to have a loving adult relationship while rearing their children even when the heterosexual parent may be unstable, an alcoholic or a drug user as I have known is the case from my own personal experience as a doctor? Surely, the need now is for greater tolerance of the homosexually-inclined minority in our midst

619
and not for the increased intolerance which is already growing, I am afraid, and which this and all the other subsections of this clause will only encourage.
I wonder whether it will be at all possible for the noble Earl to think again on "pretended family relationship". I do not believe that many in this House or even the majority who voted in favour of the clause as a whole are entirely happy about it.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, may I suggest that the noble Lord who has just spoken, while rambling over many curious and peculiar arrangements which I did not understand, nonetheless was at times confusing friendship with homosexuality?
Lord Rea: My Lords, as the noble Lord actually asks me to reveal an extremely personal part of my life, I can say that the noble Lord is completely wrong. Also, it is possible for couples whether heterosexual or homosexual to be extremely discreet about their sexual relationships. How many noble Lords here have actually seen their parents indulging in a sexual act or knew even until they were perhaps adolescent what they did in bed together?
Lord Gifford: My Lords, the remarkable speech of my noble friend Lord Rea and the candour with which he has spoken should, I would have thought, commend itself to the whole House. What he has done by the graphic illustration of his own family is to illustrate what an insult the present wording of this clause is to so many people who are exercising their right to have a private life which, as I said in Committee, is enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is the right to have a particular form of private life. I return fortified by what my noble friend has said to the question that I was posing a while ago to the noble Earl. I was very interested in his statement that subparagraph (b) of the new subsection is not intended to affect the way in which teachers approach the difficult issues which they may have to encounter when discussion of gay and lesbian relationships arises in the classroom. I have looked up the Education Act to verify for myself that he is right.
If the clause is not meant to affect the behaviour of teachers in the classroom, one wonders what subparagraph (b) is intended to do, with its curious and, as I have submitted, offensive and insulting wording. If it is only designed to stop the activities of local authorities, in so far as they have a possible responsibility, from, for instance, putting into school libraries materials which the noble Earl believes to be offensive, then there is no need for it because the local authority will be caught by subparagraph (a). Subparagraph (a) is quite wide enough to cover all the possible actions which I can think of that might be envisaged in terms of subparagraph (b).
Having been reassured to some extent that subparagraph (b) is not intended to bring under the microscope of disciplinary proceedings the decision of a teacher to say that homosexual relationships may be acceptable, then that calls into question the purpose of subparagraph (b). Since it retains the very difficult and very offensive words, it is much better that we should delete it altogether.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise briefly to associate myself with all my heart as well as my mind with the moving words of my noble friend Lord Rea. I think that if we were to suffer the misfortune of going back to some of the moralising and lay preaching which we heard earlier on this evening, the House would be doing itself a disservice.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the amendment. As I said when speaking to Amendment No. 72, surely it is much better to encourage or, at any rate, to tolerate stable homosexual relationships than it is to encourage or tolerate promiscuous homosexual relationships, which can do so much harm if indulged in to excess, even leaving aside the question of AIDS and venereal disease. Yet subparagraph (b), as it stands, takes a diametrically opposed view. I cannot understand that. I hope that the noble Lord will press his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has made some persuasive arguments for deleting all the specific references in new subsection 2A(1), and for retaining only the simple prohibition that:
"A local authority shall not intentionally promote homosexuality".
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, was quite correct to say, in connection with an earlier amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has just said, that the specific references to publishing material, to promoting the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship and the giving of financial or other assistance to others with the intention of promoting homosexuality, would all be encompassed by the single phrase "intentionally promoting homosexuality".
There is therefore clearly a case for limiting the prohibition to that single phrase, Indeed, as I shall explain in due course when speaking to the amendments which are down in my name, the Government accept the case for deleting the reference in subparagraph 2A(1) (c) to the giving of financial or other assistance. We have come to the view that retention of that paragraph might cast doubt on whether it is the intention of the authority or the intention of the person receiving assistance that is at stake; and that, even if redrafted to clarify the point, a specific subsection would add nothing in practice to the overall ban on intentionally promoting homosexuality. It does not matter whether that promotion is direct or indirect, by the local authority or by a third party with assistance from the authority. If the intention is to promote homosexuality, it will be prohibited.
It is a sound legislative rule not to use six words where one will do. The Government do not, however, consider that that approach should lead us to delete the references in the latter part of subparagraph 2A(1)(a) and subparagraph (b) to publishing material and to promoting the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship. Perhaps I may explain the Government's view. We believe very strongly that it is necessary to encompass in Clause 28 all the possible ways in which

621
a local authority might promote homosexuality. That is why we have supported the sponsors of this clause in their proposal for a widely based prohibition, encompassing all forms of promotion and all aspects of homosexuality.
There is however no doubt that there are two particular aspects of a local authority's powers which, if used for promoting homosexuality, would give rise to particular concern. Those are its powers to issue publicity and, for a local education authority, the influence it has on teaching sex education in schools. It is on these two particular powers that the references to specific aspects of promoting homosexuality concentrate.
The first specific aspect is publicity. We have touched in our debates on Clause 27 on the potential, in terms of influencing public attitudes and opinion, of local authority publicity. Publicity at public expense is, because of this potential to colour people's views, always a highly sensitive matter. By its nature publicity can be instrusive and if it touches on controversial subjects it can cause public concern and resentment. For all those reasons, publicity whose purpose is to promote homosexuality gives rise to particular concern and in the Government's view deserves special mention.
It seems to us unarguable that many of the activities by local authorities to promote homosexuality would have but limited impact without accompanying publicity. For example, the views and policies of the GLC on positive images of homosexuals and homosexuality were given wide public circulation in a glossy pamphlet, Changing the World— A London Charter JOr Gay and Lesbian Rights. This public statement of policy has been adopted by a number of London boroughs. The policies it promotes underlie many of the activities by local authorities which have given rise to public concern.
Similarly, activities aimed at young people such as the "Lesbian Strength and Gay Pride Week" to which I referred earlier can themselves be promoted and thus attract susceptible participants through carefully targeted publicity material.
The sponsors of the clause considered that it was necessary to highlight publicity as a particular means of promoting homosexuality. The Government agree that publicity is, in many cases, a fundamental element of the problem that we are seeking to stop. We therefore believe that the reference should remain.
So far as teaching is concerned, we believe that there is a clear case for highlighting, on the face of this legislation, the particular matter which has caused most public concern and engendered parents' resentment. It has been said many times in your Lordships' debates on this issue that the effects of local authority policies on impressionable children are at the root of our concern. The policies of some councils for teaching that homosexuality is the norm and that homosexuality is acceptable as a pretended family relationship are a particularly undesirable development. The sponsors of the clause wished to underline this particular problem by a specific reference to it in the clause. There are many other ways in which a local authority might seek to
622
influence sex education teaching in schools. Books such as "Young Gay and Proud" and "The Milkman's on his Way", which contain explicit references to homosexual acts, and are recommended, notably by the ILEA, as suitable reading for 13- and 16-year-olds respectively, illustrate that very clearly. Nevertheless, the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship is a prospect which causes legitimate concern on the part of parents. We therefore support the inclusion of Section 2A(1)(b) in Clause 28.
I should just say to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, who mentioned the fact that he would look up the Education Act, that teachers and governors of schools are already subject to Section 46 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 which requires that all sex education in schools should have regard to morality and the value of family life. It should be emphasised that all the evidence is of local authorities promoting homosexuality—not schools or school governors. That is why Clause 28 is aimed specifically at local authorities, which is where the mischief lies.
I hope that I have said enough to convince the noble Lord, Lord Rea, of the sound reasons why the Government believe that the clause should be extended to incorporate the two specific points that the sponsors of the original amendment thought were necessary. I believe that they give rise to matters of serious public concern. We should prefer to see those points remaining on the face of the Bill
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I spoke earlier to this amendment and do not intend to repeat the arguments that I put forward then. We shall have an opportunity on later amendments to discuss the phrase that my noble friend Lord Gifford found so objectionable, namely:
"the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
I prefer to leave that discussion until then.
I find myself completely unconvinced by what the noble Earl has said in speaking against my amendment. If only those words remain, the Bill is every bit as effective. I do not like the wording of the Bill. It simply means that certain ways of promoting homosexuality have been mentioned when many others could similarly have been raised.
Clearly there is no point in dividing the House at this hour of the night. At the same time I do not wish to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 77 to 88.
On Question, amendment negatived.
11.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 28, line 30, leave out ("intended to promote") and insert ("with the intention of promoting").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 77 and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 85 and 87. These government amendments in my name deal with the apparent

623
ambiguity in the existing drafting of Clause 28 referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, at Committee stage. Your Lordships will recall that, although I was clear that it was only the intention of the authority that was relevant to the construing of the clause, I agreed to consider whether it was possible to improve the drafting further and to remove any scope of possible misunderstanding of the kind referred to by the noble Lord.
The government amendments are therefore essentially of a technical nature. To the extent, however, that they improve the drafting, and thus make clear the Government's position, I think that they will also remove some of the concerns about the effects of the clause on the activities of persons in receipt of finance or other assistance from local authorities.
Amendment No. 77 replaces the present reference in the proposed Section 2A(1)(a) to,
"material intended to promote homosexuality".
so that a local authority will be prohibited from publishing material
"with the intention of promoting homosexuality",
With this new formulation, there can be no doubt of the kind raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. It is the intention of the local authority in publishing material, as in all other things, that is crucial to the decision whether it is promoting homosexuality.
Amendment No. 85 is consequential on this change. Its effect is two-fold. It makes an amendment to the proposed Section 2A(1)(b) to delete the reference to the promoting of the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship
"by the publication of such material or otherwise".
With the new formulation of the proposed Section 2A(1)(a) and the replacement of the adjectival phrase "intended to promote" by the adverbial phrase "with the intention of promoting" this reference is now meaningless. Although it would be possible in logic to redraft it, we decided after some consideration that the best way forward was to remove from the proposed new Section 2A(1)(b) all reference to the publication of material.
The second change, consequential upon the revised wording of the proposed new Section 2A(1)(a) is the deletion of paragraph (c). This paragraph prohibits a local authority giving financial or other assistance to any person for
"either of the purposes referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) above".
If paragraph (c) were to remain, questions about intention would again arise. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, would be able to ask whether the purpose was that of a local authority or of a group receiving assistance. It could be argued that the effect of the reference in the paragraph to "purpose" would be to make relevant the intention of the person to whom assistance was given rather than the authority.
The Government have always made it clear that this was not their view of the clause, nor their purpose in supporting it. Its deletion will make it clear beyond doubt that any remaining allegations about the effect of the clause on the funding of voluntary
624
organisations, art groups, and other bodies by local authorities are without foundation.
On the other hand, I would stress that it does not weaken the impact of the clause on the local authority itself. Whether it sets out to promote homosexuality directly by doing things itself, or whether it sets out to do so indirectly by subsidising others to promote homosexuality, it will still be setting out to promote homosexuality and the clause will therefore intervene to stop it. The amendment makes it even clearer that where a local authority for a proper purpose, within its powers, decides to give assistance to a voluntary group it does not have to conduct an investigation into the motives of that group. It is sufficient that the local authority's own intention is unimpeachable.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, for the point he raised. I hope that the amendments serve to clarify quite a lot of the misunderstanding and that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in particular will be pleased. I have heard that this amendment has settled a lot of doubts. Something that was always our intention is now made absolutely clear. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly support these amendments. They clarify the true and original intendment of the draft as it came from the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. As to Amendment No. 77, the House owes a debt of gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for having put forward the amendment that served as a vehicle for the expression of fears felt by various sides of the House about the incidence of the clause.
Those fears have been allayed, one would hope, by Amendment No. 77, which shows it is only the intention of the local authority that is relevant. I am grateful that the original intendment has been clarified in that way.
As to Amendment No. 85, it recognises the interaction between the first limb of general application and the second limb, to which reference has already been made. Recognising that interaction, it seeks to excise certain words from the second limb as otiose, the situation being covered by the first limb. That, again, shows the expertise of the parliamentary draftsman as distinct from the efforts of do-it-yourself lawyers. It is drafted in excellent form. I congratulate the Government and hope that both amendments commend themselves to your Lordships.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, I am very happy to appreciate and recognise a concession when I see one, particularly one made so promptly and so fully in response to a suggestion I made. The wording of Amendment No. 77 meets the point I raised in Committee, and meets it beyond any doubt. As a perhaps unexpected bonus, the logic of my thinking has been followed by the noble Earl in paragraph (c), and I thoroughly support the outcome of that, which is Amendment No. 85. I welcome both amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I too welcome these amendments and reiterate the gratitude of these Benches and of my noble friend Lord Gifford for the Minister's prompt reaction to the fears earlier expressed. I should not like it to be thought, however, that in supporting these amendments we feel that what is left is satisfactory.

625
After all, the main points of objection to the clause—the use of the very wide phrase "promote homosexuality", and the use of the words "acceptability" and "pretended family relationship" —are still there. They are still capable of doing very substantial damage and on a false basis.
There is a false presumption behind the whole of this clause that any significant part of local authority activities with regard to homosexuals could possibly be construed in the ways that have been described. A great deal of local authority activity in that respect relates to the avoidance of discrimination against homosexuals, which I hope it is not the intention of the Government to overturn, and counselling those who find themselves perplexed at the prospect of understanding their homosexuality. I understand—I hope correctly— that it is not the intention of the Government to overturn those. All that is left is a small part of local government's activities with regard to homosexuality. And we still have wide, confusing, ambiguous wording which runs the severe risk of threatening the valuable activities of those authorities. However, we must give thanks for what has been achieved.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not wish to carp about the wording of paragraph (b). But even taking account of the changes that have been made and the fact that the wording now stops at the word "relationship", it is most confusing. The term "pretended family relationship" is still most unsatisfactory. I do not like the clause. However, if the Minister insists on saying what he intends to say, would he not agree that some such words as,
"promote the teaching of homosexuality in any maintained school as an acceptable basis for a family relationship"
leaving out the word "pretended" is much clearer and more acceptable? I do not like what the Government are trying to say, but if they are going to say it, it should be said in a way that is clear and makes sense. I suggest that my wording is better than the term "pretended family relationship".
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that some of your Lordships have been able to give to the Government's amendments. I am sorry that there is still some confusion in the minds of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The Government have listened carefully to all the debates during the Committee stage and to representations made from outside the Chamber. I believe that we now have it right. As regards paragraph (b), mentioned by the noble Baroness, we return to some of the detail which has already been discussed tonight and some of which will continue to be discussed for the rest of the evening. I believe that the clause as now amended is a much better and more well understood piece of legislation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 28, line 32, leave out ("acceptability") and insert ("acceptance")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I welcome improvements to the Bill made by the Minister's Amendments Nos. 77 and 85. The Bill refers to a subjective word; namely "acceptability". It is a word which could occupy your Lordships in your judicial capacity for hour after hour. Those were precisely the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, speaking from the Government Front Bench and reported in Hansard at col. 334 on 18th December, 1986. Will the Minister say whether he agrees with his noble friend that the use of the word "acceptability" could occupy your Lordships sitting judicially for hour after hour? If he does, I am sure that he will agree that my more concrete, substituted word is better than the word in the Bill. He might consider taking this matter away and trying to find a word better than either.
Many people are puzzled by the concept of "acceptability". The question, "Acceptable to whom?" is the least of those which are asked, but it comes most readily to mind. With the words of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, ringing in the Minister's ears, I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. I promise not to go on for hour after hour. Surely, the acceptability of homosexuality gives the impression of a subject for a debate on whether homosexuality is acceptable. I do not think that that is the intention. The intention is to prohibit teaching the acceptance of homosexuality.
11.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has proposed a series of amendments. I believe that he spoke also to Amendments Nos. 82 and 83.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords. no.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord has moved Amendment No. 79. I fear that I may have to stray on to the other amendments, as I have done previously.
The amendment to subparagraph 2A(1)(b) concerns the prohibition of local authorities promoting the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship. The purpose is to question some of the detailed aspects of the drafting. I am not persuaded that plucking out each element of the paragraph and questioning the inclusion of each word and phrase within it as opposed to some other similar words or phrase is necessarily a productive exercise. Subparagraph 2A(1)(b) is a combination of words devised to encapsulate a particular form of teaching that local authorities should not be promoting in schools. That is why I have to refer also to Amendments Nos. 82 and 83.
In regard to the individual words, each plays a part. Each contributes something to the sense of the whole. It is the phrase in total, not its individual component parts, that conveys the essential message of the paragraph. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, suggested that the first word,

627
"acceptability" should be replaced by the word "acceptance". In the Government's view that is not a desirable change. The word "acceptance" imparts a different flavour from the word "acceptability", which affects the nuance of the paragraph as a whole.
It is very largely a matter of nuance. In our view "acceptability" offers a better expression of the concept that a homosexual relationship is in some way to be welcomed. The word "acceptance" does not seem to have the element of subjectivity which is at the root of the mischief that the paragraph seeks to describe. Teaching acceptance of a situation which exists and which one should tolerate is a very different matter from teaching that the same situation is the norm or that it is something to be favoured or emulated.
This nuance is repeated throughout the paragraph. There is no attempt to deny that there exist relationships which have all the appearance of a normal family relationship but where two adults are of the same sex. The purpose of the phrase,
"teaching … the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship",
is to indicate that the local authorities should not be using their powers under Section 17 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to encourage the teaching that relationships between two people of the same sex can and should play the same role in society as the traditional family.
In our view the term "pretended family relationship" is preferable to the term "normal family relationship" because we do not wish to use the word "normal" for the one case to imply abnomality in the other. This seems to us to be irrelevant to the point at issue.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, would the Minister agree that he has now gone on to Amendments Nos. 82 and 83, which have not yet been moved? It is not normal in this Chamber for the Minister to comment on amendments that have not yet been moved.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that it is entirely relevant that I should comment because this is a combination of words devised to cover a particular form of teaching. One must look at this as a whole. That is what I said at the beginning. That is why I said I should have to look forward, as I had to on a previous occasion.
To summarise the Government's view of paragraph 2A(1)(b), we support its inclusion as a supplement to the general prohibition on the promotion of homosexuality. We believe it is important, in the light of developments in the education policies of some councils, to highlight the particular mischief which has led to real resentment among parents. We think it is right to make it clear on the face of the legislation that local authorities should not be using their limited powers to encourage teaching that portrays homosexual relationships which have the appearance of being family relationships, in most senses of that phrase, as being on those grounds a welcomed development or one to be emulated.
628
We believe that the wording of paragraph 2A(1)(b) expresses this mischief well, that it in no way prevents local authorities from advocating a tolerant and non-discriminatory approach to children living in such relationships and that it in no way interferes with the proper role of teachers.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said. However, he has not answered my question as to whether he agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that "acceptability" is a word to occupy your Lordships, sitting in your judicial capacity, for hour after hour. Does the noble Earl agree or not agree with his noble friend Lord Skelmersdale? I see that the noble Earl is not prepared to answer that question and he has not answered other similar questions which I have asked throughout our proceedings today. That is indicative of the curious nature of this rather ugly clause. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 28, line 32, after ("as") insert ("the basis of")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I referred to this amendment earlier, but I wish to refer to it again because it goes back to the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that homosexuality is an abstract concept and that it is quite impossible for homosexuality to be a relationship.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to this point and suggested using the words "the basis of" in the amendment she tabled. My amendment, if accepted, would speak about promoting the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as "the basis of" a relationship. That makes sense and it is English. The present language, I suggest, cannot be. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose this amendment. It is picking at words to no profit at all. It makes not the slightest difference to the sense. It is all part and parcel of the idea that you pick one word "pretended" and another word "acceptability" and push in other words such as "on the basis". If the sense of the intention is clear, as the Minister says it is, what is the profit of this exercise?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am astonished to hear a lawyer say that it does not matter whether or not the words are precise. I thought that that was the whole purpose of legislation: to have precise wording so that it can be properly interpreted in the courts.
The Earl of Caithness: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, was not satisfied with my reasons for rejecting his Amendment No. 81. I wonder whether, like my noble friend, how far we are likely to get by playing at semantics in this way. It seems to me that adding the words "the basis of" if anything weakens the meaning of the phrase,
"as a pretended family relationship".

629
The phrase "the basis or is saying in a rather different way that someone is pretending. One does not need both. I believe that the present drafting is acceptable.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I can only say that I find the noble Earl's comments very extraordinary. The purpose of Committee and Report stages I have always supposed to be the consideration of legislation in detail, line by line and if necessary word by word. On one word or on one line there may be points which one wishes to raise and other points on words which come immediately afterwards. That is what both the noble Lord. Lord Henderson, and my noble friends have done in this case.
I do not believe that this is nitpicking. It is searching for the right words to put into an extremely important Bill. I believe that my proposals and those of other noble Lords have been important and worth considering. I believe that if my amendment were approved the language of this Bill would be greatly improved and at least it would be in correct English. However, I do not intend to divide the House at almost midnight and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 28, line 33, leave out ("pretended").
The noble Lord said: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, would rather that I moved this amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 82 and, for the convenience of the House, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 83. I should very much like to know the intended meaning of the word "pretended". I have been told that in legal jargon it means "claimed" but, of course, that is not the general understanding of the word "pretended".
I remind the House that the Renton Committee on the preparation of legislation, of which I had the honour to be a member, asked the Government if, so far as possible, they would legislate using words that ordinary people can understand. This is an extremely obscure word to find in modern legislation. Nobody reading the amendment could possibly claim that they knew that the word did not mean "pretend" as it is used by children in the expression, "let's pretend". That is the commonly accepted usage of the word and it is baffling, to say the least, that it should be put into this Bill in an archaic sense. That is why I wish to leave out the word "pretended".
Apart from anything else, I wonder if it really weakens the wording of the Clause at all if it is left out. What is the significance of it and why is it necessary? I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have not detained the House very much this evening and I do not intend to do so now, but I want to defend the right of my noble friend and other noble Lords to deal with this difficult — nay impossible — wording not only line by line and word by word but syllable by syllable if they want to.
Lord Gifford: I support this amendment. I believe that the inclusion of the word "pretended" is perhaps the main remaining outstanding blot upon this clause, if we must have this clause at all. First, it adds nothing to the sense of the clause. It would be exactly the same if it read:
"A local authority shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of acceptability of homosexuality as a family relationship".
That would be quite clear and the word "pretended" is surplus. It is surplus in terms of legal interpretation but is not surplus in terms of popular perception, which is what this clause is about.
The Minister has not yet answered the moving plea made by my noble friend Lord Rea and also by myself to avoid insulting certain types of real relationships which occur in this world by the addition of what is really a term of abuse in the clause. What Parliament is saying through the use of this word is that relationships such as the relationships of my noble friend's family are a sham and a pretence. By saying that and allowing such words to stay in the Bill, the Government must accept that they are encouraging bigotry.
The Minister has tried hard to say that this is not about encouraging bigotry and intolerance against gay people. However, as long as this type of word is in the Bill, adding nothing, we are entitled to assume that that is really what is intended by the promoters, to try to whip up or to encourage the continuation of prejudice against relationships of the kind my noble friend has described and of the kind which Miss Mason described in the letter that I read. If by the deletion of a single word, even at this hour of the night, we can remove a real reason for this clause to he regarded as an encouragement to bigotry, we are not wasting the time of the House.
12 midnight.
Lord Monson: My Lords I entirely support the amendment. It seems to me that the sponsors of Clause 28 and the Government will have scored an own goal if they insist upon retaining the word "pretended". What after all is the opposite of a pretended family relationship? It is a genuine family relationship. We shall be faced with the paradoxical situation if the word "pretended" is retained that it will be illegal for local authorities to teach the acceptability of a pretended family relationship but perfectly legal for them to teach the acceptability of homosexuality as a genuine family relationship. If that is what the Government want, so be it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, "pretended" is part of a single phrase which I have already tried to justify to your Lordships, although obviously not very successfully. I shall keep on trying because I am convinced that the clause as a whole is the right one. I therefore do not think that I can add very much to my explanation of the phrase as a whole.
The purpose of paragraph (1) is to give emphasis to a type of encouragement which some local authorities are giving and which is creating particular concern. The purpose is not, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, to whip up prejudice. It is to meet a point that has led to serious concern. Had

631
it not been for the concern that it generated, the phrase would not have been in the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
We do not believe that it would be preferable to delete the term "pretended", as is the case with the next amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, which substitutes the word "normal", because we do not wish, by using the word "normal" for the one case, to imply abnormality in the other. If one looks at the clause as a whole and at the combination of the words, they fit together very well to exemplify one particular point.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I do not think he has explained whether in this place the word "pretended" means "claimed", which we are told is what lawyers mean by "pretended", or "pretended" in the sense of "let's pretend" as used by children, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, once again I must say that I am extremely disappointed by the reply from the noble Earl. To begin with, we have been told that pretended here is used in some mediaeval sense to mean claimed. Why do we have to use a word in its mediaeval sense? When we talk about pretending we do not mean claimed. We all know what is meant by it, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has indicated.
Secondly, what no one has made clear is who is doing the pretending. When we have this statement "homosexuality as a pretended family relationship", who is pretending? Is it meant to suggest that the homosexual couple is pretending that it is a family relationship, or is it just a gratuitous insult on the part of the Government or the draftsman suggesting that it is not a real relationship; it is merely a pretended relationship.
My noble friend Lord Gifford made a most convincing speech in which he pointed out that the word is otiose. It has no function in that paragraph and if it were deleted the meaning would he exactly the same. Moreover, it removes the insult.
It is already tomorrow. Perhaps I should withdraw that remark and say that it is no longer yesterday. I wish to greet the new day by stating that I cannot withdraw the amendment.
12.6 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 82) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-contents, 43.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Birkett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ely, Bp.

McNair, L.

Falkland, V.

Monson, L.

Gifford, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L. [Teller.]

Hacking, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Seear, B.

Jeger, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Kilbracken, L. [Teller.]

Willis, L.

632

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harvington, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Beloff, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blatch, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kimball, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Long, V.

Butterworth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caldecote, V.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnock, L.

Moyne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Dundee, E.

Strange, B.

Ferrers, E.

Teviot, L.

Gisborough, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Ullswater, V.

Goold, L.

Wynford, L.

Halsbury, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.15 a.m.
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 28, line 33, leave out ("family").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must return for some more nit-picking. This time I propose very briefly to delete the word "family" from the clause. My point is that I do not think it can be disputed that there have to be children if there is to be a family. We talk about starting a family and so on. Of course it is possible, as my noble friend Lord Rea pointed out from his own experience, for there to be a homosexual relationship in which children are involved.
The two points that I wish to make arc these. First, such a relationship does not occur more than once in every thousand homosexual relationships. Therefore I do not see any point in introducing specially into this Bill a reference to a family relationship. Moreover if there is a family relationship involving two homosexuals I should have thought that that presented homosexuality in its most acceptable shape. We know that promiscuity is very often a feature of homosexual behaviour. That seems to me to be the face of homosexuality that should be specified and specifically condemned and not homosexuality when it constitutes a family relationship. Therefore I think it is wrong that that word should he included here. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, proposes the deletion of the word "family" from the phrase "pretended family relationship" in the proposed Section 2A (1) (b) of Clause 28. I attempted to explain in my comments on the previous amendments why the Government support the retention of the phrase chosen by the sponsors of the Bill as the best means of encapsulating the particular form of teaching that local authorities should not be promoting. The phrase teaching
"the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".

633
was devised as a means of indicating that local authorities should not be using their powers under Section 17 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to encourage the teaching that relationships between two persons of the same sex can and should play the same role in society as the traditional family.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, not for the first time the noble Earl has referred to the sponsors of the Bill as if they are not the Government. What is the distinction between the sponsors of the Bill and the sponsors of this clause which appears in a government Bill? What is the distinction between the sponsors and the Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is quite a big distinction in this case because as I think the noble Lord will be aware this was originally a Private Member's Bill in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. It was therefore he who promoted these particular words. What the Government have done is accept the wording. The word "family" is an essential element of the phrase we are discussing. We are not concerned with pretended relationships. There is no doubt that two people of the same sex living as part of the same household have a relationship. There is nothing pretended about it. The word "pretended" in the phrase relates more to the concept that such a relationship is a conventional family relationship or the portrayal of it is as equally valid as the traditional family relationship. Without the word "family" the proposed Section 2A(1)(b) would lose an essential part of its meaning.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, as my parentage has been referred to in the original draft I wish to say a few words. We all learnt at school—did we not?—of the Old Pretender and the Young Pretender? What does "pretender" mean in that context?—somebody who makes the pretence of claiming to the throne or whatever it may be? This is a claimed family relationship and that is the reason for the choice of the word "pretended" which seems to me to be fully justified by its dictionary meaning.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the noble Earl is speaking to the wrong amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, we have got on to "family" now. We left "pretended" behind.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I apologise to the House.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I should not dream of again dividing the House on this, but I should like to point out one matter to the noble Earl. If two of my amendments are accepted, then what a local authority shall not do is promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a relationship—not as a pretended family relationship, but as a relationship. Does the insistence of the Minister that the words "pretended" and "family" should be included mean that the acceptability of homosexuality as a relationship can
634
perfectly well be a practice by local authorities? I do not think that he could possibly think that. Perhaps he does. If he does not feel inclined to respond to that matter, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 85 I must tell the House that if that amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 86 to 88.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 85:
"Page 28, line 33, leave out from ("relationship") to end of line 37.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 86 to 88 not moved.]
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 28, line 40, at end insert ("or of providing information, counselling and advice in the interests of public health").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that we are now well into tomorrow. It was not my intention to address this matter at this time of night. However, we have not yet turned our attention forward to subsection (2) of Clause 28. That reads:
"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".
To that I propose to add:
"or of providing information, counselling and advice in the interests of public health".
The amendment stems from my intervention during the debate on 2nd February on whether or not Clause 28 should stand part. On the previous day the noble Earl had said, in response to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh that the Government believe—"believe" was his word—that care, counselling and health education are fully covered by the present formulation in subsection (2). On the following day he replied to me at col. 1017 of the Official Report that,
"nothing in the clause need affect what a local authority does in this field".
The field being discussed was that of personal support and counselling services.
I raise the matter because I am still not convinced that the Government have thought it through. On the last occasion, I mentioned the Terrence Higgins Trust and its safer sex campaign for gay men which has been commended by the Department of Health and Social Security and by the Health Education Authority as well as by the Social Services Committee in another place. The trust receives a grant from central government which I think is in the region of £300,000 this year. The trust is seriously worried that Clause 28 could be used to censor a health education campaign that has worked outstandingly well so far.
Among other things, the trust runs what is called the Roadshow which is based at a disco in London. A disco is an establishment of which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, expressed some disapproval earlier this evening. The Roadshow tours the rest of the country, gives advice and information on safer sex and presents videos and provides counsellors to deal with individual inquiries. Much of that happens on premises at present licensed or provided by local authorities.
Surely it would be absurd if activities which are supported by central government have to be stopped because local government can no longer play its part. No doubt the noble Earl will repeat the assurances that I have already mentioned. His assurances are always of some comfort. But that comfort is necessarily limited because it will be the courts and not the noble Earl who interpret the statute. He may say, "Who on earth is going to invoke the courts against counselling and information in the interests of public health?". I have to tell your Lordships that there is little doubt in my mind that there are certain groups which will not hesitate to force a prosecution, as soon as the Bill is law, of certain material which they find distasteful that is an integral part of a safer sex campaign designed above all to limit the spread of HIV infection among the population at large.
Or, to follow another line of thought, if the words "promotion of homosexuality" and indeed "pretended family relationship-, which we have spent so much time discussing this evening, are to stand part of the Bill, as it seems that they are, even after the Government's amendments, what would their effect be on counselling whose object is to persuade homosexual people to reduce their partners to one, thereby in a sense simulating or approximating a family relationship or entering what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, called a stable quasi-permanent relationship, which is a highly desirable state of affairs one would have thought?
As a result of this clause, will we not be faced with the illogicality that it is meritorious to counsel a heterosexual person to be monogamous and faithful but that to counsel a homosexual to eliminate promiscuity and stick to one partner may be seen as promotion of homosexuality, and thus be illegal? Equally, may not material designed to inform about homosexuality and the dangers of certain practices, which is distributed in, say, a sixth-form college catering for young people between the ages of 16 and 19 and still maintained by a local education authority, be caught under Section 2A(1)(b), although it may form part of a sex education campaign?
I believe there is a distinct possibility that counselling and/or material designed to reduce the number of homosexual contacts may be caught under one or other of those formulations. On those grounds I seriously question whether the Government have thought through the implications of this clause for public health and welfare. It is not only the Terrence Higgins Trust which is perturbed. I have had a letter on this subject from the British Association of Counselling. I ought to declare an interest as I am a vice-president. I shall not read it out at this time of night for which I am sure that noble Lords will be grateful.
Some noble Lords will possibly also have heard from probation officers who feel that their work may be adversely affected in the process of counselling young offenders or homosexuals whom they frequently advise of the existence of voluntary groups which are supported by local authority funding and whose closure they would view with grave disquiet.
I do not want to be unconstructive. Obviously I shall not press this amendment tonight. However, I
636
want the noble Earl to say at least that he will have another look at subsection (2) in consultation with the AIDS unit of the DHSS, the Health Education Authority and any other relevant body in this field. It may well be that there is some more apposite wording than I have proposed which the noble Earl himself may bring forward at Third Reading.
If he is not able to help me in some way, I am afraid that it will be difficult for me not to revert to this matter at a later stage. Indeed, it would be an enormous "own goal" if Clause 28 of the Bill in any way interfered with the Government's very successful campaign to stem the spread of AIDS in this country.
Finally, I want to say that in this very specific amendment I am not addressing some of the wider issues of civil rights, tolerance, discrimination and so forth that have already been discussed—I think rightly—in your Lordships' House this evening. I am looking at this matter in a coldly objective light from the point of view of public health, and I am not at all convinced that the Government have yet got subsection (2) right. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the reason for subsection (2) of the Bill as it stands seems to me to be perfectly explicit. It states:
"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".
It is important not to say that twice, which is invited by accepting Amendment No. 89, but also to leave whoever are to be the judges of this matter—whether it be the courts or local authorities—free to make a judgment about the intention of the counselling or the production of the literature. I prefer to leave subsection (2) as it stands, simply saying that anything that is genuinely for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease is sufficient. I think that that subsumes the objectives of the noble Lord. I believe that some literature goes beyond the bounds of simply counselling or preaching safer sex to condoning and even promoting homosexuality.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, this seems a sensible amendment. I cannot understand the argument of the noble Baroness. Surely the phrase that precedes this amendment refers to AIDS. That is the way I have read it. It is about the spread of disease.
This amendment talks about counselling and advice. That is the first time they have been mentioned. It is not old ground that has been gone over time and again, either at Committee stage or in your Lordships' House tonight. It seems to be new. It seems to chime exactly with the Government's intention. It cannot possibly harm the Bill. Above all, it will reassure dozens of dedicated and admirable men and women who are providing counselling services and advice. There is no other mention of counselling and advice in the Bill. I cannot believe that it will do anything but good.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, surely the phrase in subsection (2), "preventing the spread of disease", must include
"providing information, counselling and advice in the interests of public health".
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, a great deal of good sense has been spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, who moved this amendment and by my noble friend who has just spoken. I apologise—I am not referring to the noble Baroness, but to the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, who is sitting beside me.
The amendment would give reassurance to the voluntary societies and many others who do this work in good faith that this saving is additional to the saving which was put into the Bill, I believe by the Government, in Committee in another place.
There is yet one more argument which is of some importance. All of us wish to avoid busybodies or people taking actions against councils, perhaps out of spite, or as a result of misreading the Bill. It seems to me that it would save quite a number of possibly malicious actions being taken if this saving was spread a little more widely. It may well he that such actions would be legally aided. It would certainly be the case that the defence would have to come out of the rates. It is in all our interests that such actions are not promoted.
I believe that the extension of this saving would be a safeguard in that direction. That is an additional argument for the Government to take this proposal away and think about it. I have not heard a viable or valid argument against this amendment today. In that spirit, I hope that the noble Earl will consider the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it seems to me that this amendment is wholly reasonable and perfectly justified on a belts and braces argument. As someone who, unlike most of the Government's critics today, broadly supports the Government on Clause 28, perhaps I may make this point. Section 28—as it is to become—will get off to a very much better start if the Government could see fit to make just a few more concessions to those who, rightly or wrongly, are worried about this clause.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has proposed this amendment to the wording of Clause 28(2) specifically to exclude from the prohibition anything done for the purpose of providing information, advice and counselling in the interests of public health.
We consider this addition to be unnecessary. The existing subsection, which was introduced by way of a government amendment in another place, excludes from the prohibition the doing of anything for the purposes of treating or preventing the spread of disease. We consider that the existing wording already covers fully the activities referred to in the amendment of the noble Lord. It is difficult to think of anything that might be brought into the exclusion by the addition of the reference to
"providing information, counselling and advice in the interests of public health"
that would not be excluded by the present wording.
Public health is essentially the treatment of or preventing the spread of disease. I can certainly assure the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that the clause will not stop local authorities from
"providing information, counselling and advice in the interests of public health".
638
The sole purpose of Clause 28 is to stop local authorities intentionally promoting homosexuality which is quite a different matter. In some of the remarks that the noble Lord made, I fear that he did not quite grasp the significance of the government amendments which the House has accepted. I hope that when he comes studiously to read the Official Report, as I know he will, he will see the effect of the Government's amendments.
I make it clear that subsection (2) puts beyond doubt that anything done to prevent the spread of disease is in no way affected by the clause. That of course includes matters such as the road show to which the noble Lord referred when moving his amendment. We cannot think of anything that would be clearer than subsection (2).
As to the noble Lord's point concerning counselling, that is one of the most sensible ways of preventing the spread of AIDS and is therefore covered by the exemption:
"the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease".
Indeed, as my noble friend Lady Blatch so rightly pointed out, subsection (2) puts anything done for those purposes completely outside the prohibition of subsection (1); and it is the word "anything" that I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, because if those people he mentioned who are concerned with the work will study the wording, particularly with reference to "anything", then I am sure their fears will be seen to be unfounded. The Government have gone all the way to meeting the concerns of the noble Lord.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords and Baronesses who have taken part in this very short debate. I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that I do not agree that the matter I am trying to introduce is subsumed in the clause as it is written. Noble Lords from the medical profession who are present in the Chamber would confirm that treatment is normally the province of a medical doctor. Prevention is also a function of the primary health care services. It can of course be promoted by public health campaigns but they usually take the form of television or leaflets and do not normally comprise counselling. After all, we are only talking about a matter of interpretation and we are not all that far apart.
I submit that the words I am striving to introduce to give greater clarity and coverage are not fully subsumed in the wording of the clause as it stands. I do not accept the noble Earl's view that the words proposed are unnecessary. I certainly did not try to introduce them lightly. The noble Earl, with all his responsibilities, does not have any at present in the field of health; he is not a health minister. I ask him, perfectly openly, whether he will consider consulting his right honourable friend Mr. Newton, who is obviously very much involved in the matter that I am trying to address in this amendment, to see whether that arm of the Government really are satisfied with the existing wording.
I made the point earlier that it is not the Government who will have to interpret the statute; it

639
is the courts. The Minister may well consider that he has covered a certain situation, but he or the Government may find out that that is not so. I invite the noble Earl to give me a little comfort on this score and say he will consult some of his colleagues, or at least think about this matter, and if necessary return to the subject at a later stage.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a little comfort: I can give him lots of comfort, because the DHSS has already been fully consulted.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that from the noble Earl. I shall read carefully what he has said and the assurances he has given. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 28, leave out lines 41 to 44.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 90 because it has been represented to me and it seems to me that the words in subsection (3) are unnecessary. I am advised that a court can draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as it sees fit without those words in the Bill. I am told that they are otiose. I should like to ask the Minister whether he agrees and for that purpose I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I believe that the most apt comment on this point made in Committee came from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when he asked whether, without this subsection, the court would not be allowed to draw such inferences as it thought fit? I do not think that judges need to be told by an Act of Parliament that they may draw such inferences as they think fit. I think we owe a duty to the statute book not to fill it up with unnecessary clauses such as this.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, says that he has been disappointed to hear many of my replies and it is my turn to be disappointed that he has chosen to reopen the discussion on this government amendment which was agreed at the Committee stage. However, I am happy to explain once again the purpose of the subsection and to answer his queries.
Clause 28(3) provides that:
"In any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as it sees fit".
The purpose of including the subsection was to make it quite clear that, in assessing the intention of an authority in any challenge that it had acted in breach of the Clause 28 prohibition, a court should be required to consider all the relevant circumstances of the case. It would not be sufficient for a local authority to deny that its intention had been to promote homosexuality nor, conversely, for a challenger to claim that its purpose had been to promote homosexuality when the evidence pointed to the contrary.
640
There is a view that the subsection is unnecessary because the court would be bound to take an objective view of the circumstances of the case. That point was argued by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. It would be unlikely to accept the authority's or the challenger's views of things without question. Nevertheless, the Government see great advantage in terms of' removing some of the unfounded fears that have been expressed about the effects of the prohibition in stating clearly that the court will draw such inferences as to the intention of the authority as it sees fit. This does not of course mean that the court is empowered to take an irrational view of matters. It will be obliged in the normal way to consider the facts of the case, to weigh the relevant factors and to come to an objective view about the authority's purpose on the basis of those factors.
The Government included this subsection as part of their clarificatory amendments to put it beyond doubt that activities by a local authority that were, on an objective view, free from any purpose of promoting homosexuality, would not be affected. We consider the subsection to be valuable in terms of removing the unfounded doubts of those who fear an irrational interpretation of the clause. I hope that the noble Lord will see the necessity for including this subsection.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, that amounts to the fact that the Government like to have belt and braces when concerned with their own amendments but wish to deny belt and braces to those of us who wish to reassure the public of other amendments. I am happier to have heard that explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Willis Lord Willis moved Amendment N. 91:
Page 28, line 44, at end insert—
("(3A) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in this section shall—

(a) authorise a local authority to discriminate against a person by reason of the sexuality of that person, or to treat a person in a less favourable manner than other persons on that ground; or

(b) prevent a local authority from providing or supporting, otherwise than with the intention specified by subsection (1) above, activities or services the ground, or one of the grounds, for which a requirement or need of a person or persons connected with the sexuality of any person.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have carefully not intervened in the debate this evening but chose to save my time. If your Lordships will settle back, I promise not to keep the House for more than an hour or so on this final matter.
Speaking seriously, we now come to the broad sweep and, in a sense, the philosophy behind the Bill in this amendment which I do not pretend to be perfectly drawn. I think that in supporting this amendment the Government will now understand, as will the noble Lords opposite, that there is a sincere and genuine fear on the part of' those who have opposed the clause that it could lead to an increase in bigotry. All noble Lords who have supported the clause have disclaimed that intention. Successive

641
noble Lords, including the Minister, have said that that is not the intention of the Government. The intention is not to start queer-bashing or homosexual hunts, but merely to limit this and to protect the children. Those of us who have been against Clause 28 love our children just as much as those who love Clause 28. We yield to nobody in our desire to protect them. We believe, however, that certain aspects of the clause are dangerous.
Noble Lords in this Chamber are tolerant and kind. In fact, this evening the House has been awash with tolerance. Hardly a noble Lord who has spoken has not said, "I am not against homosexuals". But there are people who are against homosexuals. There are people who would take the slightest excuse to jump on the bandwagon of bigots.
Many noble Lords must know that where homosexual people gather in odd pubs or in odd clubs they get chased out, they get beaten up and they get pelted by louts and yobbos. The tone and content of the clause and the way in which it has been amended—it is now a bit of a dog's breakfast—continue to leave open that possibility. There is the use of such phrases as "pretended" relationship, which we discussed a short while ago. It is a dirty word; it is not a good word.
I move the amendment because, despite all the assurances from the Government, the truth is that kind and tolerant words do not have the force of law. Ministers' statements and assurances that this is not what the Government intend in the Bill do not have the force of law. The court has to decide on the basis of the wording of the Bill. On cannot get up in court and say, "Your Worship, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, when explaining the Bill said that in fact it meant this". The judge is perfectly entitled to say, "That may very well be, but my opinion of the wording is that it means something else". Assurances from the Government are therefore no good.
We need something similar to this amendment. The key words are, "for the avoidance of doubt". Noble Lords who have said that they are against anything that may increase bigotry cannot but agree to support the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, should be congratulated upon his assiduous attention to the debates on this part of the Bill. Indeed, he has set a fine example to other noble Lords by sitting through all the speeches waiting for his turn. I am grateful to him for having tabled the amendment.
I recognise the concern of the noble Lord to ensure that the clause cannot be used as a justification for discriminating against homosexuals in the provision of services simply on the grounds of sexual orientation. I am anxious therefore to reassure him once again that his fears are groundless.
The Government are against discrimination in any form. It is no part of our intention in supporting Clause 28 to remove the right of homosexuals to receive council services. As ratepayers and electors, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out in the debates, they are entitled to have access to those
642
services on the same basis that anyone else does. Nothing in Clause 28 interferes with that right. There is nothing in the clause that would
"authorise a local authority to discriminate against a person by reason of the sexuality of that person".
The clause limits what a local authority may do. It confers no powers or authority whatsoever. Any claim to the contrary is, quite simply, without foundation.
Neither is there anything in this clause which would stop a local authority undertaking any activity or service within its powers, or assisting anyone else to do so, simply and solely because that activity or service is aimed at meeting the particular needs of homosexuals. An authority might, for example, wish to finance a voluntary organisation providing counselling and advice services to homosexuals: it is entitled to contribute to the funds of non-profit making bodies providing a public service— under Section 137(3) of the Local Government Act 1972— if it thinks it appropriate to do so.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has written to me, and no doubt to other noble Lords, suggesting that this clause will prevent the funding in the future of a number of groups offering services for homosexuals. I can reassure it that there is no reason why this should be the case provided that the intention of the local authority is to provide or support a service and the funding is within their powers.
An argument to the contrary could not be sustained by reference to the wording of the clause. The fact that the existence of such services might encourage people to use them is irrelevant. What is relevant, and the only thing that is relevant, is the purpose of the local authority in funding the service, not any unpredicted or incidental effect of their doing so.
The government amendments at Committee stage, together with those agreed by the House earlier today and yesterday, put it beyond doubt that it is the local authority's intention which is crucial to deciding whether it has acted unlawfully. The fact that that service is provided for the benefit of homosexuals is not material, unless the local authority's purpose in funding the service is to promote homosexuality. For example, the question has been raised whether it will continue to be open to local authorities to fund Gay Bereavement, a counselling service for homosexuals whose partner has died. If a local authority perceives a genuine need for such a service on grounds relevant to one of its powers to support voluntary organisations, and, having weighed all its priorities, decides that it is right to offer assistance to the service at public expense, it is entitled to do so. A court could find the authority in breach of the prohibition only if, having looked at all the circumstances of the grant, it could reasonably be held that the authority had funded the service in order to promote homosexuality.
This does not, of course, mean that a local authority would not have to tread very carefully in taking a decision to fund a service designed exclusively for homosexuals. It would have to be satisfied that its action could in no way be construed

643
as promoting homosexuality. A court might well infer that an authority that gave assistance to Gay Bereavement but refused to give such assistance to CRUISE—the organisation that provides a similar support for widows—might have to face questions about its motives.
As I said at the beginning of this intervention, I have no doubt about the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in bringing forward amendments designed to make it clear that homosexuals need not, as a result of this clause, fear discrimination or the unreasonable revoking of local government services and support. The Government do not, however, believe his amendments to be necessary; our own amendments have made it quite clear that the unintended effects of council decisions and actions are not at issue.
Finally, I know that the noble Lord, and a number of other noble Lords, fear that the clause will have a negative effect; that it will encourage discrimination simply because it is concerned with stopping positive image policies. I have to tell him that we do not share that view. Indeed, we take the opposite view.
Clause 28 will deal with the activities of a few councils which have provoked considerable public disquiet and, regrettably, fuelled irrational prejudices. In the areas where problems have arisen, we believe that removing the source of this disquiet will go far to alleviate the resentment which was building up, particularly among parents. The prospects for increased tolerance and understanding will, we believe, be far better if the unacceptable activities of a few extremist councils can be stopped.
Lord Willis: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that statement. I return his compliment to me by saying how grateful I am for his courtesy and patience through these long debates, not only in Committee, but tonight. I am grateful, too, for the breadth and depth of the reply. As I said earlier, I do not think that it has the force of law but it will bring some comfort to many people who are worried. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report he now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

Hastings Borough Council Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes before one o'clock.

  UNLICENSED VEHICLES IN LONDON
  UNLICENSED VEHICLES IN LONDON
  AIR POLLUTANTS IN HOSPITALS
  AIR POLLUTANTS IN HOSPITALS
  ELDERLY WAR WIDOWS: BENEFITS
  ELDERLY WAR WIDOWS: BENEFITS
  LINK PROGRAMME
  LINK PROGRAMME
  ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROGRAMME PROPOSAL
  ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROGRAMME PROPOSAL