Sitting of 9 March 1988

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (LONDON) BILL. [Lords]
  (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    EC (Internal Market)
    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received regarding preparations for the realisation of the Economic Community internal market in 1992.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): Since we announced our awareness campaign we have received an encouragingly large number of representations from all sectors of British business. All have warmly welcomed the high priority that the Government are giving to completing the single market in Europe and the steps that we are taking to make British business aware of the challenge.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Has the Minister not read the comments made by the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, Mr. Banham, to the effect that he thinks that the Government are not taking the negotiations on standards seriously and are not spending enough resources or time on the problem? Surely this requires a rather wider answer than the Minister has given today, or was given to me by the Minister of State on 2 March, when I was told that the interests of the CBI were not necessarily those of the British nation. It is in our interest to be able to respond properly to the new training environment in 1992.
    Mr. Maude: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's specific point about standards, we hold the chair of no less than a quarter of all the standards committees in Brussels. It is important that we should take an active role in setting European standards, and we do that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is a very high priority for us, and we are doing a great deal more now than we have done in the past.
    Mr. Onslow: I am very glad to hear what my hon. Friend said about the importance of our preparing people and making them aware of what is involved between now and 1992 and the steps that we must take to take
    306
    advantage of that, but does he agree that it is important that the EC should not distract us in any way by such time-wasting foolishness as trying to introduce a common European car number plate?
    Mr. Maude: I note what my right hon. Friend has said. In asserting progress towards 1992, we must decide on priorities, and the kind of thing to which my right hon. Friend has referred is plainly not a high priority.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister assure us that the Government will not permit VAT on newspapers and books?
    Mr. Maude: That is plainly not a matter for me to comment on here and now. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in due time. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about our right to impose our own VAT rates on our own products.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is good news that the awareness campaign is going well? Is he aware of the fantastic efforts being made by all the chambers of commerce and business organisations in other European countries to get their businesses off the ground and their noses in ahead of us? Does he believe that smaller businesses in this country realise the immense opportunities that will be available for them as well?
    Mr. Maude: No, we do not believe that smaller businesses are fully aware of the opportunities, and that is why we are launching a major awareness campaign. That campaign has not actually started yet, but, because the issue is being discussed far more widely than before, awareness is steadily growing. The opportunities available to competitive British businesses for opening up Europe to the free exchange of goods and services are enormous. However, there is a threat for uncompetitive businesses because opportunities for competitive British businesses are also open to competitive businesses elsewhere.

    Information (Sale and Access)
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce legislation to regulate the sale of or access to information held on magnetic tape by the telecommunications industry.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher): I have no plans to do so. The Director General of Telecommunications would consider representations on this issue in the light of his general duty to consider these where they relate to telecommunications services or apparatus.
    Mr. Darling: Does the Minister realise that those magnetic tapes hold far more information than is available on telephone directories and that British Telecom in particular holds a substantial body of information on each and every one of us? My information is that that may be against the guidelines on the data protection principles. Does he realise that unless he acts now we may face a national scandal in two years' time if fanatics or purveyors of junk mail manage to get hold of that information?
    Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman's question raises a number of issues, some of which are a matter for the

    307
    Director General of Oftel. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees, because he and I have pursued the matter with the Director General, that he can act vigorously and is a fast-moving regulator.
    The other aspect of the hon. Gentleman's question relates to data protection. Clear guidelines and requirements are placed on the holders of data to preserve the interests of data subjects. I shall examine very carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said, but in the first instance I feel that I should refer it to the Data Protection Registrar to see that nothing untoward is at risk.
    Mr. Stott: As I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has contacted the Director General of Oftel, who, I understand, feels that he has no power in this regard.
    This is a serious matter. British Telecom is not merely selling a telephone directory. What is contained on the magnetic tapes could be used for credit reference agencies, debt collecting and tracing agencies and other agencies wishing to examine the socio-economic groupings of certain individuals. There is much more on the tapes than is contained in the telephone directory, and, if it got into the wrong hands, it could cause distress and concern to many people. If, having looked at the matter, the Minister feels that the Director General can do nothing about the problem, will he consider bringing in legislation to protect these people?
    Mr. Butcher: The Government discharged a major part of their duties during the passage of the Telecommunications Act 1984. The hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Standing Committee, will remember the long debates on whether we should have a statutory body, which might be rigid and might constantly require updating through legislation, or a fast-moving freer body with appropriate powers, like the Director General of Oftel.
    When matters have arisen that are legitimately for him, he has moved fast. He has not said that he has no remit to intervene. My understanding of his communication to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is that he accepts that two or three live issues have been raised which deserve consideration. However, I shall not second guess today precisely which body may take action to deal with the complaints that the hon. Gentleman has made.

    Company Liquidations
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many company liquidations there were in Derbyshire in the years 1983 to date.
    Mr. Maude: Company liquidations are not analysed by county, but Derbyshire is part of the area administered by the Official Receiver's office in Leicester, which processed an estimated 415 compulsory liquidations in the years 1983 to 1987. During this period compulsory company insolvencies fell by 27 per cent. No regional analysis is available of creditors' voluntary liquidations.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Has there not been a substantial net increase in business activity in the area over the past five years? Has not that increase, which is very welcome, also gone hand in hand with a fall in unemployment, and has that not occurred despite the lack of regional assistance in the county of Derbyshire and the fact that many jobs have
    308
    been lost in the coal industry, not just over the past few years but over the past 20 or 30 years? What conclusions does my hon. Friend draw from those facts?
    Mr. Maude: I suspect that I draw the same conclusion as my hon. Friend—that industry in Derbyshire is very buoyant—and the fall in unemployment to which he refers is mirrored throughout the country. It is worth pointing out that between 1983 and the last year for which figures are available the number of new company registrations in Derbyshire rose by no less than 81 per cent.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not true that, in Derbyshire, company liquidations from 1983 until the year of the election—when some special measures were introduced by the Government for electoral reasons—were at an all-time record, along with company bankruptcies; that half the north Derbyshire coalfield has been closed; and that, if the Government remain in office, there will be not 4 million people unemployed, as was the case a couple of years ago, but top side of 5 million? Derbyshire will suffer, and the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) will be part and parcel of it.
    Mr. Maude: The short answer to that is no, Sir.

    Telecommunications Supervision
    Mr. McLoughlin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with the Director General of Oftel on the implications for the system of telecommunications supervision of British Telecom's decision to ban its Talkabout telephone service.
    Mr. Butcher: Since British Telecom's decision to suspend Talkabout no further discussions have taken place, although the Director General of Telecommunications has kept my hon. and noble Friend in touch with developments. The matters involved are for the Director General who has demonstrated that he can and does act effectively.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that that shows the effect that Oftel can have? The decision temporarily to ban Talkabout is welcome, and one hopes that Talkabout will never be reproduced.
    Mr. Butcher: It has demonstrated just that. A growing number of people now recognise the value of Oftel and the conspicuous and important role played by its current director general, who I think now has the respect of most sections of the telecommunications community, including Members of the House.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Terry Lewis.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Lewis: It is clear that my presence has been noted, Mr. Speaker.
    May I be one of the first to add my support to the Director General of Oftel, particularly for his role in banning Talkabout? However, I warn the Minister against complacency. I do that specifically because of the chat lines which exist over the telephone. Such lines are still in operation today under licence from the Department of Trade and Industry. The Director General of Oftel has referred those lines in the same way as he referred British Telecom's Talkabout. I expect the Minister and the DTI to exert all the influence possible in this matter in order to ban those private chat lines as well.
    Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman's presence on this whole issue has been significant and I congratulate him on the way in which he has pursued his campaign.
    The question is whether the chat line services that are not sponsored by BT should equally be held up to examination. This is an important issue. It is open to the Director General, if he so wishes, to seek modifications to the licences of the public telecommunications operators, including BT, or—this goes some way towards meeting the point of the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis)—he can seek changes to the class licences under which many of those services are provided.
    Mr. Butler: When my hon. Friend next meets the Director General of Oftel will he discuss with him Sunday Sport magazine, which portrays itself as Britain's fastest growing family newspaper? It is full of hundreds of advertisements for telephone lines giving pornographic messages, which bring discredit on the telephone service.
    Mr. Butcher: Under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 we have already made it a criminal offence to send messages which are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing. I assume that under that section and under other aspects of the law my hon. Friend's point could be examined. I take seriously what has been said and I will see that my hon. Friend's message finds the appropriate home.

    Rover Group
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next plans to meet the chief executive of Rover Group to discuss the company's future.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): At the moment I have nothing to add to my statement to the House on 1 March.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Minister tell the House what assurances the Government are seeking on future model developments in the British Aerospace talks? I am referring particularly to the update of the Rover 800 by 1992, the future of the R9, the Montego replacement, and other models. What would the Government do to make such assurances stick? For example, would they deploy their golden share in British Aerospace to safeguard the long-term position of vehicle production in the interests of balance of payments and employment in the industry?
    Mr. Clarke: Future model development is a matter for the management of the company. It is a commercial rather than a political decision. British Aerospace has told us that it is interested in continuing the development of the Rover Group, and obviously it is seeking to acquire it as a going concern. If the negotiations result in a merger between the two companies, the new management will have to address itself to the question of model development in order to protect its role in the market in future. We would not use the British Aerospace golden share in any way, because it would not apply to new acquisitions. In the course of the negotiations we are considering what view, if any, we will take about the Rover shares when we sell them.
    Mr. Miller: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, in discussions with the chairman of the Rover Group, ensure that any conditions relating to the deal with British Aerospace for the period prior to any final agreement will
    310
    not exclude any offer that may be superior in terms of security to the work force or return to the taxpayer and that, in the period after such an agreement, they will not exclude future participation or joint venture by other motor companies?
    Mr. Clarke: As I explained to my hon. Friend when I made my statement, we agreed that at present the negotiations between British Aerospace and the Rover Group should proceed on an exclusive basis. We shall have to await the outcome of those negotiations, but, if they were to be successful, and if we were considering a final offer, we would have to consider what other offers have been forthcoming from other interested companies.
    Mr. Eastham: Having read about all the buying and selling that is going on between the Rover Group and British Aerospace, I should like to underline to the Minister the fact that the livelihoods and jobs of thousands of workers are involved. Does the Minister accept that there should be full consultation with the trade unions, and will he bear in mind the livelihoods of those thousands of workers, irrespective of who owns the undertaking?
    Mr. Clarke: There is no pie in the sky involved. These are all serious negotiations. The hon. Gentleman is right that the negotiations concern important businesses and that the well-being of thousands of people depends on British Aerospace and the Rover Group continuing to be a commercial success. We believe that the Rover Group will be best placed in the private sector. The present negotiations are worth encouraging and we are awaiting the outcome of them. In the end, we shall make our decision about the holding in the Rover Group based on our best judgment of the interests of the taxpayer, the company and the work force.
    Mr. Page: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the chief executive of the Rover Group, will he discuss the amount of capital that is needed to update the Land Rover and Range Rover line, the van lines and the various new model developments? Will those costs be reflected in the price that is charged for the Rover Group to whoever may be buying it?
    Mr. Clarke: Anybody contemplating purchasing a company of this size must address himself to exactly the kind of issues to which my hon. Friend refers. In deciding on the final price, and when we judge any offer that may be made, we must take an overall view of the value of the company to the taxpayer and the balance sheet that the new company will require. We shall bear in mind all the relevant considerations, including the ones that my hon. Friend has given.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the DTI's attitude to the disposal of the Bathgate site?
    Mr. Clarke: My understanding is that there is a prospect of development on the Bathgate site, and I trust that there will be some new development on that derelict site. It is now a matter for planning law in Scotland; it is not the responsibility of myself or of my hon. Friends at the DTI.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Is it not important that the Government should now stand completely aside until negotiations between the two companies are concluded? Should not both companies be seeking to convince City investment institutions of the merits of their case, without the Government being involved?
    Mr. Clarke: At present, the two companies are negotiating. Obviously, as the owner of 99·8 per cent. of the shares, we shall be closely involved. If the negotiations are successful a bid will be forthcoming for our shares, which we shall judge.
    There is only one other way in which we are involved. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State is in Japan, or is about to land there, and no doubt he will repeat what we have been saying about our wish for Honda to continue to be involved in co-operation with the Rover Group, which has been welcomed by Honda and the Rover Group so far.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: If the Minister has thought about the Rover Group and its future in any sense other than how quickly he can wash his hands of it, and if he has thought about British Aerospace—the proposed partner in this illogical and silly union—will he say what effect the rising pound, which is now up 14 per cent. in real terms compared with the end of 1986, will have on the business of both those groups? Does he agree with the Prime Minister and The Sun newspaper that the rising pound is good for Britain? Is it good for Britain's manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's only interest is to try to ensure that the Rover Group remains nationalised for as long as possible, or whether he is contemplating the renationalisation of British Aerospace. Such matters are best determined by making the best judgment of the commercial future of the companies in the private sector, and that benefits the work force as well. The rising pound certainly damages some industries and helps others, but the rising pound is a sign of the strength of the British economy. More stability in exchange rates is desirable, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer obviously welcomes the extent to which a strong pound keeps down inflationary pressures in Britain.

    Link Programme Collaboration
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much the Government expect to spend on Link collaborations over the next five years.
    Mr. Butcher: The Government expect to contribute about £210 million to Link over the next five years, provided industry matches Government funding.
    Mr. Jones: Do not both partners benefit from such arrangements — the researchers, who see their projects come to fruition, and industry, which benefits from the research of universities and colleges? If that is the case, why are some universities and colleges not taking advantage of such opportunities, or not taking advantage of them in such a big way? What does my hon. Friend intend to do to encourage them?
    Mr. Butcher: We should like to see far more use of the research base currently inside our higher education institutions. If one compares our experience with that of the United States, one finds that we have an under-utilised national asset. If the Link programme can help to build more bridges between industrial and commercial research-based companies and the higher education sector, we would welcome it. To a certain extent the programmes are demand-led and on their merits. Five have come forward
    312
    which are worthy of support. If some universities are not tuned into this yet, it is their own fault. The resource is there. It is demand-led and it is up to them to bid for it.
    Dr. Bray: Does this not represent a restriction on the way that already committed money is to be spent? It is in no sense an addition to research and development spending in Britain. Will the Minister acknowledge that a large number of industrial research directors are already warning that the attrition of the science base is threatening the viability of Britain as a base for applied industrial research? Finally, does he agree that the real need is for a proper incentive to industry to increase its support for research and development?
    Mr. Butcher: The DTI's role is to encourage partnerships between the public and the private sector and to see that the critical mass of research is enhanced and applied with relevance to the market at large. The hon. Gentleman has been an observer, commentator and practitioner in this area for a long time and I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that our budget for the totality of research, development and innovation effort is now running at about £500 million. That represents a major shift over the past five or six years, and we are beginning to see the benefit of it. Perhaps I may write to the hon. Gentleman about the industrial research directors' point. As he knows, there has been a complex build-up to this in terms of how it will apply. We are now through that and some of the sources of confusion and alleged over-complexity may now have been eliminated.
    Mr. Wood: Does my hon. Friend agree that the investment of private industry in projects such as Link is a vital ingredient to their success? Is it not the case that unless one ensures that, for example, pharmaceutical companies, such as those involved in the eukaryotic project, find that research is encouraged by the repeal of the full licences of right, they may feel that it is not in their interests to proceed with such research?
    Mr. Butcher: I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity in bringing the licence of right issue into this question. As he knows, we shall be addressing this matter at great length in Committee on the Bill that will come before the House after Easter. There is a eukaryotic genetic engineering programme within the five programmes that have been approved, and I hope that the pharmaceutical industry in particular will derive great benefit from that.

    Inner Cities
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to ensure that the inner cities are given priority in departmental decentralisation plans.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Yes, Sir. The Government's policy is that Civil Service work should be located where there is best value for money and best service to the public. However, when such locations are in areas which are the focus of the Government's urban and regional policies, they will be considered particularly seriously.
    Mr. MacKay: While it is widely recognised that civil servants will do everything possible to resist moving out of cushy London, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the decentralisation plans will move forward apace? As he and his right hon. and noble Friend,

    313
    the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, are making it clear that the private sector must play a major part in this rejuvenation, surely we must also play our part by moving as much as possible of the Department to inner cities in the regions?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not think that the reluctance of civil servants is quite as bad as my hon. Friend says it is. One way or another, about 5,500 jobs have been transferred out of London since the Government came to power in 1979. The DTI recently announced the transfer of most of the Patent Office to Newport and part of the insolvency service to Birmingham. I am carrying out a review to look for further candidates for cost saving, while maintaining the quality of service in my Department.
    Mr. Madden: May we assume from the Minister's reply that Bradford will be carefully considered for the relocation of any Government Departments? Can the Minister say in specific terms what benefits will flow to Bradford from the city action team being located in Leeds?
    Mr. Clarke: As I said in my previous answer, whenever we look for alternative locations for Government offices we pay particular attention to places that are the target of the Government's urban and regional policies. I think that great benefits will flow to Bradford from the work of the city action team. Its headquarters are in neighbouring Leeds, but its activities are particularly directed to the urban problems of Leeds and Bradford. It has all the resources and competence to tackle the problems of both.
    Mr. Steen: The Government will be successful with their macro-economic policy of inner-city regeneration, but will my right hon. and learned Friend say something about the neighbourhood regeneration, on which he has been concentrating? Surely the success of the strategy lies in encouraging local people to be involved in the regeneration of their neighbourhoods and streets.
    Mr. Clarke: Civil servants have been posted to task force offices in 16 deprived neighbourhoods up and down the country. That approach has been particularly successful, not least because it has enabled those civil servants to get into close contact with local residents, and because it has targeted the Government's national programmes and additional money on projects where they are most needed in those districts.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I am intrigued by the decentralised free breakfasts that the Minister will be offering as part of his inner-city initiative. How many breakfasts will there be, which Ministers will be involved, and how much will the free breakfasts cost the taxpayer? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is looking around for a menu, in view of the damage that the Government's policies have done to the inner cities, may I suggest thin gruel, hard cheese, and poached bullshit?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a very unparliamentary word. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw it and use another?
    Mr. Banks: Tell us the menu, then.
    Mr. Clarke: Breakfast is my least favourite meal; normally I do not eat it. The only reason why we are having these meetings at breakfast time is that that is the one time when all the leading citizens of a city tend to have their diaries clear, until they receive our invitation. We
    314
    found that with "Action For Jobs" presentations—one gets a much better attendance if one turns up at breakfast time.
    I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the menu is quite immaterial and entirely undistinguished on these occasions. What matters is the serious discussion that takes place, which I hope will lead in this case to follow-up action after the breakfasts bringing together leading industrial citizens of each city to help to steer the private sector contribution towards the Government's and the country's efforts.

    Business Regulation
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further plans he has to lift the burden of regulation on business.
    Mr. Maude: Active efforts to reduce the burden of regulation on business continue in all areas of the Government's work. A White Paper on deregulation in the summer will give further details of our strategy and programme of action.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and congratulate the Government on their deregulation policies to date. There is a great deal more to be done, and we look forward to the White Paper. However, will my hon. Friend carefully examine the possibility of abolishing the statutory audit for small businesses?
    Mr. Maude: We are certainly looking at that matter. A good deal of concern has been expressed to the effect that the statutory audit has placed an excessive burden on small businesses. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about the deregulatory programme. It is important. None of it is dramatic in itself, but the cumulative effect of lifting small burdens from business is dramatic.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will in no way attempt to diminish standards of health and safety at work? As he knows, each year more days are lost through industrial injury than through strike action. It would be a savage attack on workers if there were any attempt in any businesses to lower the standard of health and safety at work.
    Will the hon. Gentleman tell us about the curious situation whereby business organisations claim to want the Government off their backs, but invite retired civil servants on to their boards?
    Mr. Maude: The latter phenomenon demonstrates that public servants have a great deal to offer industry. One of the things that we are trying to develop is a greater flow of personnel to and from the public sector. It would be helpful for business if more people from the private sector were to be seconded into the public sector, and vice versa. The public and private sectors have a great deal to learn from each other.
    We continue to attach high priority to health and safety at work. There are advances to be made by simplifying the burden of regulations so that users find it easier to comply with them.
    Mr. Grylls: Will my hon. Friend take encouragment from the deregulation programme so far? Does he accept that real obstacles and burdens make it difficult for firms to expand and grow, and that it is important to cut red tape? Will he consider placing before Parliament an annual

    315
    report on progress made in all Government Departments, so that Parliament can see how far the deregulation programme has gone?
    Mr. Maude: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. The White Paper that we propose to publish in the summer will effectively amount to that. Since the deregulation initiative started three or so years ago we have published two formal White Papers and a further paper. These papers outlined the progress that has been made right across the board. We shall continue to do that.

    Shipbuilding
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress made in discussions of the European Commission's proposals entitled "Shipbuilding—Industrial, Social and Regional Aspects".
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Our discussions in the relevant European Council of Ministers on regional measures within the programme known as RENAVAL are well advanced. I have stressed to the Council how important I believe it to be that we should make rapid progress. The Commission's proposals on other aspects of its programme have yet to come to Council. The Commission seeks to assure me that work within the Commission is well in hand.
    Ms. Quin: Although help to enable new businesses to go to shipbuilding areas is to be welcomed, will the Minister assure us that it will in no way be a sop to allow a further rundown in British shipbuilding? May we be assured that the money will not be a substitute for the financial support that the industry needs if it is to survive and play an essential role in Britain's industrial future?
    Mr. Clarke: I am anxious to get support from the Community for shipbuilding areas as quickly as possible. Obviously, we need the encouragement of other businesses in such areas. Looking back, no one can doubt the extent of the Government's financial commitment to British Shipbuilders. At the moment, its external financing limit is £180 million, which is about £20,000 for each employee working in the yards. As I told the House when I announced that figure last year, it is a heavy figure, and the outlook for British Shipbuilders is still difficult.
    Sir John Farr: Will the discussions include the inducements offered by many European companies to attract custom and orders away from British shipbuilding and repair yards?
    Mr. Clarke: We have agreed on a European sixth directive, which is meant to impose limits on the extent to which any Government within the European Community can give inducements to win orders. It is the British Government's view that the sixth directive should be adhered to, to stop pointless and wasteful competition, with taxpayers in each country pouring money into loss-making orders.
    Mr. Milian: Will the Minister take this opportunity to repudiate the report that appeared in The Guardian a few days ago to the effect that the Government are contemplating removing all help to British shipbuilding? That would mean reneging on the sixth directive. It would also cause utter devastation in shipbuilding areas such as the one that I represent.
    Mr. Clarke: Obviously, I have to keep in close touch with the trading position of British Shipbuilders because of the very large sums of money that are involved, as I explained to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). We have taken no new decisions about the future of British Shipbuilders, but the position of the business has to be kept under review while it is in such a difficult state.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, first, that the worldwide shipbuilding industry is in a state of extreme recesssion? Secondly, while I welcome his answer to an earlier supplementary question, will the Government strive to make certian that all the EEC countries conform to that directive once it has been signed and agreed and that there are no hidden subsidies from our EEC partners?
    Mr. Clarke: The shipbuilding industry throughout the world is in a pretty parlous state, with major lay-offs and closures taking place in Japan and in Western Europe. Although there is some prospect of the market improving, there is a general lack of orders to match the present world capacity of shipbuilding. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must stop unfair competition breaking out within Western Europe. We seek to adhere to the sixth directive and the Commission seeks to endorse it. The last complaint received was against ourselves and the French.

    Financial Advice Services
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his policy towards providing advice services for the growing number of people with financial and debt problems; how he intends to finance such services in the future; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maude: A great deal of advice and help on debt problems is already provided free of charge by citizens advice bureaux. The National and Scottish Associations of Citizens Advice Bureaux are funded by my Department to the extent of £8·9 million in the current financial year. They have been encouraged to seek additional funding for money advice services from the finance industry, and two money advice support projects, one in the south-east and one in the north-west, are already under way as a result of private sector funding. I understand that agreement has also been reached on two more major schemes, which will be announced soon. I believe that this will be widely welcomed.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Minister appreciate that there are vast increases in the numbers of people experiencing debt problems, and that there is an increase in the complexity of those debt problems? Does he accept that a large number of Government decisions, particularly the recent social security decisions and the way in which the Government are implementing them are placing increasing pressure on people and increasing the likelihood of their getting further into debt, particularly those on the lowest incomes? Does he accept that the finance that he provides is to associations that give national back-up, and not direct to the services? The Minister should accept responsibility for providing proper funding for advice services in view of the way in which the problem is likely to accelerate under present Government policy.
    Mr. Maude: The funding of local citizens advice bureaux has always been a matter for local authorities. They know about local needs and it is for them to decide how to allocate money within their budgets.
    As for debt increasing, of course there are people who get into trouble with debt, but there are far more people whose problems have been alleviated by having access to credit. The fact remains that the principal protection against getting into debt is for people to think carefully before doing so, and to look around carefully for the best terms. There are widely differing ranges of interest rates available, and if people were to look around more carefully the problem of getting into debt would be reduced.
    Mr. Knapman: Is the Minister satisfied that the Government are doing enough to control extortionate credit demands?
    Mr. Maude: The courts have the right to re-open a credit bargain if the case is made to them that the terms on which the bargain was made are extortionate. That power lies with the courts, and we are looking to see whether it could be extended to give the courts the right to re-open a bargain on their own motion without a plea being made by the plaintiff. We have yet to see whether that is practicable. I believe that the Government are doing enough. Our system of consumer credit regulation is based on making the maximum information that is sensible available to the potential debtors so that they can work out whether the commitments into which they are entering are within their capabilities. That is the best protection we can provide.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Minister accept the view of the citizens advice bureaux and of every reputable consumer organisation that there is an element in the loans market that behaves in a totally unacceptable way and peddles its loans to those who are desperate or ignorant? Does he also accept that many people are simply unaware of the powers of the courts to set aside high levels of interest demanded by some of these loans sharks? Why will he not take on board the representations of those bodies and introduce tough new legislation to protect the consumers and the public interest?
    Mr. Maude: I have announced today some improvements to the advertisement regulations to make more, clearer and simpler information available to people seeking credit. As for making further advice available, I believe that it is helpful for advice bureaux to seek funding from the finance industry. There is much to be said for the finance industry making that money available, because if more people are helped to pay off their debts, obviously that is in the commercial interests of the industry.

    Action for Cities Campaign
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response there has been from the private sector to the Government's action for cities campaign.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government have been working very closely with many private companies and private sector and voluntary organisations for many years. There has been an encouraging response from the private sector to the action for cities campaign launched on 7 March. Business organisations, including the CBI,
    318
    Business in the Community, the Industrial Society and Investors in Industry as well as individual companies and business leaders have reaffirmed their commitment to work with the Government to make inner cities prosperous. With ministerial colleagues I will be taking our proposals further with business leaders in a series of regional meetings, starting on 13 April in Newcastle upon Tyne.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To get the wheels of commerce turning, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that firms that are willing to invest in those areas, in the way that he has just described, have access to information about the extent and ownership of derelict land? If it is found that public bodies or Government Departments own any derelict land, will he ensure that it is auctioned off at an early date?
    Mr. Clarke: It is certainly true that we still have far too much derelict land in our inner-city areas which, on examination, turns out to be in the ownership of some public body or other. It is for that reason that we started the register of land and, as I announced a few days ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is taking steps to make sure that more public use is made of the information contained in the register and to ensure that the land is shaken out into development.
    Mr. Litherland: Does the Minister recognise that it was the private sector and private entrepreneurs in the past that failed, especially in the north-west and in other manufacturing areas? People are not fools, and they will not fall for glossy packaging and the Prime Minister's own brand of clap-trap, because they know full well that that will not provide jobs, homes or the medical needs of the inner-city areas.
    Mr. Clarke: The industrial prosperity of Manchester was based on the success of its entrepreneurs, industrial leaders and private sector industry. It is true that Manchester's economy has undergone considerable change and that it has gone through great difficulty in the upheavals of recent years, but, in my opinion, Manchester is now coming back strongly. It must be in the interests of the people of Manchester to attract leaders of industry, investors in new business and private sector activity back into the city. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not react in the same way as his city council does from time to time, by being positively hostile to private sector investment in that city.
    Mr. Summerson: While the Government's initiatives on the inner cities are welcome, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that certain local authorities obstruct the private sector through their use of planning powers? Will he take to himself powers to ensure that that obstructionism does not succeed?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are often pressed on the contribution that local government should make. Indeed, it needs to make a contribution, and the best contribution that it could make would be to be business friendly and to seek to attract to the cities the private sector investment that is needed by the residents if they are to have the hope of new jobs. I deplore any obstruction—through the planning process or in any other way—on the part of just a few councils to the idea of fresh private investment corning to their areas.
    Mr. Caborn: Is the Minister aware that after the hype of the launch on the inner-city initiatives and all the gloss that went out, two sobering statements were made, by the Confederation of British Industry and by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce? The CBI stated:
    "Firms will have to be able to justify their contribution to shareholders."
    It was stated of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which represents 65,000 companies:
    "The association was scathing about the lack of recognition of the chamber's key role in a range of business and social issues."
    The Minister is asking local authorities to be business friendly but, quite honestly, when one considers the declaration of UDC status such as took place in Sheffield, when even the chamber of commerce was not invited to the launch, which it had to gatecrash, that type of co-operation does not appear to have been taken on board by the Government.
    Mr. Clarke: I do not know what the opposite of hype is, but the Labour party has certainly been guilty of it in recent years with regard to just about every new idea for inner cities that has come forward.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): They whinge.
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Opposition whinge about absolutely every measure that anyone proposes and they take the general view that it is all a waste of time.
    Our major aim over the summer is to try to attract private companies to take part in inner-city activity. I agree that we have to get the message across to those companies that it is in their commercial interest to do so. It is sensible, commercial practice for a large company that wants, at the same time, to be a responsible corporate citizen, to take part in such activity. That is the American experience, and we and the CBI agree. That is the message that we shall be giving.
    I am sorry if we did not acknowledge the valuable work of many chambers of commerce. I have worked extremely closely with chambers of commerce and their members in many parts of the country, and they have been actively involved in our work.
    I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the announcement of an urban development corporation for the Don Valley is one of the best bits of news that Sheffield has had in recent years. It will bring that derelict land back into use because the decision-making processes of UDCs have proved, in practice, to be extremely quick and effective. There is, of course, a substantial commitment of Government money behind the UDCs.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to praise the work of the private sector, especially in Nottingham, and in particular the work of David White and his colleagues on the Nottingham development enterprise hoard? That board has done much to ensure that the private sector responds to the need to renew those areas of Nottingham that require such renewal.
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. David White chairs the Nottingham development enterprise board. He has got together a group of the leading business men of the city, who are financing their own secretariat, commissioning reports, as well as setting out a policy on how different
    320
    parts of the city will be revived. They have the active co-operation of the Conservative-controlled city council and the Labour-controlled county council. I am glad to say that the completely negative attitude of the Opposition Front Bench has made no impact in the inner-city area of Nottingham.

    Inner Cities
    Mr. Maxton: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the future of inner-city policy.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have the benefit of a great deal of advice, solicited and unsolicited, on inner-city issues, some of which is reflected in the document "Action for Cities", published on 7 March, which has been very well received.
    Mr. Maxton: In view of the praise that has been heaped on Glasgow in recent months by the Minister, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Prime Minister regarding the GEAR project and inner-city improvement, will the Chancellor take the opportunity to pay due credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), who instituted the scheme for GEAR when he was Secretary of State, the Labour-controlled Glasgow district council and the Labour-controlled Strathclyde region? Is not the lesson of Glasgow and the improvements that have been carried out there that the Government should give the resources and the powers to locally elected Labour-controlled authorities to get on with the job?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I gladly pay tribute to his right hon. Friend and to the local authorities. I trust that he will also pay tribute to the Government, the Scottish Development Agency, my right hon. and noble Friend for his major contribution, and to the private sector. The private sector has been the vehicle by which most of the investment has gone into GEAR. If we can maintain the sort of policy that has, in recent years, flourished in Glasgow we will make progress. I only wish that the hon. Gentleman would have words with some of his hon. Friends in cities such as Manchester and elsewhere who do not appear to have picked up the basic message of co-operation.
    Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. and learned Friend's inner-city initiative include the ability to help finance the start-up costs of business incubators or business technology centres, which will help small businesses to establish themselves?
    Mr. Clarke: It certainly does. The Government have a multiplicity of ways in which they can support business start-up premises, managed workshops and technology centres of the type described by my hon. Friend. Various Departments of state have their different agencies and funds and any projects that come forward will be looked at eagerly by all my right hon. and hon. Friends.
    Ms. Mowlam: How does the Minister expect local authorities to be business friendly in the inner cities, and how does he expect them to finance debt services, when, after the introduction of the poll tax, central Government will control 75 per cent. of what was peviously local authority funding? Is it not time that the Minister became local authority friendly?
    Mr. Clarke: But central Government and private business between them have always paid for the majority of local government expenditure. That is true under the present system and it will be true under the new system. Domestic rates and the community charge provide only for the minority of local government expenditure in any event.
    Mr. Raffan: As my right hon. and learned Friend is aware, the serious problems affecting our inner cities also affect the centres of many smaller towns. Will he assure the House that the initiatives announced in the Government's "Action for Cities" campaign will apply to those smaller communities?
    Mr. Clarke: The urban programme and urban priority areas can cover a wide range of communities. I agree with my hon. Friend that many of the problems affecting inner cities—lack of economic activity, high unemployment and so on—are found in other parts of the country as well. I hope that in England all those in urban priority areas are benefiting from our proposals, and I trust that my hon. Friend will find that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales tackles the problems in his constituency vigorously.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has told us that there is not a single new policy for the inner cities, and the Minister has been unable to tell us whether any substantial new resources will go into the inner cities, at least to compensate for the massive reductions in rate support grant. Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect the same package of measures with virtually the same resources to succeed in the future when it has failed in the past?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is not the first to pick up a phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and use it somewhat incorrectly. As he knows, there were no fewer than 12 new announcements at the conference that we held on Monday. Although all the money came from the existing PESC provision, £250 million or thereabouts was directed to new policies in the inner cities to which it had not been directed before. The hon. Gentleman's wholly false analogy with arguments with local government over rate support grant represents another failed attempt to denigrate a very substantial policy.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was (a) the number of employees in and (b) the output of the steel industry (i) when last nationalised and (ii) for the latest year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Atkins: The British Steel Corporation employed 251,000 people in 1968. At the end of 1987 it employed 51,500 people. Its liquid steel output in the first full year after nationalisation was 23·6 million tonnes. In 1986–87 its output was 11·3 million tonnes, although it will be higher this year. The reductions in part reflect the privatisation of certain BSC activities in recent years.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Now that quota arrangements in the EEC have failed to bring down output in certain countries that agreed to bring their output down, and now that our productivity in the steel
    322
    industry is so good, is it not time that we pressed for quotas to be abolished and allowed a privatised steel industry to go in and clean up the market in Europe?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been leading the way in doing just what he asks in Europe, and we shall endeavour to keep up that campaign.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Has the Minister considered the fact that, had the industry not been taken into public ownership—with all the investment that stemmed from it—it is unlikely that we would have a steel industry left today?
    Mr. Atkins: Let me make it clear that most of the money that the Government have put in over the years has been to support uneconomic operations and maintain capacity that the market did not need. It is not, I emphasise, a debt; it is an accumulated deficit and it has gone for good.
    Mr. Holt: Would my hon. Friend care to note that the excellent figures that he announced include those for Teesside steelworks, which has shown the best improvement in productivity of all and has become the most competitive steelworks in the country? The improvement would have been even greater if the Cleveland county council rate had not increased by 30p this year to cover the cost of an additional 2,000 employees engaged by Cleveland county council in the past two years, none of whom produces anything.
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend makes his point in his usual cogent way. I would point out that productivity has increased from 13·2 man-hours to 6·2 man-hours since 1979–80. That is an indication of the vast improvement in productivity in British Steel in recent years.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that those figures represent a profound disturbance in the lives of tens of thousands of steelworkers and that we lack any authoritative survey of the social costs of the changes? Will he agree to consider initiating a scientific, objective study of the effects of those changes? A few people's lives were transformed for the better, but there have been enormous changes, including an increase in mental and physical ill-health and other problems among steelworkers' families. Will the Minister tell us that the social factors will be examined and included in the equation?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the numbers of people who have left the steel industry as a result of the slimming down of the industry, improvements in productivity and a variety of other factors. I pay tribute to those within the work force, led by the trade unions, who negotiated and understood that productivity agreements and the slimming down that took place were necessary. Health and worries about unemployment are not matters for me.

    European Regional Development Fund
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the value of grants allocated to England from the European regional development fund since its inception.
    Mr. Atkins: The value of the grants is £1,482 million.
    Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the size and extent of the grants, which are impressive, have been sufficiently well publicised? If not, what does he intend to do?
    Mr. Atkins: I am satisfied that publicity arrangements for ERDF grants are satisfactory. As my hon. Friend will know, the grants are announced in batches at various
    324
    times throughout the year by the Commission through press notices. At the same time, interested Government Departments issue press notices, and where appropriate local notices are issued as well. There is always room for improvement, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity that he has given me to re-emphasise the importance that we attach to the grants.

Local Authorities (Rating and Capital Expenditure)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about three issues which will require amendments to be introduced to the Local Government Finance Bill. Two relate to recent court decisions affecting rating, and one relates to the control of local authority capital expenditure in England and Wales.
First, it is central to the rating system that the value of a hereditament should reflect the physical condition of the property and the "state of the locality" at any particular time. But the basis for the valuation should be the property market conditions as they were at the date of the last revaluation.
For many years now the view has been that the expression "state of the locality" related to its physical state and its amenities, and that in order to make a case for a change in rateable value appellants had to show that there had been physical changes to the property or its locality.
This view was recently tested in the case of Addis v. Clement, which turned on whether a factory on the borders of the Lower Swansea Valley enterprise zone could rely on the introduction of the EZ to seek a reduction in rateable value. The Court of Appeal upheld the traditional view by holding that the establishment of an EZ was not a change affecting the state of the locality. The House of Lords, however, took the opposite view.
Following that judgment, it appears that ratepayers may obtain changes in rateable value to reflect changes in market conditions since 1973. Many thousands of new proposals may result. In my view, changes in economic circumstances should be taken into account at the general revaluation in 1990.
I therefore propose to bring forward amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill so that, with effect from midnight tonight, proposals to amend current rateable values will be determined according to the law as it was understood to be prior to the decision in the Addis case. This means that changes will be taken into account only in so far as they relate to the physical state of the hereditament and its locality. Changes in economic factors will be taken into account in the 1990 and subsequent revaluations.
Proposals already made will be decided, where relevant, in the light of the law as decided by the House of Lords in the Addis case.
The second issue affects the rating of water hereditaments. Most such hereditaments are currently rated by statutory formula. Others, particularly sewage treatment works, have, however, always been treated as excluded from the formula and rated conventionally. The Court of Appeal has now held, in the case of Severn Trent Water Authority v. Cakebread, that the Water Act 1973 changed the statutory definition of a water hereditament so that those hereditaments previously excluded from the formula are covered by it, even though the formula did not make allowance for that.
This decision would give a continuing windfall benefit to water authorities. We have therefore decided to restore the law to the position previously accepted for many years, also with effect from midnight tonight.
326
These two decisions will affect the revenue of the local authorities concerned. Rateable values are of course constantly changing as a result of the appeals process and net additions to the rateable stock. Ordinarily, and by agreement with the local authority associations, rateable values, once set for a year, are not changed for rate support grant purposes, for that year or earlier ones. Exceptionally there is provision in section 67 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 for authorities to be compensated if they suffer a reduction of more than a prescribed proportion of their rateable value in any year. This proportion is presently set at 2·5 per cent. It is not yet clear whether, as a result of these decisions, any authority will lose rateable value in excess of that level and, therefore, whether the existing arrangements will be triggered. While my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are prepared to listen to representations on this, we see no need to extend the existing arrangements for compensation. We intend, by making our proposals effective from today, to limit the losses which might otherwise arise.
Thirdly, I have to inform the House that, once again, a minority of local authorities are employing artificial devices to incur capital expenditure and to undertake borrowing over and above the levels permitted to them under the existing capital control system.
Only a minority of authorities are involved, but the sums involved are large. Individual deals can give rise to future expenditure of several hundred million pounds. If all options granted under agreements recently entered into are taken up, several billion pounds of capital expenditure may be incurred. No Government could ignore evasion of their expenditure controls on this scale.
A number of different devices are being used. They fall into two classes. First, there are schemes under which local authorities are acquiring capital assets on terms which are outside the letter of existing capital controls — for instance, by the taking of medium term leases or by barter. Secondly, there are schemes under which local authorities are raising money by lease and leaseback or sale and leaseback of their operational assets. This is borrowing in fact, although it may not be borrowing in law. In effect, money is being borrowed by disposal of capital assets in order to finance deficits on revenue account.
Mr. Tony Banks: That is exactly what the Government are doing.
Mr. Ridley: Amendments have been made to the prescribed expenditure regulations for England and Wales. These will take effect from midnight tonight. But the amending regulations will be temporary in the first instance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I will consult local government and other interested parties about whether any changes or clarification are required before the amendments are made permanent. We have adopted this procedure to avoid any repetition of the events of 1986–87, when consultation preceded a change in the regulations and when nearly £2 billion worth of deals were rushed through in the interim.
The main changes made by the regulations are that, with some exceptions, acquisition of a leasehold interest in land for a term of more than three years will score as prescribed expenditure. The present limit is 20 years. And, regardless of term, prescribed expenditure will be scored on acquisition of a lease of property in which the authority

327
holds a superior interest or which has during the previous five years been the subject of a development agreement to which the authority was a party. There are also some changes in the provisions about capital receipts where acquisition of the assets concerned did not involve prescribed expenditure.
Some authorities may as a result of the new regulations incur prescribed expenditure as a result of the exercise of options provided for in agreements already entered into. I and my right hon. Friends will consider issuing additional capital allocations where we are satisfied that the agreements were not entered into for the purpose of evading capital expenditure or borrowing controls.
Subject to the approval of Parliament to the necessary provisions, we propose to supplement the changes in the regulations with certain changes in the primary legislation. Those changes are as follows: to clarify that, when a local authority acquires land in terms other than freehold for cash, the amount of prescribed expenditure scored is the value of the interest acquired on the assumption that it was acquired freehold and for cash. That was the intention of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980; to provide that where a local authority acquires property, or where works are carried out on a property which the authority owns, and valuable consideration for the acquisition of the works is given but not in money, then prescribed expenditure will be scored; to clarify that, where a local authority acquires an interest in or right over land and the interest or right does not confer a right of occupation, nil prescribed expenditure is scored only if the interest is neither a freehold nor a leasehold.
In addition, we intend to widen the statutory definition of prescribed expenditure to include the acquisition of share or loan capital in a body corporate and expenditure incurred in the discharge of obligations under a guarantee or indemnity relating to borrowing by a person other than the local authority.
All the legislative changes that I have outlined will be included in the Local Government Finance Bill. They will, however, be made effective from midnight tonight.
Dr. John Cunningham: Is the Secretary of State aware that the effect of enterprise zones, which he now complains of and which he seeks to change by changing the law from midnight tonight, was always predictable and was forecast by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) speaking for the Labour party in 1980 when the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill became an Act? After eight years, the enterprise zone problems in that regard are now coming home to roost. They have resulted in increased rental values inside the zones, decreased rental values outside the zones and a consequent very large and continuing loss of income to local authorities as a result of rateable values being depressed.
Is the Secretary of State aware—I am sure he is—that the city treasurer in Swansea has calculated that the loss to the city's finances could be in excess of £1 million? Is the Secretary of State also aware that in Salford—another enterprise zone — the local authority has calculated that the Secretary of State's decision is likely to result in very large rate increases or a continuing loss of income to the city's finances?
328
There are 19 enterprise zones at the moment. In all those areas, local authorities and ratepayers have sustained and continue to sustain very large losses in income and therefore sustain extra penalties as citizens of those communities. In addition, is the Secretary of State aware that enterprise zones continue to attract the transfer of firms and companies across the boundaries, simply relocating companies from one area to another without necessarily or very often creating new jobs?
Why will the Government not recognise that attempts to ring-fence the economic effects of enterprise zones have failed and will continue to fail? Apparently the Government recognise that—at least privately—because in Monday's glossy press release document on policies for the inner cities enterprise zones are relegated to a single sentence in 32 pages. The Government have abandoned their attempts to monitor the impact and effect of enterprise zones.
Will the Secretary of State make clear what redress will be available to local authorities and ratepayers in those areas? Although I welcome his commitment to listen to representations from the local authorities — that is certainly the right thing for him to do—it seems clear that in most cases the provisions in section 67 of the 1980 Act will not be adequate to allow him to compensate them. I ask him to reconsider the provisions to ensure, through legislation if necessary, that the local authorities and their ratepayers can be properly compensated.
The Secretary of State has also decided not to accept the decision of the courts. That means that, unless he makes arrangements for adequate compensation, the people involved will not be able to benefit from the court judgment. That is his intention, but if he does not intend them to benefit from the decision it is surely incumbent on him to arrange for them to be properly compensated in some other way.
The Secretary of State has made an important and complicated series of technical financial announcements about local authority finance. Will he confirm—
Mr. Tony Banks: What about Westminster and the cemeteries, then?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Dr. Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the local authorities to which he refers have been acting within the law? Is it not strange that he has uncomplimentary things to say about them, but nothing to say about the banks in the City which are falling over themselves to facilitate these deals?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: That is because they are their friends.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have an end of this chat across the Chamber.
Mr. Skinner: Why not speak to the bookie's runner?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am referring to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Dr. Cunningham: Why is it that yet again the Secretary of State has made a statement without mentioning the range of effects that are likely to follow? Will he confirm, for example, that his proposals will affect large and small local authorities right across the country, under Tory as well as Labour control? Will he confirm that the proposals will affect the capital programmes of many of those

329
authorities, including house-building programmes, redevelopment programmes and capital expenditure on leisure centres and other such facilities? Will he also confirm that the statement has implications for budgets that have already been fixed, and rates that may already have been announced for the coming financial year? Will that not cause severe problems in some local authority areas?
I welcome the Secretary of State's proposal that these matters should be the subject of amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill. But what are the Government's intentions with respect to the tabling of those amendments? Will he assure us that they will be tabled in the House of Commons, so that we have the proper time and facilities to debate them in Committee, rather than being pushed into the Bill in the House of Lords at the last moment, as the auditors' powers have in the Local Government Bill which will be before us later today?
May I also have an assurance that the Committee will have additional time to consider these important proposals? Will the Secretary of State guarantee that his amendments are tabled in good time for us to consider all their implications before they are debated in Committee? We are fed up with important decisions on local government finance and powers being bounced through the House without our having adequate time to discuss them.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On documentation, the Secretary of State's bag-wallah has been moving around passing out copies of the statement. Why—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what the term means.
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made some comments about the merits or demerits of enterprise zones, which do not arise on the statement. His comments may or may not be true. The point is whether the state of the locality should be taken into account when considering a revaluation proposal or whether only the physical state of the land or property should be the subject of a revaluation. It is that legal point that has caused me to make this statement. The Court of Appeal thought that the law was as we all thought it was, but the House of Lords has decided otherwise. Therefore, it is necessary to put it right.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's implied support for putting this right through an amendment to the Bill. It was clear that he was concerned about the local authorities whose revenue would be affected if we did not put it right in the future. That is what we want to do, and we look forward to his support.
In relation to compensation, as I said in my statement, there are precedents for dealing with the matter. I have nothing further to add to that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the court judgment. Yes, I am accepting the court judgment; that is why it is necessary to legislate. [Laughter.] Those who have benefited in the past will be able to enjoy their lower rateable values; those decisions are not being upset.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about sale and leaseback and lease and leaseback. The transactions we have all read
330
about, including the question of Brent town hall, appear to be legal at present, although they will not be legal from midnight tonight. That is all we are seeking to do.
I join the hon. Member for Copeland in condemning those who have felt it to be a good investment to make major loans to local authorities because they must realise that they are at risk, partly because the Government do not stand behind local authorities and partly because some of the deals are based on options, which it might be more difficult to exercise in future. Of course, the regulations and the new legislation will apply to all councils. However, only a small number have been abusing the system, and I think that they are all under the control of the Labour party.
The amendments will be produced as soon as possible and I am hopeful that they will be available for the Report stage. Since the Committee has not been able to fill the time allotted to it, I can hardly believe that the hon. Gentleman is asking for more time.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw the House's attention to the fact that we have a full day ahead of us. I ask for brief, and single, questions on this matter.
Sir George Young: Is my right hon. Friend aware that ratepayers in Ealing will warmly welcome the third of his announcements this afternoon. A £100 million deferred purchase loan has recently been taken out by the Labour council, the repayments of which will total £20 million a year but not until after the lifetime of the present council. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that existing negotiations, details of which have been sent to his Department, cannot now proceed without his consent?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In the case of Ealing, the deal has been done; therefore, it is legal and stands. However, the deal contains options that are not of a legal nature until they are exercised. It may be more difficult for the council to exercise those options after the statement I have made today.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Secretary of State accept that many local authorities are forced to engage in leaseback and barter deals not because of outrageous overspending but because they simply cannot provide even the minimum level of service demanded by the Government? Moreover, is he aware that many of those councils are in that stale because they are historic low spenders, not because they are overspenders? Will the Secretary of State give the House time to debate these important new principles on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Ridley: I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view. In the main, councils that engage in these massive borrowing exercises—which is what they are — are, at the same time, councils that massively overspend; they are borrowing to finance their overspending. I have listened with patience to the hon. Gentleman for many hours already, and no doubt I will have to listen to him again on the subject of these clauses.
Mr. John Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that today's announcement will be welcomed not only by the ratepayers of Ealing but by all honest local authorities throughout the country? Does he agree that creative accounting amounts to municipal deception, and will he confirm that appropriate steps are

331
being taken in the Committee on the Housing Bill to ensure that local authorities are not able to transfer their council estates to other side-by-side companies to evade the provisions of that Bill and the rights of tenants?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. These practices represent massive borrowing of capital moneys to finance revenue expenditure, which will then have to be paid back in later years by councillors who may not have been elected and by ratepayers who may not be ratepayers at present, and that would be to mortgage the future in an unacceptable way.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The first part of the Secretary of State's statement concerned the effect of a legal decision arising from the setting up of an enterprise zone in Swansea. We have now heard that there is to be a mini U D C in Leeds, with many of the results which flow from an enterprise zone. Do I deduce from that that the amendments—when they are revealed to us at a later stage — will affect the result of a mini U D C in Leeds?
Mr. Ridley: No, Sir, because urban development corporations do not have de-rating as part of their attractions. Firms in urban development corporation areas pay full rates, so there can be no conceivable valuation effect in the sense that there has been with the enterprise zones.
Mr. Robin Squire: My right hon. Friend has already referred, in answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), to the coincidence of a number of these authorities also being high-spending authorities. May I tease my right hon. Friend to add a little more? Will he confirm that a high proportion of those authorities have been identified by the Audit Commission as delivering an inefficient and incompetent service? If they were simply to deliver the services that most authorities do, they would not need these arrangements.
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend, as always, is absolutely right. Those authorities are not only incompetent in providing current account services but, as the Audit Commission has recently pronounced, extremely inef-ficient at managing their capital assets and have not been able to manage their portfolios of land and buildings in such a way as to produce maximum advantage to the councils.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Is the Secretary of State aware that the budget and rate of Brent council, which he has just rendered illegal, were agreed under the law that he brought before the House and that was agreed by the House, and that they were taken out on legal advice, which pointed out that the budget was lawful? Is he aware that the budget includes cuts of 19 per cent. in services? Those cuts will lead to the loss of teachers' jobs and social service provision being slashed and are at the margin of what is tolerable. They were kept below 20 per cent. only by the leaseback arrangement, which was organised by the lead banker, Guinness Mahon. In condemning that, will he talk to his colleagues who have a financial interest in that firm?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the budget is ruled illegal it will mean that those cuts will increase from 19 per cent. to 38 per cent.? I remind the Secretary of State
332
that Brent has managed to avoid, by the efforts of Labour and Conservative councillors, all the upheavals and riots in London during the past decade. What does he think the response on the streets will be when those cuts of about 38 per cent. hit to the bone of people's lives, and will he take responsibility for it?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman should listen to what is said. I said that the deal that Brent had carried out is legal. I regret that it is legal. I have to admit that it is, but it will not be legal for others to do the same in future. However, there is no question of upsetting that deal or of Brent's budget being illegal as a result of anything that I have said today.
Mr. John M. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us welcome an end to devices for avoiding financial discipline and will he say now that, if any Japanese banks get into difficulty as a result of municipal default, they will be on their own?
Mr. Ridley: Yes, I look forward to seeing any merchant bank, be it British or Japanese, or from Leeds, taking over the council house toilet fixtures, the town hall or whatever has been mortgaged for the loans. I look forward to seeing them making a physical repossession of those factors if they ever need to secure their security.
Mr. Paul Boateng: The Secretary of State has been quick to rush to the House to condemn Brent council for attempting to preserve its services. Why has he been so tardy in failing to come to the House to condemn Westminster city council for selling off its assets? Why is it that those who seek to preserve life through the provision of nurses, discretionary grants for schools and decent houses and services for all the people are condemned, while those who sell off the dead are applauded?
Mr. Ridley: No, far from being quick to come to the House, I have been tardy. I am afraid that Brent has got away with it.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is it not true that when the enterprise zones were set up they were, in many cases, eagerly bid for by local authorities, including many Labour local authorities? Is it not also true that they were not forced on local authorities? Indeed, Derbyshire county council refused to have one. Therefore, why do we suddenly have this display of whingeing self-righteousness by Labour Members?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is quite right. However, the statement is not about enterprise zones; it is about a technical point on rating and valuation law. It is extraordinary to hear the Opposition railing about enterprise zones at this time when they have provided many thousands of jobs in their areas.
Mr. John Battle: Is not the Secretary of State in effect using the budget mechanism effectively to draft a national leasing agreement which will tightly define all local leasing and freehold arrangements? Where is his concern for local conditions and local discretion? Is not this, in detail, another prime example of dictatorship from the centre for local government?
Mr. Ridley: The 1980 Act and the Act that went before it controlling local authority capital expenditure were all attempts to define exactly what functions local authorities had in raising and investing capital. The point is that they

333
have been evaded. Labour Members are keen to condemn those who evade the tax laws, but they seem to have a rather different view on those who get round the laws on capital spending.
Mr. Simon Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the banks' behaviour in lending money to irresponsible local authorities is a disgrace and that ratepayers and residents will have to live with the consequences for many years to come? Will he have no sympathy whatever with any of those banks if they get their fingers burned?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. I cannot condemn people who do things that are perfectly legal, but I do wonder whether some of the banks have understood the great risks they face and the great difficulties that they would have if it came to repossession.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Since the changes stem from court cases in Wales and England and a House of Lords' decision is involved, will the proposals also apply to Scotland? Given that the Minister is waiting until 1990 to introduce changes in economic factors as part of the procedure, is he aware that Scotland has regularly devalued every five years? Therefore, in fairness, should not the ability to have lower rateable value apply to Scottish businesses right now? Will they lose if his proposals are applied to Scotland?
Mr. Ridley: This statement does not apply to Scotland. Scottish law is quite different and the judgment does not apply to Scotland. In no sense does anything that I have said today have any Scottish implications.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that he has closed all the leaseback loopholes so improperly and callously misused and exploited by Left-wing councils to the long-term detriment of the ratepayer? If he cannot give that assurance, will he consider tabling enabling legislation in a local government Bill to allow him to deal with future fiddles by Left-wing councils?
Mr. Ridley: The measure that I have announced today will deal with all known abuses of the capital control system, but my hon. Friend will know that, if time permits, we intend to legislate in the autumn for a total reform of the capital control system. It may well be a good idea to take powers in that legislation to stop up some of the abuses, but that is a matter that has not yet been decided upon.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the Minister take it from me that the ratepayers of Salford will see his announcement today as an unnecessary penalty upon their local authority and that they will now question whether it was sensible to have co-operated all the way down the line with the Government?
Mr. Ridley: No, Sir. Today's announcement comes to the relief of the ratepayers of Salford and everywhere else who otherwise would have continued to lose rateable income if we had not stopped up the loophole.
Mr. Irvine Patnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the legislation has been a long time in coming and that the actions of councils, such as Sheffield city council, which placed the city in hock several years ago to the Bank Paribas, should have led to legislation being brought in before this?
Mr. Ridley: I never knew that the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) had a bank. I congratulate him. I hope that he will not go on lending to Sheffield.
Mr. Tony Banks: When will the Secretary of State's campaign of hatred against Labour local authorities end? Is he aware that local authorities have become involved in various financial arrangements in order to try to defend jobs and services in areas that are desperately being deprived of them by the Government? Since he is so quick to condemn those local authorities, why does he not answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on the actions of Westminster city council, which sold off the cemetaries for 5p and is now trying to buy them back? Will he be ordering an inquiry into that piece of financial chicanery?
Mr. Ridley: Far from my hating Labour local authorities, when will the hon. Gentleman stop hating ratepayers?
Hon. Members: Westminster!
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Richard Holt: As a councillor in the London borough of Brent from its inception in 1963 until 1974—a borough which, during the whole of that time under both Labour and Conservative administrations, never entered into the sort of chicanery that we are debating today—may I tell my right hon. Friend that the people of Brent will be most grateful, not least my mother and the other elderly people who live there, for his statement today? The only criticism that I have is that it is far too late and should have been made years ago.
Mr. Ridley: With my usual humility, I plead guilty to the charge that my hon. Friend lays against me.
Mr. Skinner: Is it not significant that it is the Secretary of State who, during the course of his tenure in office in the Department of Transport and now in the Department of the Environment, has had to come to the Dispatch Box on at least six occasions because he has become involved with the courts, mainly because of the continual battle which is going on between local democracy and the Government who are taking away powers on every possible occasion? Is it not also ironic that the Government, who give £1 billion in tax relief to the banks that are rescheduling debts with countries that cannot pay them back, are now hammering Labour local authorities because they have taken part in a similar exercise? Surely there are double standards here.
Mr. Ridley: I have news for the hon. Gentleman. The major judgment with which we are dealing today—the Cakebread judgment—arises out of an error made in the Rating (Water Hereditaments) Order 1975, produced by the Labour party, signed by Mr. Anthony Crosland, which would cost all local authorities dear.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the effect of the third part of his statement will be to protect people who do not now have the vote or enjoy the accountability of their local authorities? Does he agree that his announcement will have a great impact on people when they come to pay the community charge? That protection will save them from the perils of Socialism, which says that one can spend today and pay back later.

335
Will my right hon. Friend give the important assurance that the amendments will in no way block the implementation of the Local Government Finance Bill? The sooner it gets to the statute book the better.
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend raises a serious point. It is of great concern to me that some authorities are prepared to borrow massively in order to have to repay in later years, when the present councillors may no longer be in office, thus landing their successors and those who will pay the community charge in future with very large bills. I believe that this House owes it to future community charge payers to prevent that sort of thing.
Mr. Keith Raffan: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's clarification of the position following the Addis v. Clement decision, which will be widely welcomed in my local authority, which contains an enterprise zone? But would he agree that the negative comments of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), irrelevant though they may be, will cause dismay in areas where there are enterprise zones—particularly in my own? The Delyn enterprise zone has played a significant part in reducing unemployment by 42 per cent. in the past four years. Is Labour now against enterprise zones?
Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It does not matter what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) says, because he will never do anything except sit on the Opposition Benches.
Dr. Cunningham: May I ask the Secretary of State to reconsider his announcement that these amendments will be presented to the House only on Report? As there are
336
several more weeks of Committee proceedings, why is the Committee being denied the proper time in which to scrutinise his proposals and debate them properly in detail? If the right hon. Gentleman insists on bringing them to the House only on Report, I hope that he will arrange with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to provide more time.
What will the right hon. Gentleman say to the council leader from Surrey, who told me a few days ago that what the Secretary of State did on capital controls did not matter, because with bankers like his council's — Rothschild's—it would always be able to find a way to do what it wanted, and to finance deals anyway?
Is not the right hon. Gentleman's concern for the ratepayers in inner-London authorities a little partial? Why does he not show any concern for the ratepayers of Westminster? Why does he not intervene there, as he is so keen to intervene elsewhere? Why is he content to allow asset-stripping of cemeteries at a cost of millions of pounds to the ratepayers? Should he not be inquiring into those events, too?
Mr. Ridley: Since the hon. Gentleman appears to be going to support the new amendments that I have said will be tabled, I cannot think why he wants such a great deal of time in which to debate them—particularly as the Standing Committee has not found it possible to fill the time allotted to it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall do our utmost to get the drafting done and bring the amendments before the House as soon as possible, but I cannot promise precisely when that work will he completed. Of course, I must discuss matters of time with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
The hon. Gentleman knows full well the limit of my powers in relation to the Westminster matter.

Gaming Machines (Prohibition on use by Persons under Sixteen)
4.15 pm
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of gaming machines in cafés, small shops, amusement arcades, snack bars, fairgrounds and other places by persons under the age of 16 years.
In this way I hope to tighten a loophole in the present law and so protect schoolchildren, at least, from what has become a form of hard gambling. Although the law restricts the availability of jackpot machines to adult licensed premises, schoolchildren have easy access to AWP fruit machines, for they readily find them in fairgrounds, amusement arcades, small shops, cafes, fish-and-chip shops and snack bars, which are established features of their everyday lives.
Schoolchildren are lured to gaming machines by their flashing lights and beckoning noises, but what begins as a game can all too often develop into a tragic addiction which ruins the lives of the young and innocent and puts unbearable strains on their families. Every study which has examined the problem among schoolchildren has shown that young people can get hooked on gaming machines as quickly as they can on drink or drugs, and the effects are no less devastating.
The addiction created by machine gambling has been compared to the compulsion experienced by animals used in reinforced learning experiments in psychology. Young machine gamblers, like the animals, will play with mindless repetition and furious speed in their determination to get it right. Modern technology encourages that, because the nudge and hold features delude the young person into believing that he or she can beat the system.
The addiction produces its own social problems. As children meet regularly in the same places to play machines, they can easily become pick-up targets for the unsavoury and run the risk of gang formation. Many are tempted into lives of crime when they realise that this sort of craving cannot be satisfied from pocket money funds. School-age machine gamblers are children at risk. It is on that risk that recent media campaigns, such as the one launched in Glasgow by the Evening Times, have focused. The media are right to alert public opinion to the need for a moral crusade to change the law before even more young lives are caught in the net of hard gambling.
The urgency of the need to end this form of child exploitation is also stressed in the evidence of the many surveys that have examined the nature and scope of the problem. I refer to the National Council on Gambling's survey of state schools in four London boroughs, to the survey conducted by the Spectrum Children's Trust among 2,500 schoolchildren in the south-west, and to the study of 10,000 schoolchildren that was recently carried out in various parts of the country by the National Housing and Town Planning Council.
The evidence of these and other studies is frightening and demands that we take immediate action to end this growing social menace. Machine gambling is shown to be the major gambling problem in every age group from 11 to 16. Evidence also shows that these young schoolchildren gamble not only in amusement arcades and funfairs but
338
congregate every day in small shops, snack bars, fish-and-chip shops and cafes to spend their lunch money feeding not themselves but the insatiable appetite of the machines.
Schoolchildren who gamble share common problems—poor work, aggressive behaviour, truancy, emotional disturbance and stealing. It is sad to note that all the evidence confirms that those who become addicted to machine gambling were introduced to the machines before they were 13 years old and, in some cases, when they were even younger. The addiction also leads to lying, deceit, shame and mistrust, which are commonly found in the homes of young gamblers. Those problems have become so acute that a support group, Parents of Young Gamblers, has had to be formed.
Addicted children do not suddenly kick the habit when they leave school. Many progress to the betting shops and gambling casinos, while desperation for the money that their addiction consumes drives others to commit serious crimes of violence. The law is lax on this matter, not through any deliberate attempt to exploit but merely because no one foresaw the scale of the potential danger when the machines were first introduced. The problem of school-age gambling is the proverbial one of Topsy—it just grew. If it is not halted quickly, it will produce a gambling epidemic in the not too distant future.
A trade code of practice forbids schoolchildren to gamble on machines, but all the evidence proves that that code is not working. Machine gambling is every bit as common among children wearing school uniform as it is among those who are casually dressed.
The absence of an effective trade code of practice is aggravated by the nature of local planning laws. Although they can take account of factors such as noise and congestion when considering applications, they cannot pay attention to factors of morality. Thus, schoolchildren can become the easy prey of unscrupulous fairground owners, arcade managers or shopkeepers who choose to obey the dictates of their pockets rather than those of their consciences.
Let us not forget the huge profits that can be made from gaming machines. One example of profitability was noted in the recent statement by the chief executive of the Rank Organisation. Referring to bingo profits, he admitted:
"Only 30 per cent. of our profits actually come from bingo. We make most money from the AWP, or 'fruit machines', followed by food and drink."
We can be sure that gaming machines in fairgrounds, arcades and small shops are no less profitable for their owners.
It is easy to see how schoolchildren can be exploited, but it is the duty of the law to protect the young and immature from being led into harmful situations, especially those that can ruin their lives. Therefore, with the lives of schoolchildren in mind, I ask the House to preempt any long-term measures that might result from the current Home Office review. The weight of the evidence before us and the strength of public opinion in support dictate that we cannot afford to wait and see. By waiting, we shall put even more young lives a risk.
Therefore, I ask the House to act to prevent young persons under 16 years gaining access to gaming machines in fairgrounds and amusement arcades, and to remove such offending machines from snack bars, small shops, cafes and fish-and-chip shops, which are the regular haunts of schoolchildren. Again, I stress the urgency with which I ask the House to act. If even one more life is lured

339
into the horrendous net of hard gambling as a result of our failure to give protection, it will be a tragedy, not only for the individual and his family but, now that we have been alerted to the scale and dangers of the problem, for the conscience of the House. I ask the House to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. John Hughes, Dr. John Reid, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mr. Michael J. Martin, Mr. Bob McTaggart, Mr. Robert Litherland and Mr. Stanley Orme.

Gaming Machines (Prohibition on use by Persons under Sixteen)
  GAMING MACHINES (PROHIBITION ON USE BY PERSONS UNDER SIXTEEN)
  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the use of gaming machines in cafes, small shops, amusement arcades, snack bars, fairgrounds and other places by persons under the age of 16 years: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 April and to be printed. [Bill 116.]
Orders of the Day

  Local Government Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  4.22 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise with you a matter of which you are already aware, the selection in relation to what was clause 28 when it left the House and will now be clause 29 of the Local Government Bill. You have given considerable thought to the amendments that I have tabled. For one last time, I shall briefly put to you the argument for taking one or both of the amendments that I propose.
  May we be allowed to debate whether, instead of the word "promote" in clause 29, as it will now be, we should have an alternative word, "commend", as was suggested in another place? The dictionary makes it clear — perhaps I did not make this argument clear before—that, whereas "commend" has only one meaning, "promote" is open to a variety of meanings. The ambiguity of the word "promote" could render the legislation controversial and problematic in a way that "commend" could not. The "Oxford Dictionary" makes it clear that there are different types of meaning of "promote", but "commend" has only a positive, welcoming or recommending sense. That word would seem to restrict the ambit of the clause and, therefore, raise a different issue about its reach.
  The other matter relates to the grouped pair of amendments that were tabled by me, amendments (b) and (d) to Lords amendment No. 10. The proposed amendment would delete the word "homosexuality" and replace it by
  "sexual activity between persons of the same sex."
  That matter, too, was debated in the other place. To paraphrase the argument in the other place, to promote or commend homosexuality is arguably scientifically impossible in the sense that, if homosexuality is a condition or an orientation, it cannot in any way be promoted or commended with any concrete effect. The alternative would be to make it clear—it would accord with the mischief with which the original proposer of the new clause sought to deal in Committee—that what was intended to be dealt with by the legislation was the promotion or commendation of sexual activity between people of the same sex. That clearly falls to be considered within the context of the legislation, and certainly—I do not think that there is any dispute—should not be promoted or commended by local authorities.
  But there is a difference. In practice, it would be the difference between a local authority properly allowing a teacher, for example, to respond to a proper question, and the local authority going on with its present duties and responsibilities in commending specific activity and being seen to endorse it.
  I am aware that you have given thought to the matter, Mr. Speaker, and I am grateful. But I ask you, particularly in respect of the first point, which I may not have put clearly enough before, to consider one more time whether we could have an opportunity to have what would be the

  341
  only possible debate on the substance of the legal wording and interpretation of a controversial clause to a controversial Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have had discussions about the matter. In the light of what he has said to me, I have looked at the matter again. I am afraid I cannot change my selection.
  Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises out of the fact that we are discussing the business at all today. The Lords amendments were available to Members of the House of Commons only some time on Friday of last week. That meant that it was impossible for hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, since the Government knew what the situation was, to table amendments until the sitting of the House on Monday. Clearly, the Clerks of the House had to judge whether the amendments were in order. Such decisions were, broadly speaking, communicated, at least to me, yesterday — I make no criticism of the Clerks in that respect—by which time, of course, it was impossible to table any further amendments and have them on the Order Paper to be accepted by you for debate. That cannot be a reasonable way for the House to deal with its business.
  The problem was raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition with the Leader of the House during the business statement last Thursday. The Leader of the House said:
  "The Bill will be available in the Vote Office first thing tomorrow".— [Official Report, 3 March 1988; Vol. 1440, c. 1156.]
  I am not sure that it was available first thing, but it was certainly available during Friday. That is simply not good enough to enable all Opposition parties proper time to scrutinise the implications, to table amendments, to discuss them with the Clerks, to seek advice, and to secure debates on issues that we believe to be of importance to us and to our constituents.
  Like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I regret that some amendments standing in my name and in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends have not been selected. Had the business not been concertinaed in such a way, the problems could have been avoided. It cannot be an acceptable or satisfactory way in which to proceed with important legislation affecting not only aspects of local government finance and contract compliance but people's civil rights and other matters of fundamental importance to us all in a democratic society. Although it is probably too late to do anything about today's proceedings, I hope that somehow these problems can be eliminated in future. The position of the House is weak and growing weaker vis-a-vis the executive — whichever party forms the executive. I cannot believe that Members of Parliament or the public want Parliament to grow weaker and weaker, especially with a mounting load of legislation from any Government. I raise this matter with you, Mr. Speaker, because it is important to put it on record and to seek ways of ensuring that these problems do not arise again in future.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Speaker: I fully appreciate what the hon. Member has said about time. I think that it is important that the Opposition, and indeed the whole House, has time to table
  342
  properly drafted amendments. I shall look again carefully at the starred amendments, but at first sight I do not think that I can change my selection.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. No one is criticising your selection of amendments or the advice that the Clerks have put forward. What is causing great concern to Opposition Members is the deliberate efforts by the Government's business managers to make it difficult for Opposition Members to table amendments that are in order on difficult matters, and the totally slipshod approach by the Department of the Environment and the Office of the Leader of the House. Those are the only possible explanations as to why you, Mr. Speaker, and the Clerk have been put in some difficulty, as have Opposition Members.
  We have heard today from the same Secretary of State on a different Bill. He made an announcement about three matters he wanted to introduce into the Local Government Finance Bill, but he cannot even promise that they will be brought forward in time to be considered in the already guillotined Committee. He is proposing, or at best promising, that they will be brought forward to be discussed in the already guillotined report stage of the Bill. That statement follows the problems that we have had with a major announcement of new policies which are to be incorporated into the Education Reform Bill so that we had to change guillotine motions and God knows what else.
  The House is being treated with contempt by the Government's business managers, who are not one jot interested in giving the House the opportunity properly to scrutinise the legislation. They want simply to push through slipshod amendments as rapidly as possible. It is simply not good enough. If necessary, will you, Mr. Speaker, call a meeting of the usual channels so that we can avoid what is happening at the moment occurring again and again?
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As amendments to Lords amendments are by nature the most difficult to draft satisfactorily because of the limited scope of what is before us, is it not the normal practice for the period between Lords amendments coming to the House and being debated by the House after Third Reading in the Lords to be two weekends and a full week in which we can, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) argued, consider any amendments that we wish to table, see whether they are acceptable in drafting terms for consideration by you, Mr. Speaker and table further amendments if they are not? I seek your ruling about whether the timetable was complied with in this case and whether any course is open to us whereby we could proceed with this business for some time, see how far we get and resume it on another day while we deal with the remaining Orders of the Day.
  Mr. Speaker: I fully appreciate the importance of time to the Opposition and to the whole House in tabling amendments, particularly to Lords amendments. Although the matters that have been raised have my sympathy, they are not matters for me. Perhaps they should be pursued with the Leader of the House when he is here tomorrow.

  Local Government Bill
    Clause 1

      DEFINED AUTHORITIES
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, leave out line 13.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 6, 31 and 33.
      Mr. Grist: The Development Board for Rural Wales is established to operate as a development agency with economic and social functions in rural Wales. The DBRW is akin to the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Development Commission in England, which are both precluded from the Bill's provisions.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales ensures that the board exposes its activities to competition and uses private contractors wherever it is possible and reasonable.
      The opportunity has also been taken in amendments Nos. 31 and 33 to remove the board from the competitive tendering provisions of part III of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 governing building and maintenance by direct labour organisations. The part III provisions have little practical impact on the board as they apply to bodies with direct labour organisations of about 30 employees. The board has only 12 employees in its organisation.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Minister confirm that the board is seeking these amendments?
      Mr. Grist: Yes.
      Mr. Wigley: That being so, can the Minister provide any enlightenment as to why the provision was included in the Bill in the first place?
      Mr. Grist: I believe that it was a slight oversight.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 3

      OTHER DEFINITIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 38, leave out "a parish or community council".
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      When parish and community councils were added to the list of defined authorities in clause 1, it became necessary to delete the reference to them in clause 3 which implied that they were not defined authorities. This was only noticed after the Bill had left this House.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 11

      REPORT FOR FINANCIAL YEAR
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 10, line 11, leave out "the first relevant date" and insert "30th September".
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 28 to 30.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These amendments bring the Scottish report dates into line with those applicable to England and Wales.
      There was some discussion about this in Committee, and a plea was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) for a consistent approach north and south of the border. Although the amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for Maryhill, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) also spoke about it. He said:
      "The date of 31 December specified in the Bill could give rise to practical problems. The Bill does not say, 'By the last post on 31 December'—if there is a last post … Can the Scottish Office confirm that an official, or at least a Minister will be present in New St. Andrew's House and that the doors will he open to receive the hundreds of annual reports at one minute to midnight on hogmanay?"
      I am glad that in response to that my hon. Friend said:
      "throughout the year Scottish Office Ministers are available."
      We did see the force of the argument of the hon. Member for East Lothian. It is no part of my desire to see the terms of the Bill impinge on the happiness of Scotsmen at hogmanay, hence the amendment.
      However, a more weighty argument was made by the hon. Member for Maryhill who said that we should have consistency north and south of the border.
      What was a practical proposal by the Accounts Commission has simply been rendered redundant by the introduction into the Bill of a further refinement of the audit process.
      As previously drafted, reports by Scottish authorities were to be prepared by 30 November and submitted to the Secretary of State by 31 December. The Bill now requires reports by all authorities, including Scottish authorities, to be prepared by 30 September and sent both to the Secretary of State and to auditors by 31 October. The Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland takes the view that it is no longer necessary to have different dates for preparation and submission of reports for Scotland. This is because the Bill now makes provision for auditors to check the statements of rate of return for those activities covered in the Local Government. Planning and Land Act 1980, as well as those covered by this Bill and to highlight any discrepancies in the report. This will ensure that the reports received in the Department are subject to scrutiny and based on audited figures. I am sure that the House will agree that that provides welcome consistency north and south of the border.
      I hope that the House will agree that these are uncontentious points. Indeed, they are in response to the hon. Member for Maryhill who spoke, not only on behalf of herself, but the Opposition when she said:
      "The Opposition believe that it is only fair that England, Scotland and Wales should keep to the same dates, whatever they may be." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 November 1987: c. 620–24.]
      It is perhaps slightly ironic that I am responding to the representations of those hon. Members when they are absent today. However, I am sure that in due course the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) will bear that news to his colleagues—[Interruption.] Yes, I

      345
      realise that they are in Scotland at a conference. The amendment does precisely what they asked and I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: In response to the Minister, although Labour Members are not present [Interruption.]—although the hon. Members who raised those points are not present—I am sure that they will appreciate what the Minister has said because it shows that the Government have at least some sense of humour. I am glad to note that Scottish custom, tradition and long usage has been taken into account in producing the changes.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish that the Minister would convey to his colleagues the same willingness to make sure that the same rules apply north and south of the border and in Wales in other pieces of legislation. On the Housing Bill, for example, it has been strongly argued—but not yet accepted — that what is happening in Scotland should happen in England and Wales. Perhaps the Minister could use his best offices to secure similar provisions across the border in that Bill as he has now secured in this.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 6 agreed to.

    Clause 17

      LOCAL AND OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY CONTRACTS: EXCLUSION OF NON-COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 7, in 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),".
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 8.
      The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Hon. Members will have noted that, apart from these two amendments, no substantive changes to the provisions of part II of the Bill were made in the other place. Their Lordships accepted the principle behind the provisions, as did this House, that local authorities should not be in the business of setting themselves up as extra-statutory enforcement agencies on matters which are already the subject of existing statute and which have, where appropriate, their own enforcement processes.
      The position in relation to the Race Relations Act 1976 is quite different. In it, the local authorities are given a specific statutory role of enforcement, and this is acknowledged in the Bill in clause 18, where the local authorities may ask specific questions of contractors, and take into account the replies that they receive.
      However, the statutes directly relating to the employment of the disabled are the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts of 1944 and 1958 which do not include such a role for local authorities. I shall give reasons why that is correct later. Their Lordships accepted, as did this House, the principle that local authorities should not assume the role of enforcing the provisions of those Acts, a role which rightfully belongs to the employment service of the Department of Employment.
      What we are all seeking—their Lordships, this House and certainly the Government — are the best possible opportunities for the disabled to be able to gain
      346
      employment. I would like to emphasise our total commitment to the principle that disabled people should have every opportunity to obtain useful and gainful employment. Our record on positive measures to help disabled people gain those opportunities is strong.
      For example, last month sections 5 and 6 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 came into force. Those measures include a requirement to assess the needs of disabled school leavers, taking account of a range of services including education, vocational training and employment. We have also recognised that disabled people on income support should be able to earn more money without it affecting their benefit. and next month that disregarded sum will be increased from £4 to £15 per week.
      In 1986–87 nearly 84,000 disabled people were placed in work through MSC general programmes, and over 17,000 disabled people were in sheltered employment. In 1987–88 the MSC will spend some £133 million on programmes specifically for the disabled, of which some £87 million will have been spent on sheltered employment. £22 million on employment rehabilitation;£15 million on resettlement services; and almost £9 million on training at residential training colleges.
      4.45 pm
      Nevertheless, it is clear that the other place felt strongly that more should be done to help disabled people with employment. There was concern about this in this House too before the Bill left here. The Government accept that they should respond to this clear feeling of both Houses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is announcing a review within his Department of the policies and programmes that he supports for disabled people in employment. The review will take account of the recently completed study by the National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People. It will also take account of the conclusions that the Public Accounts Committee reaches on the National Audit Office's examination of the quota arrangement and other arrangements made for the benefit of people with disabilities.
      In the light of this, I hope that the House will be willing to accept that it would be appropriate for the amendments to be reversed.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State may be coming on to this point. and I apologise for intervening if he is, but does he accept that what he has said so far relates only to national Government policy and to employment by central Government, whereas we are obviously concerned about local government employment policies and local government's ability to take on disabled people and employ then adequately?
      Mr. Ridley: Yes, I am coming to that, but if I do not satisfy the hon. Gentleman when I do come to it, I shall happily give way to him again.
      If the amendments agreed in the other place were to be accepted, it is our belief that they would do nothing to further the interests of disabled people, but would in fact provide a possible means whereby local authorities could discriminate against contractors that they did not like for other reasons. Amendment 7 merely paves the way for the new clause introduced by amendment 8. That new clause empowers authorities to ask questions of potential contractors about the non-commercial matters set out in

      347
      clause 17(5)(a), in order to ensure that contractors have due regard to the Manpower Services Commission's code of good practice on the employment of disabled people.
      When the amendments were debated in the other place, the argument in their defence was that there was no contract compliance requirement in the amendments; no extra-statutory enforcement rights; no compulsion for local authorities; and no interference with the efficiency of the companies concerned. Hon. Members will recognise that that is simply not the case. If the Bill was now to remain unamended as their Lordships have sent it to us, an authority could decide to refuse to do business with a particular company on the ground that, in the authority's view, the company did not have proper regard to this particular non-statutory advisory code. In our view, that is an open invitation to local authorities to exercise covert discrimination against contractors of whom they disapprove possibly for other reasons.
      If all a local authority wishes to do—this was the expressed reason for the clause when moved in the other place — is bring the code of good practice to the attention of firms with which it is considering doing business, there is nothing in the Bill which prevents that. Indeed, that part of the new clause in amendment 8, which would allow authorities to refer prospective contractors to relevant agencies, is entirely superfluous. Nothing in the Bill stops authorities referring contractors to the employment service or the Manpower Services Commission — the relevant agencies — if they consider that contractors need advice or guidance on employment of disabled people.
      Nor is there anything in the Bill to stop authorities calling together employers in their area to discuss ways in which the various recommendations and suggestions in the code of good practice can best be implemented. That sort of action seems far more relevant to local government, and indeed much more likely to have an effect on the local people whom local authorities exist to serve, than crude contract compliance measures applied to contractors in general. Many contractors will be supplying goods made in factories miles from the authority's area and some even overseas. No system of local enforcement regarding disabled employment is sensible when a national policy is essential, and that is what we have.
      The amendments are not about local authorities dealing with employers in their area. They are not even concerned with authorities' own role as an employer of disabled people—in no sense affected by the amendments—or with the way in which the 1944 and 1958 Acts are observed. They are about giving local authorities the power to discriminate against certain firms by imposing their own views on how an advisory code of good practice should be observed, and refusing to do business with them if the authority does not agree with those firms' interpretation of the code. I do not believe that the amendments would result in any more jobs for disabled people. They would give the most intransigent of authorities a new weapon with which to discriminate against contractors in a subjective and non-commercial way.
      It is at the heart of part II of the Bill to deny authorities the chance to do such things; and it would be very difficult to defend not extending the practice embodied in the
      348
      amendments to other matters, such as sexual discrimination, nuclear-free zones, apartheid or anything else. We would have lost the logical distinction upon which the Bill is based.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Secretary of State explain the relevance of the amendments to the local authorities? If the amendments were accepted, they might not produce more employment for the disabled, but they certainly would not produce less. Indeed, they could result in more employment possibilities. The amendments would not have automatic consequences, but they would at least challenge local authorities and their contractors to consider whether they are doing enough. That is the great merit of the amendments and why they got all-party support in the other place.
      Mr. Ridley: I believe that the amendments could easily result in fewer jobs. The harassment of firms could result in them being unprepared to tender for a local authority contract. Therefore, the result could be possible employment losses and even job losses for the disabled.
      Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the amendments are well-meaning, they might risk undermining the whole basis of the Bill — to stop political discrimination — and generally weaken Government policies that have resulted in an 80 per cent. increase, in real terms, in spending on the long-term sick and disabled?
      Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend has summarised the case that I put at greater length. We have tried to recognise the concern felt by hon. Members and the Lords that more could be done for the disabled. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has introduced a new intitiative to find ways to help the disabled nationally. I believe that such help is better given nationally rather than through patchy and sometimes unhelpful attempts to use contract compliance for that purpose.
      Ms. Jo Richardson: I support the Lords amendment. I was amazed by the Secretary of State's defence of the present position. First, he went through a long catalogue citing the so-called generosity of the Government towards disabled people. The disabled people in my constituency do not find the Government very generous.
      The right hon. Gentleman has hinted that the Secretary of State for Employment will undertake a national review of disabled people's ability to get jobs. Why has the Secretary of State for Employment not done that before? Why has he waited all this time? I am sure that that question will not be lost on disabled people.
      The Secretary of State for the Environment has suggested that the Lords amendment may allow local authorities to threaten contractors. What we are discussing is opening up opportunities for disabled people. If nothing else, the Lords amendment helps to raise the awareness of contractors, which is at the heart of the matter, to their obligations and to the common decency of allowing disabled people greater opportunities in the job market.
      The Lords amendment is not strong. It merely allows local authorities to draw contractors' attention to the code of practice on the employment of disabled people, to consider their employment policies in the light of that code

      349
      and to enable the authority to refer them to the local disablement advisory service. There is nothing earth-shattering about that. There is no provision in the amendment that would allow a local authority to refuse a contract if it considered that the contractor was not complying with the code.
      Employment quotas, as set out in the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, are also excluded from the amendment. In short, the amendment is limited, but it is extremely important. It puts a marker down to ensure that local authorities and contractors who submit tenders should consider closely the needs of disabled people in the community. If we pass the amendment, it would provide an extra encouragement — not a statutory duty — to employers to employ disabled people and reduce discrimination against their employment.
      It is unbelievable that the Government are contemplating the removal of the amendment, especially when we are aware that an increasing number of employers are failing to meet the disabled employment quotas, and therefore their legal obligations under the 1944 Act. In 1986, only 27 per cent. of employers carried out their legal obligations. Unemployment among disabled people is double the rate among their peers—for some disabled groups the difference is even greater.
      In such circumstances, given the emotional implications for the disabled, their economic dignity and well-being, it is nothing less than a disgrace that the Government should seek to change the law not only to outlaw practices that are presently lawful, but also to seek to throw out an amendment that attempts to encourage employers to meet existing legal obligations and encourages compliance with a voluntary—I stress that word—code of practice. That code of practice was launched in 1984 with the support of the Prime Minister, the CBI, the TUC, the Institute of Personnel Management, Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and the all-party disablement group of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is joint chairman. That code of practice encouraged employers to establish a written policy for the employment of disabled people and the rehabilitation of those who had become disabled.
      Throughout what has passed for a debate on this subject and on sex discrimination, the Government have monotonously repeated that they accepted, reluctantly, racial equality as part of contract compliance because, tinder section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, local councils already had an existing statutory duty to act thus. However, by the same token the Government would not accept that disabled people or women should be included in the Bill because there was no equivalent to section 71 that related to them.
      Yesterday, the Equal Opportunities Commission published the report that it has sent to the Home Secretary regarding the urgent reforms that are needed to our sex equality legislation. It has recommended contract compliance. The report is addressed to the Home Secretary and I do not know whether the Secretary of State for the Environment has received a copy. I have a copy with me today. It was sent to me this morning and it makes very good reading. It pleads with the Government to introduce contract compliance as a statutory duty on all local authorities, health authorities and other public bodies.
      350
      I understand that the Government said that if the Equal Opportunities Commission recommended contract compliance, they would consider it. There could be no better time than now — during the week of international women's day—for the Minister to honour his assurances to the Equal Opportunities Commission and to the women of this country on this matter and to bring forward an amendment in line with what is proposed in "Equal Treatment for Men and Women — Strengthening the Acts."
      5 pm
      It is ironic that last week the Government announced their intention to bring forward a Bill later this year to introduce contract compliance—the very same policy — in Northern Ireland. The Government hardly bother any longer to deny that their actions in Northern Ireland are being prompted by strong pressure from the United States, where a campaign to boycott investment, or even to encourage disinvestment, has been gaining ground because of persistent discrimination against the Catholic minority. The introduction of contract compliance in Northern Ireland is meant to head off that pressure.
      I appeal to the House to consider what message we shall be sending out to people with disabilities and to women if we reject the Lords amendment. It is invidious and highly divisive to appear to be elevating one form of discrimination above another. The Government have been shown today to be hiding behind empty formalism to cover their opposition to contract compliance — and even to voluntary codes of practice — to improve opportunities for disabled people and for women, and we shall never forget their actions on these issues.
      Contract compliance has shown its tremendous value to women in the United States. It has been welcomed in this country by a great many people, including the Institute of Personnel Management, which sees it as a valuable mechanism for spreading good and more professional codes of practice.
      Baroness Platt of Writtle, who chairs the Equal Opportunities Commission, is not, I may say, a supporter of the Labour party—far from it. She said of the Bill:
      "Because local authorities will have the power to impose requirements and ask questions about issues of racial discrimination but not sex discrimination, their customers will inevitably concentrate on the former to the exclusion of the latter. This would be a most retrograde development, given the very serious problems of discrimination against women that still need to be tackled. It could seriously prejudice the position of women".
      That comes not from a Labour peer but from Baroness Platt, who is a Conservative.
      We commend the amendments to the House. We welcome the initiative on Northern Ireland, and we want the Government to act even-handedly. If they are introducing contract compliance in one form in Northern Ireland, they should introduce it in this other form on the mainland. We shall reserve judgment on the question of ethnic minorities until we see what comes of the Secretary of State's list of questions. We urge the Government to think again about the totally incomprehensible exclusion of people with disabilities and of women from the Bill. We shall oppose the Government and support the House of Lords. I know that my hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobby, as, I hope, will those Conservative Members who believe that people with disabilities need the maximum encouragement and support and that those of

      351
      us who do not share their problems should be constantly aware of them nevertheless. I hope that for once we might defeat the Government.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the amendments deal specifically with the disabled and not with women.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As a long-time member of the all-party disablement group, I am naturally interested in the amendments. I was intrigued when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that these are the only two substantive amendments that their Lordships suggested to this part of the Bill. I should have thought that that would give added weight to them.
      When I first read the amendments, they seemed likely to help disabled people who are seeking employment. All of us must know that disabled people, once employed, are diligent and valuable employees—probably the best on the payroll—but that it is far from easy from them to get the job in the first instance. It seemed to me that the amendments might help disabled people, and I therefore proposed positively to support them. However, I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said and was interested to hear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is to bring forward a review of policies for the disabled. I cannot bring myself to vote with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I am seriously considering abstaining, because I feel that he gave a very good explanation of his reasons for opposing the amendments.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was absolutely right in her initial decision fully to support the amendments. She is wrong to say now that she will abstain. She should have sufficient courage, as many of us have done over the years, to vote against the Government whom she supports if she thinks they are wrong. She accepts the assurance that the Government will bring forward proposals in the future, and perhaps they will. However, this is here and now and she should support the amendments on that basis. The amendments will do something positive at this moment, so why wait for proposals to emerge in the distant future which, knowing this Government, will get more and more distant? Why not give the benefit of the doubt to the amendment No. 7, which is extremely good?
      I can understand the Government's being vindictive in relation to contract compliance when it comes to whether an employee should or should not be a trade unionist. I can understand it when they say, "You cannot seek contract compliance in relation to those who deal with regimes pursuing policies of apartheid." I can understand that, because that is the Government's nature, and such decisions are perfectly acceptable from their point of view. However, I find it difficult to understand why they should be vindictive to the disabled, which is what their attitude amounts to. I suppose that I know the real reason: their friends may find that their profit margins will be down a little if they have to employ some disabled people.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That is an absolute insult to disabled people. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Heifer: No. If the hon. Lady will not join us in the Lobby, I am not giving way.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: But it is an insult.
      Mr. Heffer: It is not an insult. It is my view of the Government's attitude, based on the bitter experience that we have had since they came to power nine years ago. They put profits before the interests of ordinary people and concern themselves only with their friends in the City of London and those who make profits at the expense of the mass of the people. That is what is behind the clause. It is disgraceful that the Government are not prepared to give the amendment their support. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are prepared to do so.
      Mr. Jack Ashley: A number of us spend much of our time dealing with disabled people, including the hon. Members for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and myself. We have discussed this issue at a meeting of the all-party disablement group and there is a difference of opinion between us that will probably emerge during the debate.
      The Secretary of State was ill advised to speak of the Government's record of helping disabled people. He was on extremely weak ground. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. He was not in the House yesterday when the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled was condemned for failing fully to implement that Act. That is a failure by the Government. The Secretary of State mentioned what the Government had done in terms of income support. Practically everyone who is involved with disablement is concerned about the Government's failure to provide adequately for disabled people under that head. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the jobs that have been found for disabled people under the general programme of the Manpower Services Commission. He did not mention the thousands who have not been helped through that programme. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong to speak of the Government's successes in this area.
      I am amazed that the Secretary of State should be opposed to the amendment. It is incredible that he should object to it. The proposed clause would be helpful to disabled people and damaging to no one. It reflects badly on the Government that they have chosen to bring their full force against the amendment and to make clear their determination to oppose it.
      What is it in the clause that is terrifying the Secretary of State? It provides that local authorities will be able to refer contractors which have not adopted the recommendations of the code of practice on the employment of disabled people to the disablement advisory service. It would allow — not force — local authorities to ask questions about a company's policy on the employment of disabled people. What is wrong with that? Surely it would be a great step forward. Companies that did not have a policy could be referred to the DAS, and it would then be for the DAS to decide how best to proceed.
      This simple measure would help us to ensure that good practice is promoted, and it would advance the excellent work of the DAS. No one is opposed to the code of good practice. The Prime Minister has stated:
      "employing disabled people makes good business sense."
      I was present when the right hon. Lady launched the code of good practice. It was a happy occasion. We were all

      353
      together, including the hon. Member for Exeter, who does so much for disabled people. Everyone supports the code, and I and others are seeking merely to draw attention to it.
      If local authorities are willing to help with encouraging contractors to utilise disabled people's skills, and to retain staff who become disabled, they should be permitted to do so. No one would lose by contractors having the expert advice of the DAS brought to their attention. At the same time, disabled people would gain.
      However fine the code may be, and however distinguished the members of the DAS may be, no one would claim that it is getting the support or the results that it deserves. A common attitude among far too many employers is, "The code is fine but it has nothing to do with me, thank you very much."
      5.15 pm
      Some companies adopt the code but far too many do not. What do we do about the companies which do not? The relative failure is effectively measured by the statistic that shows that many disabled people are unable to gain employment. The level of unemployment among the disabled is twice that of the unemployment among the able-bodied. That is the official figure, which we can take with a pinch of salt. Suffice to say that a far greater proportion of disabled than able-bodied people are unemployed.
      A major cause of the unemployment of disabled people is prejudice. It is vicious, bitter, vindictive, unpleasant and unacceptable prejudice. The disabled are rejected by employers who do not want to know. I know many disabled people who apply for jobs. If they are honest enough or naive enough to mention their disability on the application form, they will not even be seen. I know some disabled people who have made over 100 applications for jobs. They are not even granted an interview when they mention their disability. More effort should be made in promoting the code of practice.
      Local authorities are an important weapon in the armoury for promoting the code, and the proposed clause will enhance their effectiveness. The Government argue that the proposed clause is superfluous and that local authorities will be able without it to promote good employment practices in their own areas. I believe that the clause would provide an important instrument for local authorities to acquire information that would enable them to know which employers should be referred to the DAS. It would be an easy, cheap and cost-effective procedure.
      The Minister in the other place said that this aspect of the clause was superfluous. He claimed that local authorities could refer companies to relevant agencies in any event. Unfortunately, he missed the point. It is crucial that we should know which companies to refer. If local authorities sought to obtain that knowledge through general surveys, the Government would be quick to condemn them for wasting resources. They would argue that that was not the job of local authorities. The Government cannot have it both ways.
      The Government suggest that local authorities will be able to discriminate against contractors during the tendering process by using their response to questions to decide who receives a contract. That is not the intention of the proposed clause. The Secretary of State should take that on board. I spoke to Lord Basnett this morning—it is his amendment—and he confirmed that that is not
      354
      the intention of the proposed clause. Instead, it would allow a basic question to be asked: "Have you adopted the recommendation of the code of practice on the employment of disabled people?" A negative response would mean that the contractor could be referred to the DAS. The amendment would not allow contracts to be withheld. It would not give local authorities extra statutory powers and duties.
      I would favour an amendment that permitted discrimination against companies that did not play fair with disabled people. I am all in favour of that sort of discrimination. I would be prepared to hit contractors very hard if they discriminated against disabled people. It is discrimination that causes distress, anxiety, suffering, poverty and despair. I would deny contracts to such companies. I make no bones about that. If I could persuade local authorities to deny them contracts, I would do all in my power to ensure that that happened. The Secretary of State should recognise that the clause does not do that. It is very limited. All the clause proposes is to help to promote good practice. If the Secretary of State found that there were technical problems, he could easily change it.
      Mr. Ridley: For the sake of fact, may I point out that local authorities are enabled to disallow a contractor if they are not satisfied with him? In other parts of the Bill there are powers for them to take that decision. If the new clause were in the Bill, it could be a defence against the district audit questioning why a local authority had not gone to the lowest tenderer. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He does not realise the effect that the amendment would have.
      Mr. Ashley: The Secretary of State is trying to say that, if this small amendment was agreed, as I hope it will be, local authorities, whom I thought he trusted as responsible people elected by the electorate, would use it as a trigger to do something illegal. That is a very poor interpretation of the responsibility of local authorities. I believe that they would interpret the clause in the spirit which Lord Basnett intended—that is, to draw the attention of employers to the code of practice. It would encourage them to do that. The Secretary of State does not understand the proposed new clause. He has misinterpreted it. He is misleading the House. He should accept that it would be in the interests of disabled people.
      I have spoken long enough. If the Secretary of State insists on rejecting the clause, he will show that dogma is more important to the Government than helping disabled people. The clause has no drastic implications and would not alter Government policy towards local government. It would encourage efficiency and would help employers to develop good employment practices. It would help disabled people and would give them hope. It would lead to them getting more jobs. It is absurd for the Secretary of State to say that it would lead to disabled people getting fewer jobs. That is standing the truth on its head. I hope that the House will speak clearly tonight. I hope that Conservative Members will join us in the Lobby and give fresh hope to disabled people.
      Mr. John Hannam: My right hon. Friend will know that the Lords amendment which he is asking us to reject is supported by a wide range of voluntary

      355
      organisations representing the disabled and by the all-party disablement group. Therefore, it is rather more of a cross-party issue than we are accustomed to.
      The amendment represents a genuine attempt to advance the cause of disabled people in the vital employment sphere. Over the years I and colleagues on both sides of the House, working within the all-party disablement group, have secured the support of the Government for small but important amendments to diverse pieces of legislation. We have done this to remove discrimination or to remove obstacles which are placed in the path of disabled people trying to pursue normal lives.
      We all know that the disabled desperately want to work and to live normal lives. They make very good employees, as other hon. Members have pointed out. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the best description in 1984 when she said:
      "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."
      I could not find a better description for employers thinking of taking on disabled workers.
      The sad thing is that, despite the quota system and all the other measures which have been adopted over recent years, the level of disabled unemployment is double the rate for able-bodied people. The Lords amendment, as I read it, is designed to draw the attention of contractors to the recommendations which are put forward in the Government's own code of good practice on the employment of disabled people. The amendment seeks to get local authorities to refer contractors who have not adopted the recommendations to the Disablement Advisory Service.
      The question which we face is whether the Lords amendment gives local authorities a power of any sort to force contractors into contract compliance or to interfere in their efficiency, and whether that works against the principle of part II of the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for writing to me about this. My right hon. Friend has explained the Department's view, which is that the amendment would in some way give powers to local authorities to interfere in normal business practice. I find that hard to believe, just as I find it hard to accept the other point which my right hon. Friend made, that we can leave things exactly as they are because local authorities can carry this out anyway. According to my right hon. Friend, they can advise firms which are putting forward tenders for contracts to get in touch with the Disablement Advisory Service or with any other body. I do not accept that that stands up to examination.
      It is only a few years since we secured an amendment to the companies legislation to require a company in its annual report to make a direct statement about what it was doing for its disabled employees and for disabled people. One could adopt the same argument as my right hon. Friend and say that we did not need that because companies could always put something in their reports about what they were doing for disabled people. In fact, Parliament judged that it was necessary to do more than that.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), I cannot go into the Division Lobby against the Lords amendment. I accept my right hon.
      356
      Friend's assurance that he has been working extremely hard, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, on bringing forward a new programme for disabled employment. I welcome that assurance deeply. I can only stress how vital it is to develop a new and more effective strategy for the employment of disabled people. The position is not good. The quota system is not being enforced and too many disabled people are out of work.
      I look forward to the initiative which my right hon. Friend has promised, but today I must declare my support for this small voluntary step towards good practice. I cannot go into the Lobby to vote for the rejection of the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Wigley: I too support the Lords amendment and thank Lord Basnett and his colleagues for the all-party support in the Lords for this important change to the Bill, which would help disabled people if it were enacted. Like other hon. Members I am disappointed at the attitude of the Government Front Bench. Some Government Departments have had an honourable and progressive approach towards disability. I am afraid that the attitude of the Secretary of State confirms that the Department of the Environment regrettably is at the back of the queue when it comes to making progress for disabled people. We have seen that before and we see it again today.
      The reality is that discrimination against disabled people exists in employment. We had this argument three or four years ago when the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) introduced an antidiscrimination Bill. Mr. Donald Stewart, who then represented the Western Isles, also brought forward a Bill. We were assured that other steps were being taken, as we have been assured today that other steps are being taken. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) mentioned what we heard in the Chamber yesterday, that assurances given two years ago about the carrying out of the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 are still subject to negotiation with local authorities.
      Two years have gone by and we are still no nearer getting some of those provisions brought into force. I welcome any discussion which is taking place and any progress on improving the position under the quota scheme, to which the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) referred and which is completely inadequate. Some of the provisions have not been enacted. We have an opportunity with the Lords amendment to do something now. Although this is a very modest provision, we have the opportunity to do something which has already been done. All we have to do is to desist from undoing what has been done in another place. Goodness me, I cannot see the Government's justification for taking this line. If we disagree with the amendment, we shall be putting the interests of disabled people second to the interests of a totally unfettered, free market economy. There are times when a Government, even this Government, must strike a balance.
      5.30 pm
      Instances of discrimination still come to our attention. Only a few weeks ago in my constituency surgery I learned of a case of blatant discrimination. An employer said that disabled people need not apply for a vacancy. For that to happen in this day and age, and for the Government not to support even the modest provision in the Lords

      357
      amendment, underlines the need for us to take more draconian powers. We should seek an anti-discrimination Bill which will deal with this question in the context of employment and in a number of other areas as well. People would then be aware that they cannot get away with the kind of stipulation that occurred in my constituency.
      My colleagues and I have received representations from many bodies about Lords amendment No. 7. I am involved with disability matters in a number of ways. I am the president of the Spastics Society in Wales. The Spastics Society wrote to me from its headquarters in London about the amendment stating:
      "Research by The Spastics Society shows that disabled people suffer unjustifiable discrimination in the labour market. The clause is a modest proposal to ensure that good practice is actively encouraged in this important area. We see it as entirely appropriate that the Government's policy should be promoted in an attempt to ensure disabled people have the same opportunities as their abled-bodied counterparts. It is difficult to understand why the Government would not want to see its own policy and the work of its Departments supported in this way. Disabled people trying to find work will also feel let down if this support is withdrawn from their attempts."
      I put these views formally on the record on behalf of the Spastics Society.
      Hon. Members will have received similar representations. Organisations making those representations understand the difficulties facing disabled people in work. We should heed those representations. I have also received representations from the Royal National Institute for the Blind. It states:
      "The RNIB supports the clause, which would help the employment prospects of visually handicapped people seeking work. They have to compete on unequal terms in the labour market, in an era when the industrial base of the economy, the area in which the majority of visually handicapped people have historically found jobs, has contracted considerably. During the last decade there has been a dramatic fall in the number of visually handicapped people getting jobs in the blue collar sector, and sheltered employment has not taken up the slack … 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. Lord Basnett's clause would achieve this."
      Obviously, the RNIB feels as strongly as the Spastics Society on this matter.
      The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the umbrella organisation that pulls together on behalf of numerous disability organisations, has also made representations to all members of the all-party disablement group. This matter cuts across party lines. It states:
      "The amendment will not prevent contracts being awarded, but allows local authorities to refer those companies who have not adopted the Code's recommendations to the Department of Employment's Disablement Advisory Service so that they may obtain information on how to improve their policies; nor will it allow contracts to be withheld, but will enable local authorities to ask for information which can be passed on to those responsible for promoting the Code of Good Practice. In this respect the amendment also complements existing Government policy which supports the Code. The CBI, TUC, RADAR and other voluntary organisations also support the Code of Good Practice."
      I know that the Secretary of State has said that taken together with another part of the Bill the amendment could create an excuse for local authorities to discriminate against companies that are not willing to go along with the requirements. If local authorities discriminate unfairly against those companies, that could be actionable. If they
      358
      discriminate on the basis of a policy against disabled people, that is completely justifiable discrimination and I would strongly uphold that.
      However, the benefits that could arise from having a checklist are more important than the occurrence of a handful or one or two difficult cases. A formal checklist would act as a formal requirement to nudge and remind companies of the need to take that matter into consideration.
      I do not believe that the provision will put the world right overnight, but by having a checklist approach—which is not a straitjacket, but an enabling measure—we shall ensure that local authorities that are so minded will have powers to create a checklist and companies seeking tender contracts will be aware that they must take such consideration on board. The proposal is a gentle shove in the right direction. It could be of tremendous benefit to many disabled people. It could also possibly avoid much more fundamental legislation in future. If the Government oppose this modest proposal, I have no doubt that the House must press for something very much more radical.
      Sir John Farr: I rise to support Lords amendment No. 7. Unfortunately, I was unable to hear the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier. I had been given a very pressing green card from a delegation of Royal College of Nursing members from my constituency. I had to use my discretion and make a very difficult choice between listening to my right hon. Friend and seeing Mr. Tony Atkins and my constituents from Leicester who are members of the RCN. I had a very fruitful and rewarding discussion with Mr. Atkins. However, I am placed in a very difficult position because I did not hear my right hon. Friend. If I had heard him, I am sure that I would have found his comments fruitful and rewarding. However, because I did not hear him, I can only state that I have the gravest reservations about rejecting the Lords amendment.
      I listened to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). He made his comments with great emphasis, in his usual way. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) elaborated the virtues of the new clause very well.
      As I read the amendment, it will allow local authorities to continue to ask questions of prospective contractors, but it would not allow local authorities to refuse contracts on the grounds that a prospective contractor did not encourage the employment of disabled people. It would allow local authorities to promote the Manpower Services Commission's code of good practice on the employment of disabled people.
      I do not believe that the new clause is very binding. It would not direct—"direct" is too strong a word—local authorities; rather it would guide them on a code of good behaviour towards their dealings with disabled people. Tributes have been paid to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter for their fine work for the parliamentary disablement group. I want to add to those tributes. Quite rightly, we must recognise that discrimination on grounds of sex or colour is properly banned by law. I am not in favour of banning discrimination of the disabled by law. However, I feel so strongly about it that I would like to see legislation enacted that would make discrimination act for the disabled.

      359
      A disabled person is a bargain in the labour market. He is conscientious, keen, unfailingly loyal and hardworking. Perhaps at some time in the future when we are discussing disablement we can introduce legislation requiring employers — the Crown, local authorities or private companies — to discriminate in favour of disabled people. It would be good for disabled people, and certainly for those lucky enough to employ them.
      Although I shall listen carefully to what my right hon. Friend says to try to persuade me to support his case against the new clause, at the moment I am fully inclined to support it.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: In this relatively short debate, it appears that no one except the Secretary of State is to speak in favour of the Government's line. That, surely, should make the Secretary of State think again about whether he is right in deciding that the amendment should be rejected. Certainly, I shall not accept his advice.
      Lord Basnett's amendment is a modest but important improvement to the Bill. No doubt Lord Basnett tabled it in this modest form because he knew that if he went too far he would not persuade the other place to accept it, and he wanted to go as far as he could while still standing a chance of success. I am also fairly certain that he was bearing in mind the vast experience that he had gained over many years in the trade union movement, representing workers not only in local government but in a wide range of industries. He recognised that at present, despite quota systems and other efforts to ensure that disabled people have fair opportunity of employment, they have no such opportunity. We too must face up to that fact.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) made it clear that some disabled people, when applying for jobs, are tempted either to omit any reference to their disability on the application form, or to deny it. It is regrettable that they are forced to act in that way, but, as most hon. Members will know, it sometimes happens. Employers often disregard disabled applicants even when the disability has no reference to the job for which they are applying, which is very sad.
      Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) recommended more positive discrimination in favour of the disabled, and I see the case for that. It is regrettable that we should sometimes have to legislate to ensure discrimination in favour of the disabled, or any other category who might otherwise be discriminated against, but sometimes it is the only way to ensure that they receive the fair treatment to which they are entitled.
      5.45 pm
      As I have said, this is a modest amendment, and there is no reason why the Government should reject it. It in no way destroys the principle of the Bill. The Secretary of State knows that Opposition Members are strongly opposed to that principle, but the amendment will merely give disabled people a fair opportunity of consideration by employers.
      I thought it outrageous of the Secretary of State to suggest in his opening speech — I assume that I understand him correctly—that some local authorities might not disbar contractors purely because they were not giving disabled people a proper opportunity of
      360
      employment, but might use that as an excuse to disbar them for other reasons. That is entirely wrong, and shows how the Secretary of State misjudges local authorities on every possible occasion. He seems to feel that their motivation must always be questioned by him and by other Ministers.
      The amendment is moving in the right direction, and I feel that the Secretary of State should reconsider his advice. Even if he is not prepared to do so, however, I hope that other Conservative Members will join us in the Aye Lobby.
      When the amendment was approved in the other place, it was widely acclaimed in the national press as an improvement to the Bill. It has also been welcomed by many voluntary organisations closely connected with the disabled. Those are further reasons for the Government to think again, and to accept this improvement to the Bill.
      Mr. Michael J. Martin: Before I came to the House, I had the good fortune to be a member of Glasgow district council, and a full-time union officer. From time to time, I had to represent disabled members.
      The Secretary of State would be the first to condemn any local authority that did not pay due regard to the fact that disabled people must be employed. Surely, therefore, it is fitting that local authorities should establish what contractors are doing about employing them. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are not talking about a window cleaner who may be contracted by the local authority to clean 20 or 30 windows. I was once a member of the finance committee of Glasgow district council. Prices have risen since I left, but we were then handing out contracts of over £1 million. In some instances the contracts awarded in one day exceeded £2 million. That is a lot of labour, and in many cases it is the big employers who are receiving the contracts.
      It is only natural that local authorities should be entitled to ask contractors who are employing several hundred men and women what quotas they have for the employment of disabled people, and how those employees are being treated. I do not think that it is enough for an employer simply to say how many disabled people he employs; steps must be taken to ensure that they are not exploited. In many cases, they are exploited: there are no two ways about it.
      The other local authority that covers my constituency is Strathclyde, which looks after the needs of 2·5 million people. It can give out contracts for water reservoirs, large civil engineering contracts and motorway contracts. I often hear the Secretary of State talk as if contractors were being bullied by local authorities which have all the power. That is nonsense. If the right hon. Gentleman knows anything about local authorities and contractors, he will know that there is often a dialogue going on on a weekly basis. Some of those companies are employing people—call them PR people, or whatever—whose job is simply to keep in touch with local councils. They have not been bullied; far from it. They know their way around the town halls, and they know who to talk to. If it is put into legislation that regard has to be given to the care of the disabled, I am sure that contractors will ensure that they inform their companies that the legislation has to be adhered to.
      The Secretary of State said that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be involved in

      361
      a review. He said that everything is all right because the Government have a good record on looking after the disabled. Since becoming a Member of the House I have served on almost every Committee where the Government have sought to destroy the labour and trades union legislation introduced by the Labour Government. They have weakened the unfair dismissal tribunals and done away with schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975. One of their most recent acts was to abolish the wages councils. All of those actions have affected the disabled. It has meant that the disabled in our society and in the work force — those who have been fortunate enough to find a job—can be exploited.
      I hope that the Secretary of State will tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that it is not only within private industry that the disabled are not being too well looked after. As I have said, I was a full-time officer representing public employees and I often had to defend those employees against Government employers. For example, sometimes people in the Health Service were treated shamefully because those in charge did not pay due regard to legislation. I put it to the Secretary of State that he should look at what sometimes happens in some Government Departments and in agencies such as the Health Service, which work directly for the Government. I accept that 90 per cent. of the time those Departments and agencies are excellent employers. However, there is evidence to prove that disabled employees are not being looked after and that their rights under legislation are not being exercised properly.
      In spite of what I have said about bad employers, there are many good employers in the private sector and the public sector. If any review is to be held, it is within the wit of the officials serving the Secretary of State to find those good employers and to discover how they can be good employers for the disabled. They should try to get them to give evidence to the review body so that we can ensure that people are looked after properly.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: It is clear that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) was correct. So far, the only supporter of the proposal to delete the Lords amendment has been the Secretary of State. Three Conservative Members, four Labour Members, one representative of Plaid Cymru and myself have all asked that he change his mind. It is a hit shameful that the only two proposals on the Amendment Paper in the name of the Secretary of State which suggest that we should not agree with the Lords are in relation to this proposal. The all-party view expressed in the other place, the view expressed by the all-party committee on the disabled in this place and the view expressed in all the contributions to this debate has had no effect. We have said to the Secretary of State, "Please think again. You are misjudging the mood of Parliament across the parties by seeking to amend what the other place has done."
      The more one looks at the Lords amendment, the more circumscribed one sees that it is. It simply says that nothing shall preclude a local authority from asking questions and from referring prospective contractors to relevant agencies if that information is necessary in order to ensure that the contractors have proper regard to the Manpower Services Commission's code of good practice in relation to the employment of the disabled.
      The Secretary of State admitted that that does not mean that there has to be a duty on a local authority to employ a certain number of people. That does not follow. There
      362
      is a duty to address the issue, to ask questions and to challenge what may he a failure to meet the needs of the disabled. That is the limit of the amendment. Presumably, that is why it was passed, against the wishes of the Government, in the other place.
      The Secretary of State may hold the view that the amendment could prejudice the employment of disabled people. However, the advice of many agencies and charities is that the probability is that it will improve prospects for disabled people. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and other hon. Members have said the same thing.
      I had occasion last year to interview for a job somebody who was disabled by blindness. In the end, for various reasons, I selected somebody else. However, I then took up with the Officers of the House what we do as a corporate body to ensure that we employ adequate numbers of disabled people arid to see whether we do our duty. I was given a perfectly courteous reply through the good offices of the Serjeant at Arms and those responsible for the employment of staff. I was told that we seek to ensure that sufficient numbers of disabled people are employed. That prompting resulted in a specific meeting to consider whether we should be better able to employ blind people or other disabled people in the House. I do not pretend that that meeting would not have taken place in time. However, it was not billed to happen. By asking some questions about the employment of disabled people, particularly the blind, the officials of the House looked again at current practice. That is what this amendment is seeking to do. It is simply to encourage people to look again at their practice.
      I should like to refer the Secretary of State to the fact that he and his colleagues conceded that principle during the passage of the Local Government Bill in relation to the Race Relations Act 1975. He will remember that when the Bill was originally presented to Parliament last summer, clause 18 did not exist in its present form. The title of clause 18 is "Race relations matters". We had a debate in Committee in which the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) argued that in the matter of race relations people should be allowed to ask approved questions. The Minister for Local Government, quite properly, accepted the principle in relation to the employment of individuals from ethnic minority communities and accepted the need to ensure that the practices in operation did not conflict with race relations legislation. The Bill came back on Report with an appropriate amendment. By the time the Bill went to the other place we had built in a provision so that people with non-white skins in Britain will be employed fairly and without discrimination.
      The Secretary of State has accepted that there can be compromise on this issue and that is why I am not making a ranting or shouting speech. I am asking in a reasonable and, I hope, proper way for him to do for disabled people what he has done for people from ethnic minority communities. It is clear that there is universal support for what the other place did. I ask the Secretary of State to think again and to say that the Government are prepared to hear the argument and recognise the strength of feeling about this matter and change their minds at this late stage.
      Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the points that have been made, although I made a lengthy speech earlier that contained the main arguments that the Government have advanced.

      363
      In case the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) missed it, I shall repeat the point that I made earlier. There is a clause about race relations because a specific statutory duty is laid on local authorities by the parent statute, which is quite different from the case of disabled employment. Indeed, there was a clause on race relations in the Bill when it was first published. We have consistently said that where a local authority is already an enforcement agent that should be reflected in the Bill, but, where it is not, it should not.
      I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) for their helpful and constructive speeches as well as for the work that they do for the all-party disablement group, which I very much admire. To have to make up their minds about this amendment puts them in a difficult position as they are normally supporters of the Government. Perhaps the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster is prepared to abstain means that what I had to say earlier caused her to see that this is not the best way to achieve the results that the House wants. The initiative of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to review employment for disabled people will prove to be a better way forward.
      6 pm
      Having listened to the debate carefully, there appear to be two misconceptions about what the Lords amendments would achieve and what they mean. The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Richardson) went off on to the subject of women. I would be out of order if I were to discuss that matter under this amendment—[Interruption.] It would be perfectly in order to discuss disabled women, but not discrimination against women as such. However, I do not intend to discuss this whether it is in order or not.
      The hon. Member for Barking said that if the clause remained in the Bill a local authority would not be able to refuse a contract simply on the ground of the disablement employment policies of a contractor. As I pointed out to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), that is not the case, because no local authority is bound to accept any tender. However, if it fails to accept what is clearly the lowest and best tender, it must give good reason for so doing publicly, first, to the district auditor and, secondly, to its ratepayers, who have every right to supervise its decisions in such matters. It would not be possible to refuse a contractor's tender because of his disablement employment record and at the same time get it past the district auditor. If this clause were in the Bill, that would be a perfectly valid reason for refusing a tender from such a contractor.
      The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) gave the game away. He said that if authorities were to be subjective and not objective in interpreting a firm's use of the code and its compliance with it, it would be actionable if they made an ill-judged response. Yes, it would be, without the clause, but it would not be with the clause. The new clause says:
      "Nothing ߪ shall preclude a local authority from—(a) asking questions or seeking information relating to work force matters and considering responses to them or ߪ consideration of the information is reasonably necessary to ensure".
      364
      The words "is reasonably necessary" will fall within the judgment of the local authority. If the local authority's judgment were that it should not award a contract because of the disablement employment policies of a contractor, the result would be that that decision would be proof against challenge. That is why the hon. Gentleman was wrong in his interpretation.
      Mr. Wigley: Did not the Secretary of State rest his case on the slightly different premise that a local authority would be using this as an excuse and not as a reason and might have some other motivation at the back of its mind? If we accept that local authorities are working in a bonafide fashion, would the Secretary of State accept that it is not unreasonable for them to bear this in mind in deciding how a contract is determined?
      Mr. Ridley: They may be wrong because they may have misjudged a contractor's compliance. He may be the best complier in the world, but if the local authority gets it wrong he will have no redress. Local authorities may use the disablement employment excuse when they have other reasons in mind. That is why I do not believe that the main result of the clause will be to help disabled people. It will give local authorities a subjective method of discriminating against contractors on spurious grounds.
      The second theme of the debate was, "What is wrong with new clause 18(b)?" Clause 18 (b) relates to
      "referring prospective contractors to relevant agencies."
      As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with that. Any local authority may refer an employer to the Disablement Advisory Service and may call meetings of local employers to discuss their practices. If a local authority is still not happy, it can bring in the MSC or the Disablement Advisory Service. That is possible at present and will remain so. It is unnecessary, therefore, to incorporate it into the legislation. It does not achieve anything that is not already in the legislation. The distinction is between local authorities doing what is perfectly right and proper and deciding on the award of tenders on their subjective judgment as to whether a contractor complies with the code of practice.
      Those are the misunderstandings that arose, and I believe that we will help more disabled people into employment by what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment suggested than the amendment could ever hope to achieve.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that the clause was vindictive towards disabled people. I do not believe that that is remotely true. He further said that many contractors would not employ their full share of disabled people because it would bring their profit margins down. That was vindictive towards disabled people. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that employing disabled people is bad for profits and that therefore firms do not do it was a slur on disabled people, and the House was revolted to hear him say that. I hope that he will withdraw it, and I hope that the House will reject this new clause.
      Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not say that the clause as drafted was wrong; I said that the attitude of the Government to it was wrong. I said that some employers would no doubt feel that they might lose a bit of profit, but that is not a slur on disabled people. I have always fought for disabled people and I shall continue to do so. It is the Government's attitude that forgets disabled people.
      Mr. Jeff Rooker: I can confirm at the outset that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has just repeated exactly what he said in his speech—[Interruption.] After the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), winding up with an abstention, we need take nothing from her.
      The clause is so modest that one could ask why we should bother with it in the first place. However, there is a thoroughly justifiable reason for the clause. It is important that we should send signals to all sections of the community.
      The clause was drawn up not out of thin air, but from the results and the experiences of our debates in Committee and on Report before the Bill got to the Lords. It was drawn up to take account of all the Government's objections to earlier amendments. It does not extend the enforcement role of local authorities—the Secretary of State's bogey men. It need not involve any additional resources in its operation. Its effect is simply to allow local authorities a limited discretion to ask a question and seek to foster good practice in place of the blanket prohibition currently contained in the Bill.
      Let me go back to what this is all about. Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8, which the Government are seeking to reject, amend clause 17 and add a new clause. Let me remind the House why clause 17 was put in the Bill in the first place. We are here to try to stop the Government taking it out on the disabled. The original notes on clauses stated:
      "The purpose of clause 17 is to prevent local authorities and the other specified public bodies discriminating against particular contractors by introducing political or irrelevant considerations into the contractual process."
      The notes on clauses list most of the things that should not be covered by the clause so that local authorities cannot get involved. The Government particularly highlighted the fact that local authorities should not ask about rates of pay, numbers of apprentices, work on nuclear missile sites, lorries crossing picket lines, links with South Africa and freemasonry. There is no mention whatever of banning local authorities from asking about the disabled employed by contractors. To seek now to lump in the disabled — that is what the Secretary of State is now trying to do—is a thundering disgrace and the Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself.
      The issue is not central to the Government's economic policy, yet not a single Conservative Member of Parliament today has had the guts to come to the Chamber to support what the Government are doing with his or her voice, despite a three-line Whip. The Secretary of State is alone. Most of his hon. Friends, who have not heard the debate and are ignorant about the issues, will be shepherded in by the Whips to vote against the disabled at the end of the debate. That is not democracy. My hon. Friends do not have to be Whipped on a matter such as this.
      Two of the three Conservative Members who have spoken gave the impression that they would support the Lords amendments in the Lobby. Certainly the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) gave every impression of doing so. However, I was not clear whether, as he sat down, he was saying that he would abstain.
      Mr. Hannam: What I said was that I could not support their rejection.
      Mr. Rooker: I thought so—another abstainer Why on earth are Tories abstaining when they speak as they do? The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he would not support the Government and that he stood by the all-party group in the belief that the Lords were right in putting the clause in the Bill.
      6.15 pm
      If the hon. Gentleman comes into the Lobby with the Welsh Nationalists, Liberals and Labour Members of Parliament, and, indeed, with at least one Conservative Member who is sitting behind, him, he will not be alone. [Interruption.] Have I got that wrong as well? I have got it all wrong. Not one Conservative Member of Parliament has had the guts to come in the Chamber and speak in favour of what the Secretary of State is doing. Three of them have come in with their bleeding hearts on their arms, but have not had the guts to support the Lords in what they have done. It is important that that should be on the record. They are only prepared to abstain.
      This is a modest clause. I do not have to deploy the case of modesty too much because the clause has no teeth. No contractor or local authority need worry about it. But it is important that both Houses of Parliament should send out a signal, and we should send a signal to their Lordships that if the Government get their way the Lords should not lie down and accept it. They should have the guts to insist on their amendment and send it back to this place.
      In addition, the House of Commons should send a signal to employers that Parliament will not tolerate continued discrimination in employment practices in so far as they affect disabled people. I do not propose to read out the list, but the Secretary of Slate's claims simply do not stand up to examination. Able-bodied applicants are at least 1.6 times more likely to receive a positive response from an employer than a disabled person, and the proportion of companies employing 3 per cent. or more registered disabled — their legal quota under the 1944 legislation—has fallen from 53 per cent. in 1965 to only 27 per cent. last year. Therefore, we must send a signal to employers and, even more importantly, to disabled people. We have a bounden duty to do so. All I am asking hon. Members to do is simply to assist us tonight in sending those signals.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 208.

      Division No. 206]

      [6.17 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Alexander, Richard

      Boswell, Tim

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Peter

      Amess, David

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Amos, Alan

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Bowis, John

      Ashby, David

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Atkins, Robert

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Brazier, Julian

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Bright, Graham

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Batiste, Spencer

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Bellingham, Henry

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

      Bendall, Vivian

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Benyon, W.

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Burns, Simon

      367

      Butler, Chris

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Butterfill, John

      Holt, Richard

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Howard, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Cash, William

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hunter, Andrew

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

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Irvine, Michael

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Irving, Charles

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jack, Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Jackson, Robert

      Conway, Derek

      Janman, Tim

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Jessel, Toby

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Cran, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Critchley, Julian

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Key, Robert

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

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Day, Stephen

      Knapman, Roger

      Devlin, Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knowles, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knox, David

      Dover, Den

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Dunn, Bob

      Lang, Ian

      Dykes, Hugh

      Latham, Michael

      Eggar, Tim

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Evennett, David

      Lightbown, David

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lilley, Peter

      Fallon, Michael

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Favell, Tony

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lord, Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Forman, Nigel

      McCrindle, Robert

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Forth, Eric

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Franks, Cecil

      Maclean, David

      Freeman, Roger

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      French, Douglas

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Gale, Roger

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Gardiner, George

      Madel, David

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Gill, Christopher

      Malins, Humfrey

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mans, Keith

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maples, John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Marlow, Tony

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gorst, John

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gow, Ian

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Mellor, David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Gregory, Conal

      Miller, Hal

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Mills, Iain

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Grist, Ian

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Ground, Patrick

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Grylls, Michael

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Neale, Gerrard

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

      Needham, Richard

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Neubert, Michael

      Harris, David

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hayes, Jerry

      Page, Richard

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Paice, James

      Hayward, Robert

      Patnick, Irvine

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Pawsey, James

      Heddle, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Portillo, Michael

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Price, Sir David

      368

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Squire, Robin

      Rathbone, Tim

      Stern, Michael

      Renton, Tim

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Stokes, John

      Riddick, Graham

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Summerson, Hugo

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rowe, Andrew

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Ryder, Richard

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Waller, Gary

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Watts, John

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wells, Bowen

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Wheeler, John

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Wilshire, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Sims, Roger

      Wood, Timothy

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Mr. Tony Durant and

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Allen, Graham

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

      Alton, David

      Dewar, Donald

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dixon, Don

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dobson, Frank

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Doran, Frank

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Douglas, Dick

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Battle, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Beckett, Margaret

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Beith, A. J.

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Faulds, Andrew

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fearn, Ronald

      Blair, Tony

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Boateng, Paul

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

      Boyes, Roland

      Fisher, Mark

      Bradley, Keith

      Flannery, Martin

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Flynn, Paul

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Foster, Derek

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Foulkes, George

      Buchan, Norman

      Fraser, John

      Buckley, George J

      Galbraith, Sam

      Caborn, Richard

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      George, Bruce

      Cartwright, John

      Gordon, Mildred

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Graham, Thomas

      Clay, Bob

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cohen, Harry

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Haynes, Frank

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Corbett, Robin

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Henderson, Doug

      Cousins, Jim

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cox, Tom

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Cryer, Bob

      Holland, Stuart

      Cummings, John

      Home Robertson, John

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Hood, Jimmy

      Dalyell, Tam

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Darling, Alistair

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      369

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Parry, Robert

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Patchett, Terry

      Illsley, Eric

      Pendry, Tom

      Ingram, Adam

      Pike, Peter L.

      Janner, Greville

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      John, Brynmor

      Prescott, John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Radice, Giles

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Randall, Stuart

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Kennedy, Charles

      Reid, Dr John

      Kilfedder, James

      Richardson, Jo

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Lamond, James

      Robertson, George

      Leighton, Ron

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lewis, Terry

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Litherland, Robert

      Ruddock, Joan

      Livingstone, Ken

      Salmond, Alex

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Sheerman, Barry

      Loyden, Eddie

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McAllion, John

      Short, Clare

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Skinner, Dennis

      McCartney, Ian

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

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

      McFall, John

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

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Snape, Peter

      McKelvey, William

      Soley, Clive

      McLeish, Henry

      Spearing, Nigel

      Maclennan, Robert

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      McNamara, Kevin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McTaggart, Bob

      Stott, Roger

      McWilliam, John

      Strang, Gavin

      Madden, Max

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Marek, Dr John

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Turner, Dennis

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Vaz, Keith

      Martlew, Eric

      Wall, Pat

      Meacher, Michael

      Wallace, James

      Meale, Alan

      Walley, Joan

      Michael, Alun

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Morley, Elliott

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Worthington, Tony

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wray, Jimmy

      Mullin, Chris

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Murphy, Paul

      Nellist, Dave

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      O'Brien, William

      Mr. Tony Banks.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 8 disagreed to.

    Clause 19

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO OR CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTION 17
      Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 18, line 28, after "1972" insert
      "or in relation to Scotland section 56 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973"
      6.30 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      It is a straightforward drafting amendment to include reference to Scottish legislation, and should have been
      370
      included from the outset. The provisions of section 58 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 are, so far as relevant here, the same in effect as those of section 101 of the 1972 Act, and the same provision should be made in respect of arrangements made under section 56 as are made in respect of section 101.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 28

      PROHIBITION ON PROMOTING HOMOSEXUALITY BY TEACHING OR BY PUBLISHING MATERIAL.
      Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 28, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert—
      "(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality"
      Read a Second time.
      Dr. Cunningham: I beg to move amendment (e) to the Lords amendment, at end add
      'other than by any action undertaken for the purpose of discouraging discrimination against or protecting the civil rights of any person.'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment (f) to the Lords amendment, at end add
      'except that nothing in this subsection shall prevent the provision of any service by a local authority to any person where that provision is necessary in the view of the authority for a purpose other than that prohibited by this subsection.'
      Dr. Cunningham: Welcome though the Lords amendments are, frankly, they are simply not good enough to satisfy our remaining fundamental objections to the clause.
      Before I refer to the amendments in detail, I reiterate our view of the major issues that are involved in this clause. The clause affects all local government, all education services, and the arts and library services of our country. It has caused a storm of protest, and understandably so. Here we are dealing with fundamental issues of principle. It is not just a provision to ensure neutrality on homosexuality. Much more than that is at stake. Indeed, everyone's right to information and the arts, the rights of minorities, the way in which a free society is tolerant of diversity, the way in which a free society organises itself, the way in which minorities are protected' in a free and plural democratic society are at the heart of our objections to the provisions of clause 28.
      We are confronted here with issues of people's civil rights and individual freedoms. We are confronted here with the possibility of an extension of censorship, either deliberately or by default. That is why the Arts Council of Great Britain has been so active in opposing the provisions of the clause, arguing, as we do, the severe risk that prohibition on "promoting" homosexuality will prohibit almost any literary or artistic activity that has an element of homosexuality within it.
      The provisions set a dangerous precedent. The clause represents a new and inherently dangerous direction for the law to take. It breaches an important principle of equality before the law, for minorities to seek to advance their own lawful interests, that could in future be extended to other people.
      Whatever the Minister says about our amendments and the issues, I hope that he will give the House an assurance, a promise on the record, that the provisions will not be

      371
      extended to other public bodies and activities — for example, broadcasting and the Arts Council — which could in future be prohibited on much the same grounds and arguments that could lead to further censorship. I hope that the Minister will make it absolutely clear that the Government have no intention to go further in that direction.
      The proposals set a dangerous precedent, because they seek to control what is taught in the classroom, not directly through an education Act, but indirectly by restrictions on the provision of books or other materials that are not themselves prohibited by law. The proposals will encourage discrimination. It is impossible to accept any other construction when the civil rights of homosexuals are already under increased threat and hostility because of the appalling consequences of AIDS. We and many other organisations, including the National Council for Civil Liberties, believe that there is an even greater need to educate and inform and to protect people's equal rights. Whatever is the intention of the supporters of the clause, its impact can only be regressive. Local authorities will have to play safe. They may have to refuse to take any risk in an area that may appear to assist homosexual people, or possibly show them in a favourable light.
      The proposals provide an excuse to discriminate against gay and lesbian people. Just as the Sex Discrimination Act 1986 and the Race Relations Act 1976 make it less acceptable to discriminate against women and ethnic minorities, this clause will have the reverse effect and will make it more respectable to discriminate against gay and lesbian people.
      These are major and fundamental reasons why further amendments to the clause are necessary. As it stands, it will be bad law, because it is dangerously imprecise in drafting and open to wide and varied, differing interpretation. Take the key words — "promote", "homosexuality" and "acceptability". None of them is defined. As they stand in the Bill at present, they have no fixed meaning. Organisations outside the House and, for that matter, my hon. Friends, others and I have legal opinions almost by the dozen from senior counsel, saying that anything that is published or done in respect of homosexuality could be said to promote it. We need look no further than those legal opinions for reasons why the House should not accept the clause as it stands. The Government amendments to the local authorities' intention do not substantially alter the impact of the clause. It is still dependent upon how the word "promote" is interpreted.
      The Government opposed a similar clause in 1986. There has been no explanation from Ministers of why, one year later, they have changed their minds on this matter. There has been no explanation, no argument and no evidence for the about-face by Ministers. There has been no attempt to answer those questions. The Government opposed identical proposals in 1986 specifically because Ministers argued that those proposals were open to harmful misinterpretation. The Government were saying that a year ago. We said it too, but we are saying the same thing now. Why have the Government changed their position?
      I believe that they have done so for the basest and most contemptible political motives. I believe that they have done so because they seek some political gain from aiding
      372
      and abetting bigotry and discrimination against gay and lesbian people. In the absence of any other explanation, that is bound to be the conclusion that people will reach, inside and outside the House. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) wishes to intervene, I am happy to give way to him or to his hon. Friend who is making so much noise from a sedentary position, but does not have the guts to stand up and say publicly what he is muttering in private.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: What the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is saying is totally contemptible to democracy. He is saying that the Government should not pay the slightest bit of attention to popular feeling on this issue and that, in his opinion, the population at large is bigoted. I should like him to withdraw that.
      Dr. Cunningham: I said no such thing. I was saying that the Government were bigoted and were seeking to encourage bigotry—which, unlike the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I do not believe is a trait displayed by the majority of people in Britain. On the contrary, I think that the majority of people are decent and civilised in their approach to these matters, as we ought to be in any plural democratic society.
      Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: This is a very important point. The hon. Gentleman expressed an attitude of principle. He identified what he calls gay and lesbian people, but he must do the House the duty of saying to what extent he regards perversion in any psychopathological form as wrong. There is no question at all that homosexuality in either sex is psychopathological perversion.
      Dr. Cunningham: Many people, in particular homosexual people, will find the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) deeply offensive. Apparently, he fails to recognise the reality of different people's sexual orientation. His intervention shows that he is portraying the very characteristic about which I was complaining among Ministers. He is showing a form of bigotry about these issues which has no place in our debates.
      Mr. Fairbairn: It is honourable that the hon. Gentleman has given way again, but it is not simply a question of different orientation. Sadism and masochism are not just orientations of human conduct; they are psychopathological manifestations of morbid conduct—and homosexuality is the same.
      6.45 pm
      Dr. Cunningham: I regret having given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman again. He has just repeated something which I think is totally unacceptable and, frankly, also wrong.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman talked about the Government changing their mind. Will he help the House by explaining why he supported what was then clause 27 in Standing Committee? He said:
      "I shall vote for the amendment and I hope and expect that my right hon. and hon. Friends will do the same."
      In regard to the ban on the promotion of homosexuality he said:
      "We do not wish to change that in any way, shape or form."
      Dr. Cunningham: If the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) were to read all of what I said, he would see that I went on to say:
      "it is not, and never has been,"
      nor do we expect or want it to be
      "the duty … of any local authority to promote homosexuality."ߞ [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1987; c. 1211–14.]
      No one is asking for that. Gay and lesbian people do not want that.
      Since the hon. Gentleman was talking about the record, perhaps he will also acknowledge, as I am sure he knows, that I said in Committee on behalf of my hon. Friends in response to something produced at a very short notice in the Committee that we were fundamentally opposed to some of the provisions of this clause and we would seek to amend it drastically on Report.
      That is what we tried to do, with the greatest support from outside the House. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends voted down those very wide-ranging amendments. We are now presenting the House with yet another opportunity to do exactly that today. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having reflected on it, will take a different view now from the one that he took at the time.
      We oppose the proposals because the prohibition on promoting homosexuality covers any and every activity in which a local authority engages in furtherance of its duties and responsibilities.
      It is not an abuse for local authorities to recognise the existence of a minority in their communities. Estimates suggest that 10 per cent. of the adult population in Britain may be gay or lesbian people. It is not an abuse for a local authority to devote — as some do quite properly — relatively small resource allocations to meet the legitimate needs of those minorities. That is not an abuse. It is a perfectly proper thing for local authorities to do, and should be acceptable in a civilised society.
      As we have argued before, the teaching of children in school and other places of education also could be adversely affected by the proposals, as could essential activities such as the counselling of young people because of their own sexuality or that of their parents.
      Amendment No. 10 was said to be moved by the Government in the other place to clarify the Government's position on what was meant by "intentionally promoting homosexuality", although, as I have argued, the meaning of those words is still unclear. The amendment introduces some limitation, however minor, on the concept. As I said, we certainly will not oppose it, but it simply does not go far enough. Other Government amendments accepted in the other place make explicit reference in subsection (1)(b) to the publication of material, and further reference to "financial or other assistance" for the purposes of promotion are welcome in so far as they go, but they do not remove the fundamental objections.
      Amendment No. 12 is simply a declarity, in that it states that a court shall draw such inferences from evidence before it as it sees fit. That does not seem to move the debate on at all.
      The amendments tabled in my name and in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition deal with the issues of civil rights and the provision of services for a purpose other than the promotion of homosexuality. I am grateful that they have been selected for debate.
      374
      I do not want to be too unkind to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) as we are probably speaking on the same side of the argument—[Interruption.] Well, I welcome the fact that we are on the same side on an important issue of civil liberties. I suppose that he must somewhat regret his comments that were published in The Independent this morning—although perhaps, like me, he was not consulted by the journalist who wrote the article in the first place. However, I am grateful that we are on the same side of the argument in this debate.
      The amendment, inserted by the Government on Report in the House of Lords, does not go far enough. Amendment (e) would qualify the prohibition on the promotion of homosexuality in relation to
      "any action undertaken for the purpose of discouraging discrimination against or protecting the civil rights of any person."
      It is an important amendment, pointing to a serious practical difficulty which has still not been resolved either by the Government or by the House of Lords.
      Amendment (f), which is also tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and myself, goes even further. It would deal directly with the question of a service provided for a purpose other than "the promotion of homosexuality", which, under the clause, would risk falling within the prohibition. The amendment provides that where a service is provided for another purpose and where the provision is necessary to meet a need within the community, it should fall outside the terms of reference of the clause.
      The amendment seeks to highlight the areas of activity that are undertaken as part of a council's provision which might be thought to have an indirect consequence in the terms of the clause. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Northampton, North is muttering again. I hope that he will participate in the debate and put his views on the record. I am trying to explain to him the purpose of our amendments. If he has something to say, I hope that he will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The fact is that the Government, at least privately—they do not have the courage to say so publicly—must be deeply regretting ever having given way to the pressures to embark on this legislation in the first place. There have been many debates in both Houses, and debates and demonstrations around the country, illustrating not only the depth of opposition to this proposal, but the deep concern that is felt by many people in all walks of life, including people way beyond the boundaries of the Labour party or, indeed, any other political party.
      I make it clear that we do not support the intentions of the clause. The motives and implications behind it are deeply to be deplored. It should not be accepted by Parliament. I make it absolutely clear that a future Labour Government would not allow the implications and provisions of the clause to remain on the statute book.
      Mr. Robin Squire: I have listened to our previous debates in the Chamber and suspect that I have read as widely as any hon. Member on this issue both since and during our proceedings. I did not support the clause originally and all that I have subsequently seen has not ultimately persuaded me to change my mind. Amendments (e) and (f) that were moved earlier, by the hon. Member deserve support.
      I begin on a point on which I hope that I can unite hon. Members. I recognise, as I think do all hon. Members, the

      375
      importance of protecting our children from evil influences, however defined. I speak as someone who has two teenage children of my own, so I have a little knowledge of what is involved. However, the permutations of wording through which this House and the other place have gone have not persuaded me that we have either justified the need for the clause or that the wording that we have produced is other than a minefield, awaiting exploitation by scores of lawyers in years to come. I do not know whether "promotion" means "talking about", or "selling the advantages of", to take but two possible interpretations. Undoubtedly, hon. Members could provide many more.
      I speak as one of the honorary vice-presidents of the Conservative group for homosexual equality. We want to put forward four brief points. I hope that if my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government cannot answer them during the debate, he will at least take account of them. They relate to the question, "What is 'promoting homosexuality'?" First, if a local authority assisted a well-run counselling service to help homosexuals to come to terms with their sexuality and to cope with the consequences that many experience, is that "promoting homosexuality"? Secondly, if a local authority allowed a homosexual organisation to hire a room in one of its buildings for a public meeting on the same terms as any other organisation — I am referring to law-abiding citizens—is that "promoting homosexuality"? Thirdly, if a local authority bought for its public libraries books that discussed homosexual love favourably or presented sympathetically the lives of homosexuals such as the late Lord Britten and Sir Peter Pears, is that "promoting homosexuality"? Fourthly, if sex education classes presented homosexuality in a balanced way, as required by the Department of Education and Science under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, is that "promoting homosexuality"?
      Mr. Marlow: Yes.
      Mr. Squire: From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend says "yes", and in that case we have a slight problem of conflict with the law.
      I have mentioned that I have two children. I happen to think that the teaching of sexuality of any sort does not belong in school. I believe that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) made some comment to that effect in our earlier exchange. I agree completely that school is not the place for that sort of thing. However, it is the place for teaching an honest and balanced approach to this subject just as to any other.
      In one of our national newspapers today—the most well-read one—there is a cartoon portraying a middle-aged man retiring through the front door of his house, leaving his son, who is drawn effeminately, hanging by a rope from a lamp post, having clearly been hanged or attempted to be hanged. I put to one side those people who may find the subject funny — presumably that is why they drew a cartoon—because that is not the point that I want to make. In my constituency, I probably have a substantial minority of law-abiding, God-fearing Roman Catholics—I suspect a proportion similar to the number of homosexuals and lesbians—
      Mr. Tony Banks rose—
      Mr. Squire: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished my point.
      If it were suggested that a cartoon be drawn, portraying either some militant Protestant group stringing up some Roman Catholic, or the other way round — some Roman Catholic stringing up an identified Protestant—we would be outraged and would raise that issue on the Floor of the House saying, "This is disgraceful." As a further example—again it is an obvious one—if we were even contemplating similar action from somebody of one colour against somebody of another colour, who is another law-abiding citizen we would again be horrified. The person responsible would be in breach of the law, as I understand it, because they would be accused of inciting racial prejudice. I remind hon. Members that we are talking about a law-abiding minority.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the cartoon by Franklin in The Sun and which I have referred to the Press Council. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make a parallel with that cartoon, I suggest he looks at Der Angrif—a German newspaper that was produced by Julius Streicher, the Jew-baiter, in Nazi Germany. I believe that Franklin bases his cartooning models upon that newspaper.
      Mr. Squire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information.
      7 pm
      Mr. Neil Hamilton: I go along with what my hon. Friend says and I share his disgust at the cartoon in The Sun. Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the reason for such a cartoon appearing in a national newspaper, which is read by millions, is the aggressive proselytising by some local authorities on behalf of homosexuals? That has tended to disgust the vast majority of British people.
      Mr. Squire: I appreciate that my hon. Friend's concern is shared by several of my colleagues and it is important. However, in our discussions on this matter and in our attempts to extract evidence, it appears that most of that evidence arises from one book, in one teacher centre, in one school under one authority. I may be wrong, but I have seen no other evidence. Indeed, as I understand it, that book was kept to help teachers who are occasionally asked to advise pupils who come from homes with gay parents. It is important to realise that we do not live in a world where every child lives with a male and female parent.
      Mr. David Wilshire: My hon. Friend has asked for examples and perhaps I can assist. I have in my hand a leaflet that was handed out to 15-year-olds at a Bristol school. I will not read out the details of that leaflet because I do not think that I should—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Opposition Members may want that, but suffice to say that the leaflet describes and illustrates homosexual activity and underneath that description says:
      "Go for it! Share the pleasure with a friend."
      That was handed out to 15-year-olds at a school in Bristol—[HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] The Terrence Higgins trust.
      Mr. Squire: I can only take at face value what my hon. Friend has said. Of course, it is deplorable and despicable that such leaflets exist and I would be happy to add it to my list of one. From a brief glance at that leaflet I cannot

      377
      believe that it has been produced by or on behalf of a local authority. I shall pass it over to the hon. Member for Copeland and I will happily give way if he can tell me who is credited with producing it.
      Dame Jill Knight: I am concerned that it appears that my hon. Friend has not read any of the debates that have previously taken place. For instance, on 11 January the debate in the other place drew attention to the fact that children under two have had access to gay and lesbian books in Lambeth play centres.
      Mr. Tony Banks: That is not true.
      Mr. John Fraser: That is a lie.
      Mr. Stuart Holland rose—
      Dame Jill Knight: I am not telling lies and I do not believe that it is the practice in this House for one who has intervened to give way again. I am quoting from the House of Lords debateߞ
      Mr. Tony Banks: That does not make it true!
      Dame Jill Knight: The person in charge, Mrs. Jill Delaney, playleader of the Windmill gardens play centre, said:
      "We have been on training courses where members have access to take this kind of literature into the playgroups but nearly everyone refused. Some of the books on display were terrible. I have children in here as young as 2 years old and I don't think they should be seeing pictures of grown men in the nude in different sexual practices." [Official Report, House of Lords, 11 January 1988; Vol. 491, c. 10131]
      Mr. Squire: I cannot respond to that specific point because I do not come from Lambeth and I have not seen the literature about which my hon. Friend complains.
      Mr. Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend not know of such literature?
      Mr. Squire: I am quite prepared to admitߞ
      Dr. Cunningham rose ߞ
      Mr. Squire: There is a queue forming.
      In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), I understand that that charge has been denied in more than one quarter. However, I must leave it to other hon. Members who come from that area to confirm or deny that charge. If my hon. Friend is correct, I share her unease that such literature is available to young children. I recognise the importance of protecting young children and the need to do so.
      Tonight we are trying to establish the need for the clause as drafted and to what extent the wording of the clause may influence other perfectly normal law-abiding citizens.
      Dr. Cunningham: I believe that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) should get his facts right. There is no information on the leaflet that he brandished as to who was responsible for its publication or distribution. I believe that the hon. Gentleman should be more accurate and precise in his allegations regarding such sensitive matters.
      Mr. Squire: I almost feel that there are two debates going on and I apologise to the extent that I have caused that.
      Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Squire: I am anxious to make some progress because I am aware that a number of other hon. Members wish to take part.
      Mr. Fraser: It is specifically about Lambeth.
      Mr. Squire: Very well.
      Mr. Fraser: I represent Lambeth and my wife is a nursery nurse in the borough. There is not a scintilla of evidence to support the monstrous allegation that has been made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) who, presumably, is strongly in favour of the promotion of heterosexuality, adultery, troilism arid all the rest of it as opposed to the promotion of homosexuality, about which she is extremely economic with the truth.
      Mr. Holland rose—
      Mr. Squire: I must press on. I am satisfied that there has been some balance put forward for the Lambeth subculture.
      Over the years there has been considerable scientific discussion about the extent to which people can be persuaded to adopt a sexuality that is not their own. In the overwhelming majority of cases it seems that people are born with a particular sexual preference or acquire it during the passage of their lives without the presence of the influences we are discussing. There are many famous examples in history of people who became homosexuals without the benefit of a gay counselling group ߞ we would be foolish to assume that such groups are an absolute essential.
      As I have said, I have two teenage children and my wife is a former teacher. In her experience, the suggestion that one can address an average or even below average group of teenagers seeking to proselytise and expect to be heard sympathetically is unrealistic.
      There has been much overstatement from both sides about the effect of the clause. It has been suggested that some great works of art, great books and great plays that have been performed for scores of years ߞ including during the time when homosexuality was illegal ߞ are threatened. I doubt that. However, it is possible that the clause as drawn, even with the beneficial effects of amendments (e) and (f), will be taken as some sort of signal by a large number of people that society is becoming more intolerant. I remind the House for the last time that we are talking about a law-abiding minority of people. If people break the law, they must be punished through all the avenues available. I do not wish to see my children threatened by sexual or other aggression, but I want to keep a sense of perspective and I very much fear that the clause goes much further than was ever intended.
      Mr. Chris Smith: Three months ago I rose to express my distress and disquiet at the sudden appearance of what was then clause 27 of the Local Government Bill. I had hoped that in the intervening months a degree of common sense and decency might have crept into the Government's thinking and that we might now be applauding their decision to withdraw the clause in its entirety from the Bill and to reject everything that it stands for. Sadly, that is not the case. At the Government's behest, their Lordships have made two changes to the clause. Lords amendment No. 11 brings a marginal improvement. Lords amendment No. 12 inserts the idea of intentionalityߞof itself not an objectionable

      379
      move, but, when qualified with such a sweeping catch-all definition of intention, leaving interpretation totally to the courts, it does nothing to allay the genuine fears that the clause has aroused throughout the country.
      The amendments have left untouched the central flaw at the heart of the clause — the undefined, hopelessly vague and dangerously widely interpretable word "promote". The amendments in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends attempt to circumscribe that word to a certain extent. That is why I support them. If the amendments tabled by the Liberal party are put to the vote, I shall not support them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not selected."] I am pleased to hear it, because they would have made matters worse.
      Three months ago I asked what on earth the originators of the clause meant by the word "promote". After three months of debate and discussion in this Chamber, in the other place, on the radio and television and on platforms up and down the country, that question still remains unanswered. All that we had in the intervening period were statements such as, "Well, we all know what we mean by 'promote', don't we?" or, "We all know that boroughs like Haringey are up to no good," or, "Of course, there will be no threat to sensible acceptable activities conducted by local authorities." None of those statements represents an accurate analysis of what the word "promote" can be interpreted as meaning by the courts. It is not good enough for the Minister to write to me, as he generously did after the debate before Christmas, to say that in his view none of the activities that I had listed as potentially unlawful under the clause would be caught by it. It is not up to the Minister to interpret what the word "promote" means; it is up to the courts.
      After reading through many pages of the House of Lords Hansard, the only attempt at a definition that I could find — in all the many hours of debate — came from the Earl of Caithness, who is the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water. He referred to local authorities that have in the recent past promoted homosexuality—
      "that is, giving it a standing over and above the standing that is given to similar matters."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 February 1988; Vol. 492, c. 937.]
      If I were in the business of writing a dictionary, I would certainly not go to the noble Lord for clarity of definition. Such an attempt to define what the word "promote" means takes us no further.
      7.15 pm
      Because of that lack of definition, the central problem remains. The clause will potentially affect any service provided by any local authority for, or on behalf of, or in support of, gays and lesbians in that local authority's area. Let me take just two examples to illustrate my point. First, let us suppose that a teenager begins to discover that he is gay. He feels nervous, upset and isolated. He may be on the verge of contemplating suicide, as the studies suggest many such young people are. Because he would find it difficult to turn to anyone else, he turns to a teacher at his school. He asks, "What on earth is all this about?" In such circumstances, any teacher worth his salt would sit the pupil down and say, "Look, there is nothing at all to be worried about. This is perfectly acceptable. There are millions of people who are gay and they make a valuable
      380
      contribution to society. There is no reason for you to feel isolated or abnormal about what you are and what you are feeling."
      That teacher would attempt to advise and counsel and make the teenager feel better about himself and about what he was coming to understand about himself. Would such a teacher be in contravention of the clause? As I understand the clause — certainly as I understand the wishes of those who brought the clause forward—such a teacher would, indeed, be contravening the clause. That means that the important advice and counselling that ought to be available to that very concerned, very scared, teenager will not be available to him. That worries me deeply.
      My second example relates to a local authority-owned art gallery wishing to sponsor an exhibition of paintings by David Hockney. I choose the painter advisedly because of what he has said forcefully in recent days. The local authority will fear that it risks being in contravention of clause 28, not simply because David Hockney happens to be gay, but because David Hockney's paintings frequently celebrate the fact that he is gay. That is the key point that will concern a local authority when it is considering whether to mount an exhibition of paintings by one of Britain's greatest artists. I believe that the way in which the clause will be interpreted moves us a step closer to censorship of the arts because that is how it is likely to affect local authorities. I have given just two of many examples.
      Mr. Neil Hamilton: For many years we have had a law—in statute, and before that in common law—against indecent displays and obscenity. The hon. Gentleman will know that a great many art galleries in this country contain classical paintings of great distinction depicting scenes of sexual violence and what many people might call depravity. Does he know of any prosecutions—under common law or statute law—that have taken place for contraventions of that law?
      Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes two mistakes. The first mistake is that the law on matters that are obscene and indecent specifically includes artistic and literary merit as a defence in the Obscene Publications Act 1959. There is no such defence in clauses 28 and 29. Lord Boyd-Carpenter explicitly stated in another place that the artistic element would not be a defence if a prosecution were brought under this clause if it continues to be part of the Bill and if the Bill is enacted.
      The hon. Gentleman's second mistake is that exhibitions of paintings of the sort that I have described might conceivably be prosecutable under the 1959 Act. That measure can be used to bring prosecutions for matters that are obscene and indecent. If the hon. Gentleman is supporting the clause and its inclusion in our body of law, he is wishing to tighten the law on obscenity further to restrict the definition of obscene and indecent. I suggest that this is the wrong place to do that. If he is taking that approach, he is adopting the wrong course.
      I have given two examples of the practical, potential implications of the clause. In many ways it will make life worse for teachers, administrators, pupils, artists and librarians. It will have that effect on hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens. It will make life richer for some lawyers and a handful of bigots who want to use the

      381
      law to their own advantage. To such depths, in the desire of populist advantage, is it sought to drag the Government, a Government who should know better.
      More enraging and distressing by far than the practical implications of the clause are the motives that underly it. These motives have not been changed one bit by the amendments that have been tabled in the other place. They remain profoundly undemocratic, anti-libertarian and destructive of all the traditions of tolerance for which this country used to stand.
      The proponents of the clause have been saying persistently throughout the country that there is only one form of relationship, one form of sexuality and one form of lifestyle that is acceptable. That form of sexuality will be endorsed, approved, applauded and given enhanced legal status, and everything else will become second-class. It is a view which refuses to recognise the difference, the diversity and the very richness of human life and human society. It is intolerant, immature and undemocratic, and I venture to assert that it is profoundly immoral.
      William Shakespeare wrote a major speech as part of a collaborative play about the life of Sir Thomas More. In that play, the king sent out. Sir Thomas More to meet the mob that wishes to drive out the strangers from its midst—the immigrants, the black people, the gays and the lesbians. Sir Thomas More goes out to meet the crowd. He tries to persuade it that it is wrong to drive out strangers and that it might not be in its interests to do so. Shakespeare has Sir Thomas More saying:
      "Graunt them remoued, and graunt that this your noyce
      Hath chidd downe all the maiestic of Ingland;
      Ymagin that you see the wretched straingers,
      Their babyes at their backes and their poor lugage,
      Plodding tooth ports and costes for transportacion,
      Aud that you sytt as kinges in your desyres,
      Aucthoryty quyte sylenct by your braule,
      And you in ruff of your opynions clothd;
      What had you gott? Ile tell you: you had taught
      How insolence and strong hand shoold preuayle,
      How ordere shoold be quelld; and by this patterne
      Not on of you shoold lyue an aged man,
      For other ruffians, as their fancies wrought,
      With sealf same hand, sealf reasons, and sealf right,
      Woold shark on you, and men lyke rauenous fishes
      Woold feed on on another."
      That is the sort of society that I do not wish to see in this country. It is the sort of society that the progenitors of the clause will bring about. It is a society in which there is one form of acceptable existence, a society in which everything else is second-rate and second-class.
      I said three months ago that true morality and true decency mean accepting and celebrating diversity and being tolerant of the fact that everyone, no matter who or what he is, is entitled to live and lead his own life. That is what I shall continue to stand for in the House. I dearly hope that the House will reject the clause and support at the very least the amendments that stand in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It seems sensible and for the benefit of the House if I allow the debate on the amendment to touch upon matters that are covered by other Lords amendments. I remind the House, however, that we are not debating whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.
      Mr. Fairbairn: If I may say so, I do not think that the clause will enrich lawyers. There is one fundamental matter that the House should understand and say. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has said, homosexuality is not one of the paths of sexual expression which diversify and enrich human experience. In male homosexuality — homos in Greek meaning "the same" and homo in Latin meaning "man" — there is a perversion of a human function. It is using the excretory anus and rectum with a reproductive organ. That might in itself give us pause, but anyone who comprehends the deep libidinal and psychological orgins of male and female homosexuality should understand that it is a major and unnatural perversion.
      Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Fairbairn: I shall give way in a moment.
      There are other perversions. As a lawyer who has practised at the criminal Bar, I have met many psychopaths. I have met also many bank robbers. I have met people with all sorts of perversion, who decide either to indulge in them or to refrain from them. It is ill in a debate on the education of children that the concept of the indulgence of deeply seated character perversions should be regarded as a mere alternative. If it is a mere alternative, aggression and sadism are merely parts of the diversity of human experience.
      To take up the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, let us consider the small child who goes to his teacher and says, "I have an urge to shoplift. I feel isolated because people tell me that there is something abnormal and wrong about shoplifting." The teacher says, "You must not feel isolated, dear boy. It is just another manifestation of the glorious diversity of human behaviour. So be at home and worry not. There is no morality." I have not heard the words "right", "wrong", "good" or "bad" in the speeches of those who object to the promotion that is to be forbidden under the clause.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Holland: The hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned about corruption of the young. He has quoted Greek and has challenged whether things are right or wrong. Does he think that it was right that Socrates should have been prosecuted for corrupting the young? Does he also think it right that hemlock should have been the punishment?
      Mr. Fairbairn: That leads me to a very different matter.
      Mr. Holland: Yes or no?
      Mr. Fairbairn: It is not a question of yes or no. It is a question of yes or no that Socrates, in corrupting the young, was guilty of a criminal offence. Eventually, the glories of Greece and Athens and their philosophy were smothered and corrupted by the very matter which he spread, as indeed Rome was as well. I do not want to take as long as Gibbon took to write "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".
      Let us be clear about this. Leonardo da Vinci was a homosexual. So was Peter Pears. The fact that a person has this morbid squint is not a reason to condemn him for all else that he does. In wartime, lots of people indulge instincts of aggression and sadism which they keep in

      383
      control if they are not given the opportunity to exercise them. I have appeared in capital cases for many people who failed to keep those sentiments in check. But that is not an alternative of the diversity of the expression of psychosexual activity which—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) may laugh, but he should understand what motivates people who want to shoot, kill, stab, hit children or be aggressive. [Interruption] Opposition Members may laugh but a simple message should go out from the House. Sodomy and buggery are not natural alternative sexual acts. They are perversions. They result from deep-seated psychopathological perversion. The House should not be seen to say that it is as right to be wrong as it is wrong to be right.
      Mr. Tony Benn: I would not like to follow the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) too far, but I can think of nothing more psychopathologically sick than to devote one's life to the pursuit of those who follow practices which the hon. and learned Gentleman finds undesirable and to incite the public to hate them. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not a psychiatrist and neither am I. The only reading which I can make of his speech is that he has revealed what many people would regard as a genuine sickness which could do damage to others.
      I have never spoken before in the House on this subject, but I am moved to do so by growing alarm at the effect that the clause would have upon millions of people and not only upon those who are gay or lesbian, for their relatives have a concern for them and know that this campaign has been whipped up by the gutter press which has done more to lower the standard of personal and public morality than any others in modern British society.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer and I am not, but I think that the cartoon in The Sun today is an incitement to violence, if not to murder. Those who advocate policies which have that consequence, in collaboration with proprietors who believe that they can increase their circulation by conducting those campaigns, share the moral responsibility for what will flow from them.
      Mr. Fairbairn: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. Let us take many people in history. Let us take Oscar Wilde, one of our greatest playwrights and one of the greatest users of the English language. Let us take Lawrence of Arabia. Many people are homosexual. That is absolutely no criticism of them as people. We are not discussing that. What we are discussing is whether or not a local authority should try to persuade people that if they are homosexual they might be Oscar Wilde.
      Mr. Benn: When the hon. and learned Gentleman reads his speech, I think he will realise that each intervention makes it worse. If it is wrong for local authorities to promote homosexuality, why is it not wrong for anyone to promote it?
      I admired the speech of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). If local authorities cannot do something which will be covered by the clause, the next stage will be that no one can. Every leaflet, every pamphlet, every play and every book would be considered
      384
      on the basis of whether it put forward a psychopathological condition if we accept the view of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross.
      I believe that the pursuit of people who are gay and lesbian is as morbid as could be imagined. It is one thing for the popular press, the sewer press, to pursue such a campaign, but for a Government who have responsibility for the education of children to adopt that campaign and to make it part of the statute of the land can only be interpreted as the crudest opportunism for political purposes. That is my conviction. The effect of it is to scapegoat gays and lesbians. Whatever may be said in the House by Ministers, the courts will not take into account assurances by Ministers. The courts take account only of the wording of legislation.
      This is the most blatantly and dishonestly worded clause that I have ever come across. I shall tell the House why. If the sense of the word "promote" can be read across from "describe", every murder play promotes murder, every war play promotes war, every drama involving the eternal triangle promotes adultery; and Mr. Richard Branson's condom campaign promotes fornication. The House had better be very careful before it gives to judges, who come from a narrow section of society, the power to interpret "promote".
      The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross used vivid language, which no doubt will guarantee him a place in The Sun tomorrow. [Interruption.] Of course it will; he knows it well. He is expert at getting himself into the newspapers on sexual matters. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that some of the most horrific sexual crimes are crimes within a heterosexual context. That is so with many rapes and much mutilation, which is promoted in videos and films. These show the crime of one person against another, not the love of one person for another.
      To identify homosexual and gay relationships specially as contributing to crime is to fly in the face of all the evidence that as there is more heterosexual sexual activity, more crime is associated with it than with gay and lesbian relationships.
      Mr. Fairbairn rose—
      Mr. Benn: I will give way, but I do not want to detain the House.
      Mr. Fairbairna: I did not suggest that homosexuality produced crime. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has said that I am good at getting into the papers on sexual matters, will he be good enough to tell me Fiona Fullerton's telephone number?
      Mr. Benn: Since the clause first appeared, I have received many letters from people who are gays and lesbians who are in genuine fear for their safety and for their lives. Any hon. Member who is interested in civil liberties will be aware that the harassment of gays and lesbians, first initiated by the sewer press and now by the clause for which the Government are responsible, is a major problem. People are afraid of the legislation and of the effect of the Government's endorsement of this scapegoating.
      I wondered how I could best contribute to the debate and give my testimony against the clause. I have decided to read to the House in full the resolution on lesbian and gay rights carried by the Labour party conference two and a half years ago. I have sent copies of this resolution to the

      385
      people who wrote to me. I want to read it out and put on the record the resolution that was passed at the Labour party conference by a majority of more than half a million. The resolution states:
      "This Conference opposes all discrimination against lesbians and gay men and recognises that this discrimination is institutionalised in society. Conference notes that existing Labour Party policy with regard to homosexuality fails to meet the legitimate demands of lesbians and gay men and that a consistent and principled campaign conducted over a number of years is necessary to reverse that failure. Conference therefore:
      (1) instructs the NEC to draft a lesbian and gay rights policy which would specifically:

      (a) declare that lesbian and gay relationships and acts are not contrary to the public policy of the law and that judges must not use their discretion under Common Law to invent new and discriminatory offences;

      (b) repeal all criminal laws which discriminate against lesbians and gay men, and clarify and codify those sections of the Common Law which deal with public morality;

      (c) in this clarification they should be guided by the maxim that there should be no crimes without victims;

      (d) prohibit discrimination against lesbians and gay men in child custody cases;

      (e) prohibit discrimination and unfair dismissals on grounds in any way connected with lesbian and gay sexuality or life-style;

      (f) prevent police harassment of lesbians and gay men.

      (2) Calls upon "—
      this is relevant to the Bill—
      "all Labour local authorities to adopt practices and policy to prevent discrimination against lesbians and gay men, and in particular:

      (a) adopt and enforce equal opportunities in relation to lesbians and gay men along the same lines as Islington, Hackney, GLC, Manchester, Brent and Nottingham;

      (b) end discrimination against single people and lesbians and gay men in housing policies;

      (c) support financially and otherwise special lesbian and gay phone lines, centres and youth groups;

      (d) publicise these anti-discrimination policies.

      (3) Instructs the NEC to

      (a) organise a campaign of education among Labour Party trade union membership on lesbian and gay oppression in conjunction with the Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights;

      (b) produce a leaflet for public campaign using the slogan 'the Labour Party support lesbian and gay rights—join the Labour Party'.

      (4) Instructs the NEC to set up a sub-committee to organise the implementation of this policy."
      That resolution was carried under our voting system with 3,395,000 voting for and 2,805,000 voting against. Conservative Members may laugh, but the Labour party conference reaches decisions. It does not simply give ovations to the leader who drafts the policy.
      Every Labour Member of Parliament was elected knowing the resolution on lesbian and gay rights reached at the Labour party conference. Tory Members, the artificial psychiatrists and people with prejudices can laugh as much as they like. The day will come when people will look back on this debate and be glad that there were hon. Members on both sides of the House who stood against what is an incitement to harass decent people, who, in the course of their orientation, have adopted gay and lesbian practices which are not contrary to the law of the land.
      I wanted to put that testimony into Hansard because people are frightened by what is happening. They want to
      386
      know that there are people in this House who believe that the policy is wrong, is motivated wrongly, is drafted wrongly and is designed to gain political advantage out of scapegoating a minority who should be left to enjoy their civil liberties.
      7.45 pm
      Dame Jill Knight: Having listened with fascination to all that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has read out, I must say that there is nothing in the resolution which states that the Labour party believes that children in schools should have the homosexual lifestyle thrust on them as a desirable alternative to normal heterosexual marriage.
      The clause is about protecting children. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield has just read out. There is no doubt that children have been subjected to a most unhappy, unfair and wrong promotion campaign to try to turn them into supporters of homosexuality.
      If anyone doubts that, why did the children's parents complain? When those parents complained, why were they subjected to such vicious treatment? I cannot think it right—
      Mr. Pike: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Dame Jill Knight: No, I am in the middle of a sentence.
      I cannot think it right that parents who complained about what was being done to their children at school should have been kicked and spat upon. If their children had not been treated in the way that I have described, the parents would not have complained.
      One of the things that has impressed me—
      Mr. Pike: Is it true?
      Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman asks whether it is true. If it is not true, why did the parents complain? That is the point of the matter.
      Mr. Holland: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mr. Pike rose—
      Dame Jill Knight: I will give way to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) because he asked me first.
      Mr. Pike: Will the hon. Lady produce evidence to support her claim? Does she recognise that the clause goes way beyond the protection of children? Will she also accept that, if the protection of children is the main cause for concern, we must give the same protection to children from the threat from heterosexual abuse, which is far more common and a bigger threat to children than the lesbian or gay threat.
      Dame Jill Knight: The clause has nothing to do with criminal abuse. The clause attempts to stop what has been happening to children. The hon. Member for Burnley must understand the point that I have already made twice—if parents did not believe that what was happening was wrong, why did they complain, and complain to some Conservative Members who tried to stand up for their rights?
      Ms. Diane Abbott: Where?
      Dame Jill Knight: The evidence is clear for anyone who will take the trouble to read the debates in another place and in this place. I am amazed at the deliberate blindness and deafness of Opposition Members.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Dame Jill Knight: I will not give way. I want to get on; I do not wish to make a long speech.
      I have been amazed at the way in which the clause has been interpreted by people outside the House, and astonished at some of the things that have been said this evening. In all fairness, they have only been the same things that have been said by the demonstrators. People are screaming and yelling that books by William Shakespeare will all be banned from libraries. That is ridiculous: nothing in the clause could bring that about.
      I wonder why people who say that it is terrible to burn books from a library, or ban them, when they are for adults — I agree with them — have taken no action against the banning of "Thomas the Tank Engine", Enid Blyton, Rupert Bear and Dr. Doolittle. People who say that it is right to ban those books cannot say that they do not agree with any books being banned.
      Mr. Frank Dobson rose—
      Dame Jill Knight: I shall not give way. Mr. Deputy Speaker has said that he wants all speeches to be short.
      I have also been astonished at the degree of viciousness that I have encountered, as one who initiated the clause. My secretary has been abused, and has been the butt of the most appalling campaign of pornographic telephone calls. At 2.20 one morning, she was woken by someone who objected to the clause, and was subjected to a torrent of pornographic abuse. That is not the way to conduct a proper argument, but it tells us quite a lot about the kind of people who have been taking part in the opposition to the clause.
      Mr. Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Dame Jill Knight: I have not given way so far, and I must not do so now.
      I have been strongly supportive of the attempt to protect children, and no amount of abuse—or having my car vandalised, which has also happened—will stop me protecting them, and protecting the family unit. This I shall do, against all opposition. The family unit is under attack: there is no doubt of that.
      We have a clear indication of the motivation for what has been going on. Let me read out a short paragraph that encapsulates the effort that has been going into the promotion of homosexuality in schools, and the downgrading of the family unit:
      "The family unit—spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence—will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must he eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants."
      That is the sort of motivation that led to the need for this clause.
      I strongly support the clause, and oppose the efforts to water it down and to make it possible for our children still to he treated in such a way.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Like the rest of us, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), by seeking election to this place, must expect her views to be held up for public comment and criticism. That is an obligation. A similar obligation, however, should not apply to those who do not seek public office. Nevertheless, they find their views and lifestyles criticised, often in a far
      388
      worse way than the hon. Lady or her secretary could ever experience. Let me read from a letter from a constituent that arrived in my office on 5 January:
      "As a young lesbian of 19 years, I can recall only too well the problems I faced during early adolescence and the prejudice and hysteria I was confronted with when I 'came out' at 15. I was hounded at school; I had people spitting at me, people trying to ride their bikes into me, etc. I never went out as people kept threatening to beat me up. I left home, and came to London when I was 16, but even now my sister is teased and victimised because I am a lesbian. There is no way this should have happened to me, and, what is worse, is that some friends of mine had even worse happen to them. I got off 'lightly'. Measures need to be taken to combat this prejudice, and some local councils had begun to do this within education and by aiding lesbian and gay groups, etc, with money and resources. (Money and resources that as rate-payers we are entitled to.) This education is not promotion of homosexuality, it is only a presentation of it in a fair, unprejudiced way—no one can be turned gay by it, the same way we cannot be taught to be straight. But the word promotion is open to interpretation by the courts and this is very dangerous … Many people are going through what I did and this must be stopped. If this Bill is passed it will be another blow to us and a serious violation of our human rights."
      Let me briefly quote from two more letters, sent since our last debate on this subject. One is from a man in north London, who writes:
      "When I was at secondary school, struggling to come to terms with my sexuality, a few well-chosen and compassionate words from our sex education teacher left a lasting impression upon me; for years it was all I had to cling to whilst all around me gays were jeered in every playground conversation".
      The other letter is from a parent of a gay child from Sheffield, written in January this year:
      "I have a daughter who is gay and I believe suffered unnecessarily from the pretence that such do not exist. I had always thought that what took place between fully consenting adults in private should not be against the law, but I had not expected it to touch my own life at all closely. I lean to the view that homosexuals are born and not made because her upbringing doesn't seem to have been different from that of my three other children all of whom are heterosexual. In passing I note that my other daughter is left-handed and fortunate in having escaped persecution for that."
      Arguments are commonly put forward about what happens when someone comes to the conclusion that he or she is homosexual. Let me quote another phrase:
      "When I was young, I was surrounded by images glamorising heterosexuality and it never made me feel I was heterosexual."
      That is testimony to the prejudice, disadvantage and bigotry that we as a country should be trying to reduce and eliminate rather than to increase it. The inevitable consequence of the Bill which has had a timely representation by the cartoon already described will be to fan into greater bigotry those who already have latent prejudice.
      As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) pointed out, we challenged the Secretary of State in the House at the end of last year about what Ministers had said a year before. I could quote their speeches. They said that the Government did not believe that the enforcement measures contained in a predecessor Bill were necessary and that legal procedures were already adequate. They criticised both the drafting and the need for legislation. The Minister for Local Government, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, did not explain why the Government have completely gone back on a view they held a year ago.
      8 pm
      I am aware that since our previous debate small amendments have been made in the other place. I agree

      389
      with other hon. Members that the three amendments before us tonight marginally improve the previous drafting. The first amendment adds the word "intentionally", and that is certainly an improvement. The second amendment deletes some tautologous words. The third is declaratory and, if it does anything, it might help to make slightly clearer what is already in the clause. However, none of those amendments goes to the heart of the mischief in the clause, nor do they deal with the argument about why the clause should not pass on to the statute book.
      I shall respond to the arguments about morality. Many people believe that it is hypocritical for the Government to seek to legislate for morality as they define it when, at the same time, the poor become poorer, the rich become relatively richer, the people who depend on social security will have less chance of obtaining it and when for many opportunity in our society will be reduced because they are riot favoured by the capitalist market-led Government. Morality is not what a lot of people see as the result of the Government's policies. It is not for Parliament to legislate for a nation of 50 million or more people. It is not for Parliament to decide that there shall be one morality for all — the morality of the Government of the day. A civilised society should recognise that it has a duty to legislate for civil rights, for civil liberties and for freedom to choose for all. Adults must be allowed to make their own choices and, provided they do not harm others, they must be free to do so without fear of being victimised. Hearsay arguments such as that unreasonably put forward by the hon. Member for Edgbaston must be challenged. The wording of the clause means that there is a risk that the courts will be given a legislative weapon that will allow them not to protect those whom it is thought they might want to protect but to act far more widely.
      The word "promotion" is still in the clause. It is the "promotion" of homosexuality that will be forbidden. The dictionary definition shows that there are two alternative meanings of the word "promotion". The first says:
      "To further the growth, development, progress or establishment of (anything); to further advance or encourage".
      The second definition is very different. It says:
      "To put forth into notice; to publish; to assert, advance". That is simply the neutral state of putting into the public domain information about homosexuality.
      "Homosexuality" is the second key word of the clause. The meaning is very wide and is not defined clearly in the statute. It will be open to the courts to say that neutral non-commending activity by local councils can be in violation of the law. That is what makes this such a dangerous clause and why it has been perceived widely in the country to be so.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: I am concerned about a point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier. He suggested that in some way the clause radically changes existing law in relation to the rights of the individual. The clause changes nothing in existing law in relation to the practice of homosexuality or lesbianism. Therefore, there is grave danger in whipping up a great deal of hysteria about problems that do not exist. I take the point that he made about the word "promotion". He is on much stronger ground there. However, we have to keep away from broadening the argument and misleading the public by raising issues that are unconnected.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either the clause adds something to the law—the
      390
      Government say that it adds something necessary and Conservative Members support it for that reason—or, as the Government argued 15 months ago, it adds nothing to the law and in that case it should not be here.
      Other aspects of the clause are open to misinterpretation and were fallaciously added. Inherent in the clause is the belief that homosexuality can be promoted — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edgbaston said that it can. That is a hotly disputed scientific issue. I read direct testimony to the House from people who are homosexual. I did not quote hearsay evidence. Those people said that in their earlier years they had been exposed to heterosexual advertising and that it had not changed them in the slightest. The hon. Member for Edgbaston cannot have it both ways. Surely she accepts that the evidence of many scientists and ordinary people shows that people who discover that they have a homosexual orientation have no ability to do anything about it or believe that they have no ability to do anything about it. Therefore, promoting that condition is a logical inconsistency. Of course one can promote activity, but promoting a psychological state is probably impossible. It certainly could not be promoted by a local authority.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: If that is so, why does the GLC's charter for lesbian and gay rights say:
      "Heterosexuality is not natural but acquired"?
      Mr. Hughes: I dissent front that view. I made it clear in Committee that I opposed the clause from the beginning. I believe that the issue is whether people of different sexuality should be given the same facilities by their local council: the same education, the same information and the same support as anybody else. It seems a matter of simple civil liberties and human rights that they should. We should not be judgmental in one direction or another.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) will not seek by law to impose any religious or theological morality on anybody else. He is welcome to seek to persuade somebody to make a choice but not to do that by legislation. People should not be made to put their religion into a second or lower category. That is clearly a parallel implication of the clause.
      I shall support the amendments tabled in the name of the Labour party. I understand and appreciate the fact that Mr. Speaker could not select the amendments I tabled, but I believe that they would have been to the advantage of the clause and the gay community. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) does not share that view. However, the advice that I received from people who looked at the issue carefully was that they would be an improvement. However, I am happy for there to be disagreement about that. I hold to my view. I support the amendments and those tabled by the Government.
      The tragedy of the matter is that the mischief in the Bill will not be dealt with in the House tonight. An enormous amount of fearful public opinion has asked the Government to allow people with different sexual orientations or concerns to have the same status and recognition as anybody else in our supposed pluralist society.
      The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): I have now had an opportunity to look at the dictionary from which the hon. Gentleman was reading a

      391
      few moments ago. He will recall that he read out three definitions of the word "promote" and took exception to the third. Will he accept, on reflection, that the definition to which he took exception is marked as being obsolete? The last example is recorded as having been used in 1623.
      Mr. Hughes: If the Minister had read the definition carefully I would accept that, but he has not. I did not quote that definition. I specifically quoted the ones—I ask him to look at Hansard tomorrow — which are above that on that page in the dictionary and which are both extant. I can understand that, in the heat of the debate and to try to deal with a point quickly, the Minister may have read too quickly. There are two alternative definitions, both of which are available to the courts and both of which are extant, and that is where the mischief lies.
      The Government have an opportunity to listen to the fears that are being expressed by hon. Members about this clause. Although we shall pass these amendments, I hope that very soon we shall have an opportunity to right the wrong that will have been done to many people by a Government who say they know better what is best for them than they do themselves.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I took part in the debate on this clause in December. Since then I have received no letters in support of the lobbying that has been carried out by the homosexual opponents of the clause, but many people have written to say they are in favour of the clause. Many of my constituents find the proposition so self-evident that they wonder why there has been any debate whatsoever.
      I take the view that the Christian Church has taken over the past 2,000 years, which recognises that some people have homosexual orientation but that homosexual genital acts and behaviour are intrinsically immoral.
      I hope that people will recognise that we are not setting out to attack homosexuals for being homosexual, but are entitled to hold the view that homosexual behaviour is immoral. That view has been held by the Christian Church for 2,000 years. St. Paul says that one should condemn the sin but always forgive the sinner. I believe that that is the attitude that Parliament should adopt.
      The second question that we should ask is, how far should the law be concerned in sexual matters? Few would argue that there is a place for the law in sexual matters. The question is, what is the extent of the law's involvement? The law quite rightly forbids a range of perversions such as bestiality, under-age sex and other behaviour. We are happy that the law should have a view on such matters. I have always taken the view that St. Thomas Aquinas, writing in the "Summa Theologica," got it about right:
      "Human legislation, which is enacted for a group composed for the greater part of human beings who are not of consummate virtue, does not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain".
      We set out to deal only with those that have a dramatic and detrimental effect on society.
      I believe that the Government are in tune with public opinion and what is right for our society. We are not saying that people cannot be homosexual. All that the clause does is say that local authorities may not promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle that people should be encouraged to support. Further, it says that in
      392
      schools children should not be taught that homosexuality is a way of life that they should follow. That is a very sensible, clear and simple definition.
      Mr. John Battle: The hon. Gentleman's reference to St. Thomas Aquinas reminded me that in the same "Summa Theologica" he suggested that any Government who treat their minorities with injustice are tantamount to a tyrant form of Government and should be overthrown by the popular support of the people. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that passage?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Bennett: I certainly do and there is nothing in the clause to contradict what St. Thomas said. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who once trained for the Catholic priesthood, should find that this clause has any connection with what St. Thomas said.
      We should be aware of the misinformation campaign that has been run by a number of people in society to stir up fears of and misapprehensions about the homosexual community. I am sorry that the Arts Council—which did not defend the rights of newspapers such as those of the Murdoch group when they were banned from public libraries—should seek to misrepresent the effect of this clause.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) was right when he intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to ask what civil liberties are under attack. The simple answer is that no civil liberties are under attack. The Bill and this clause do not take away the civil rights of homosexuals. The clause merely prevents the promotion of homosexuality, which does not detract from homosexual rights.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The civil rights that are being taken away are for every growing person and young adult to have the same quality of education and the same level of accurate information as anyone else. The right to education should be given equally; there should be a right to have questions answered equally honestly and there should be a right for the same kind of advice, counselling and support as for anyone else.
      Mr. Bennett: There is nothing in the clause that will prevent that. If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the clause he will not see that counselling is not forbidden. What is forbidden is the promotion of homosexuality as being a lifestyle that young people should follow.
      Society has a right to say that there are some things that it does not believe should be promoted in the best interests of children. There are many things that we do not allow schools to promote, and about which Labour Members may agree. For instance, we do not allow schools to promote smoking as a good idea. We believe quite strongly that we should be stopping young people from smoking, and we do not say "You should smoke." We do not believe that we should support racism. We make judgments and decide what schools should teach and how subjects should be balanced in the curriculum. It is not unreasonable to say that the curriculum should he geared to the view that the vast majority of people in our society believe to be right. We want to encourage our young people wherever possible — we know that some people would take a contrary view—to be heterosexual—and to live, if they choose to

      393
      get married, in a loving family relationship. That is the acceptable and proper way for our society to be preserved and maintained.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman say what mischief in the law this amendment is deemed to he tackling? Is there any evidence that he or anyone else can deploy that a local authority has promoted homosexuality? The evidence seems to be very slender.
      Mr. Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman had not just walked into the Chamber, he would have heard, over the past hour. Conservative Members giving examples of what has happened in the past year. [Interruption.] I shall give one or two examples. Haringey council has instructed its head teachers to develop courses to
      "Promote positive images of lesbians and gays".
      Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bennett: No, I have been asked to give examples and I am doing so—
      "in furtherance of its equal opportunities policy involving 'action against racism and sexism as well as against heterosexism'."
      That was from the Sunday Telegraph on 5 July 1986.
      According to The Evening Standard of 23 June 1987, parents in Haringey tore down posters in Haringey primary schools advertising the Gay Pride week organised on behalf of the local authority.
      The GLC's charter for lesbian and gay rights, which I mentioned a minute ago, states:
      "Heterosexuality is not natural but acquired."
      It went on to attack normal sex education because:
      "the current trend towards teaching parent craft assumes that all parents are heterosexual and encourages students to see marriage as the major goal in life".
      There have been quite a few examples, in the past year and a half, of where local authorities in some parts of London have gone out of their way to promote homosexuality as a lifestyle.
      We are entitled as members of society to have a view on that. I am sorry that Labour Members take the view that Conservative Members are not entitled to put forward the viewpoint that is supported by our constituents. Society is entitled to expect all schools to promote a lifestyle which is in accord with Judaic-Christian principles which underlie our society. This clause does no more than ensure that that situation is enforced.
      Mr. Mark Fisher: Having heard the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), it is difficult to know whether to scream or cry. The confusion of thought and misguided instincts that led him to speak as he has done make it difficult to understand what is in the mind of the Government or Conservative Members who will go into the Lobby to support this amendment.
      It is difficult to know whether the motive behind the remarks by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) was genuine intolerance, which the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) displayed by referring to homosexuality as a psychopathic logical aversion equivalent to sadism, or simply misguided mischief and the hon. Gentleman thought that he would make a little political capital or have some fun on the Back Benches. I wish that I were speaking after him so that I could understand more fully what led him to make those remarks.
      394
      Whatever the motive of the hon. Gentleman, or of the Government, unless the clause is amended in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has described tonight, it will do immense damage and cause immense pain and anguish to men and women who just happen to find that their attraction, love and comfort are found in a relationship with members of their own sex rather than the opposite sex.
      Conservative Members have referred constantly to choosing homosexuality. Gays and lesbians no more choose how they feel than heterosexuals choose heterosexuality. This is not a logical choice that people make; this is something that people feel.
      Mr. Wilshire: Presumably the hon. Gentleman has studied all the available evidence from objective academic sources on that point. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments, but I have come to the conclusion that there is a small amount of objective evidence to support what he says and an equally small amount of evidence to the contrary. As long as there are no established facts, we as a society should say that, until it is proved that somebody's sexuality cannot be changed, we must assume that it can be, just in case.
      Mr. Fisher: As the hon. Gentleman has said, there is little substantial scientific evidence on either side. It is not something that lends itself to such analysis.
      Mr. Ken Livingstone rose—
      Mr. Fisher: I shall give way in a moment.
      The hon. Member for Spelthorne should look into his own life. Did he make a logical choice to be homosexual or heterosexual? I do not believe that he or any other hon. Member has made that logical, rational choice. They followed what they found to be loving, attractive and helpful in their lives.
      I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
      Mr. Livingstone: My hon. Friend has just made the point that I was going to make.
      Mr. Fisher: Before looking at the nature and possible results of that pain and anguish, I want to consider the effects of the clause in its present form on the artistic life of our society and upon our libraries. There has been a great deal of discussion in the public press and elsewhere about that. Undoubtedly, if the clause is carried in its present form, with the uncertainty of its legal language, books in our libraries, exhibitions of photographs and fine art in our galleries, plays in our theatres, and films in art centres may be at risk if those buildings are run or controlled by a local authority. As I understand the word "promote", anything that potentially glorifies, makes attractive or preferential, homosexual, gay or lesbian love is at risk as a result of this clause. The Minister shakes his head. It may well be that E. M. Forster, Jean Genet and others will remain on our library shelves, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) so wisely said, not only is David Hockney proud to be a gay person, but much of his work glorifies and has its roots in the fact that that is how he sees the world, having suffered the intolerance and prejudices which are at the core of this clause. He has seen the world through that experience and through those eyes and that is why his work is so powerful.
      Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman made precisely the same point to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts on 25 January. He replied:
      "I have been advised that local authorities seeking simply to provide the public with access to a comprehensive range of artistic and literary material will not be put at risk by that provision."—[Official Report, 25 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 13.]
      Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that is no longer true?
      Mr. Fisher: As other hon. Members have said, assurances from the Treasury Bench will not stand up in court. They have no validity in court. Equally, I would be curious to know who has advised the Minister for the Arts about that. Undoubtedly, the Arts Council has not advised the Minister for the Arts, nor has the Library Association and nor has any regional arts association in Britain. I know of nobody in the artistic community who has so advised the Minister for the Arts.
      Mr. Dobson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that possibly the first effort of any Government Department in this sphere was in 1984 when certain literary giants employed by the Customs and Excise raided the Gay's the Word bookshop in my constituency and, exercising their brilliant discretion, confiscated, because they believed it to be obscene, a book which set out the proceedings of the first medical seminar on how to stop the spread of AIDS. That was — I checked it — on advice from solicitors working for the Treasury. If they are the sort of people who are giving advice to Ministers, everybody had better look out.
      Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The uncertainty and unsafeness of the wording of the clause will potentially put those artistic activities at risk if they glorify and beautify and therefore could be said to promote homosexual life.
      Undoubtedly, the most beautiful story that could possibly do that is the story of Jonathan and David. I am sure that no Conservative Member would presume that that would be stripped from our library shelves if it were owned by a local authority. That just shows how ludicrous the clause would be if it were not so dangerous.
      8.30 pm
      There is a danger greater even than that of the direct, overt and clear problem of the activities or concerns of local authorities' arts policies being challenged in the courts. That is the intangible danger of self-censorship in the arts. If the clause is passed, it is inevitable that people running local authority theatres or other such places will ask themselves whether they should put on the play, or whatever, or whether that would be risking the viability of their theatres or other places. They will perhaps decide to censor their programmes for next year in advance so as not to put the work of their colleagues or local authorities at risk. Such self-censorship is a much greater danger because we shall not know that it is happening. None of us will know what local authority theatres are doing behind the scenes, so a whole area of self-expression and witness to what it is like to live in our society will quietly, gently and unobservably be written out of our culture. That should give us great cause for concern. It will make it impossible to come back in a year's time to discover what is happening. The Minister may return in a year's time and
      396
      say that there have been no prosecutions and that Forster and Genet are still on the library shelves. But he will not be able to say how much self-censorship has been applied when applying for commissions, sponsorships or grants.
      Already, two clients of the Greater London Arts Association have been advised informally that they would be well advised, when making their grant application for next year, not to refer to the words "gay" or "lesbian" and that their grant applications will be more likely to be successful, and their work to prosper, if they ignore and suppress that side of their work. Such hidden self-censorship is more dangerous, and I hope that the Minister will understand and accept that point.
      A third thing is more dangerous still. Local authorities' council chambers will be used as law courts. We already have evidence of that. A motion has been tabled by the Conservative minority group on Haringey's council for discussion on 25 April, which calls on the council to

      "(a) Immediately close the Lesbian and Gay unit.

      (b) Abolish the Curriculum Working Party.

      (c) To cease all measures to promote homosexuality anywhere"

      and so on.
      Mr. Roger King: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear," but when that is debated in Haringey council the constraints of evidence and balance that would exist if the first case were brought before a court of law and duly judged will not exist. In a court everyone could see the terms and conditions on which the judgment had been made, but in the borough of Haringey the issue will be determined more by the balance of power, and the same will apply to other councils. Surely every hon. Member would agree that that is not a satisfactory way in which to interpret the law. It is a perfectly fair way in which to interpret the political mandate of the people of any authority, but in this case the effect of the law will be tested, which must be extremely unsatisfactory.
      Mr. Hind: I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but he has missed one fundamental aspect. If he and I this evening wanted to set up the Westminster gay and lesbian rights association, to raise money and to promote gay and lesbian activities and understanding the problems faced by gay and lesbian people, there is nothing in English law to stop us from doing so. All the clause does is to stop local education authorities from doing that and ramming such ideas down the throats of children in the classroom.
      Mr. Fisher: It is extraordinary, after the clause has been so widely debated in the House, in Committee and in the press, that the hon. Gentleman has not read it. It does not mention local education authorities; it is about all local authorities. The hon. Gentleman should have read the clause before he intervened.
      Any right-minded or tolerant person would find the effects that I have described worrying and undesirable. All hon. Members should recognise that the clause will create an atmosphere of intolerance against, and possibly even witch-hunting of gay and lesbian people. Because promoting their lifestyle is unacceptable, they, by implication, will become unacceptable and dangerous. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said—by implication—that will affect the way courts view custody decisions, it will affect job

      397
      applications and it will affect police activity. I see the Minister shaking his head. Of course it will not affect such things directly, but the clause has already created an atmosphere—witness the cartoon in The Sun today and the many letters that we have all received. An atmosphere in society has already been stimulated and provoked by the clause. Surely the Minister can recognise that that is true. He may not have intended it, but that is how it is.
      This new atmosphere does not want to think about gay or lesbian people or to allow them to express themselves and say what it feels like to he one of them. It wants to turn away from all such things. It is an atmosphere that feels threatened and worried by what people do not understand. Some Conservative Members, like the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), may feel that homosexuality is a mortal sin. No doubt they welcome the fact that gay and lesbian people's rights to express themselves are to be suppressed, driven out and downgraded. Why do Conservative Members feel that way? Some hon. Members have said that it is because of the idea that homosexuality may be promoted. That seems misguided and ludicrous. We are speaking of feelings, instincts. If promotion were effective, everyone would be heterosexual because the overwhelming mass of material in our culture, media, advertising and family lives promotes heterosexuality. Most people are brought up in a heterosexual family atmosphere. That is one of the most determining influences on everyone, quite apart from advertising, Shakespeare and our whole culture, which constantly promotes heterosexual love. If promotion were effective, everyone would be heterosexual. It is perfectly obvious that it is not. The matter is much more complex and personal than that.
      Other Conservative Members talked about protecting young people. I do not think that they know—none of us does—at what age our sexuality is decided. I do not think they could find a single psychiatrist anywhere in the country to support their contentions, which are centred on the idea of protection.
      One of the Government's ideas is more bizarre than any of the others. In another place, the noble Lord Caithness implied that the clause, far from provoking witch hunts and an atmosphere of intolerance, as I fear it will, will allay hostility. I see the Minister agrees with that—but he cannot.
      Mr. Dobson: Humbug.
      Mr. Fisher: It must be a mistake. The clause will not allay anything. Remember the cartoon in The Sun. Have those feelings been allayed by the clause? That cartoon is a direct result of the clause. It is playing and pandering to, and feeding on, the intolerance in our society—
      Mr. Tony Banks: Unleashing the forces of evil.
      Mr. Fisher: That is a strong phrase, but there undoubtedly is intolerance. The clause will not allay that; it will stimulate it.
      We are dealing with two overriding issues. Is ours a society in which people are free to say what they want in the arts and the media? Are they free to talk about how they feel about loving people of the same sex? Are they free to say that even in local authority theatres? Is ours a society in which people are free to love and care for others, irrespective of whether they are of their own sex?
      Surely the Minister will agree that freedom is absolutely paramount in a civilised society. He probably will not
      398
      agree that the Government's record in defending freedom of speech is pretty rotten. But this is far darker, more sinister and more important than other attempts that the Government have made, through pressure on the BBC, banning books or taking people to court. All such things are sad, sick, totally misguided and wrong, and the people of this country will begin to see it. This is more serious and sinister, because a set of people will be made scapegoats by the clause, and that makes it even more painful.
      The second point is that a tenth of people in society will not be able to promote what they feel through artistic works. That is difficult. Undoubtedly, there is a streak of male chauvinism in society. Certainly, any woman in our society would recognise that. They have been marginalised. Their voices have been suppressed and marginalised. They have had to battle to make their voices heard in our arts and media. Undoubtedly, that is true also of gay people. In that respect, I suspect that the norm in our society is not heterosexuality but male chauvinism, which is a different thing. Such people are uneasy and fearful of such things that they do not understand. Whether or not that is the case, unless the clause is amended, as is proposed, it will set back tolerance and freedom of expression and the arts and the media in our society. It will drive things underground. The clause cannot change how people feel. It cannot change what people are attracted by. Although the House cannot delete the clause, as it should, it can at last put down a marker, as the Opposition seek to do, for decency and tolerance by voting for the amendment. I hope that it will do so.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Michael Brown: To sonic extent, the debate is a rerun of the arguments that we rehearsed with the Minister in Committee and on Report. My views are already on the record, and the Lords amendment has done nothing to change them. Various arguments have been expressed by Opposition Members. The clause will be totally unenforceable. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) referred to literature. If he thinks that it will result in any court convictions, he is totally off-beam. The Minister's predecessor rejected the clause just over a year ago, when it appeared in the House of Lords in the form of a private Member's Bill. He said that it would be unlikely to work, that it would be unenforceable, and that it would lead to misinterpretation. As several hon. Members have said, on Report, we did not get any satisfactory explanation from my hon. Friend the Minister.
      I shall repeat the question that was posed not only today but on Report. It was posed also by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). How is it that, 15 months ago, for excellent reasons, my hon. Friend's predecessor in the House of Lords advised the House of Lords to reject the private Member's Bill? What has changed? I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he took the legislation through its stages. How is it that, when he presented the Bill on Second Reading, it did not have that clause in it? That is why the clause must be resisted. Smoke signals are being sent out from the House by the enactment of this unenforceable piece of legislation. The House of Commons is getting itself into a frame of mind, ready to legislate down the road of persecution and prejudice.
      Some of my hon. Friends cannot understand why there has been a reaction from the gay community. The reason

      399
      is that they see the style, character and attitude of the House of Commons being reflected in the clause. Some hon. Members have admitted — I do not take their names or views in vain—that if they could go further, they would, but they are limited by the scope of the Bill. Therefore, if we pass this new clause, even with the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), a smoke screen will go out to the gay community. That is that the character and attitude of the House of Commons in 1988, after several years of reasonably civilised debates, is slowly to reduce an element of the 1970s and early 1980s and to go in the reverse direction.
      The reason is quite straightforward. It is because of the AIDS scare. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) let the cat out of the bag when he suggested that the House had a duty to follow populism. I do not believe that, in matters relating to free society and libertarianism, we have a duty to respond to populism. We have a duty to lead public opinion. This legislation is doing exactly the opposite.
      Mr. Fairbairn: My hon. Friend referred to the gay community as though it were a community. I have many close friends who happen to be homosexuals. They are not a community; they are individual people. The mere fact that my hon. Friend calls them a community, as though they were some sacrosanct church, shows why the clause is necessary.
      Mr. Brown: I am prepared to replace the words "gay community" with "individual homosexuals who have written to hon. Members during the past three or four months".
      Individual homosexuals feel that there is a threat in the clause. I am prepared to concede that there is unlikely to be a direct threat from the clause. The clause demonstrates to a homosexual that the green light has been given to The Sun, the News of the World and other newspapers to have an open season on homosexuality. That fear is well founded. If the clause is passed, we can expect individual members to introduce private Members' Bills, with the possibility that the Government will back further legislation in other respects.
      The Minister has set out his views. He was not able to satisfy me on Report. I am saddened by his attitude. It was a pleasure for me to serve on the Committee, when he steered an otherwise perfectly sensible, good piece of legislation. That legislation has been spoiled by this unnecessary new clause. Even with the amendments, it is an unfortunate smear on an otherwise good piece of legislation. The Minister will not admit it, but, had he known that the clause would provoke such a reaction by various organisations and individuals, he would not have taken it on board.
      I am prepared to accept that certain pieces of good English literature will remain on library shelves. Hon. Members have referred to books by E. M. Forster. Let us suppose that a syllabus for the GCSE examination contains, as is quite possible, books by E. M. Forster. I studied one of his books at O-level. Let us suppose that the school decided to take the class studying that book to see the film "Maurice". I can imagine some people using the clause to prevent that happening. I think that there will be some weird, wonderful and excessive misuses of court time
      400
      because of this irrelevant and unenforceable piece of legislation. I am sad and sorry that my hon. Friend persists with it.
      Mr. Holland: First, I should like to comment on a claim made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) which concerned a Lambeth nursery group. I sought to intervene in her speech to ask for her evidence and I am sorry that she is not in the Chamber at the moment. With a constituency in Lambeth, I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) who was able to intervene. The hon. Member for Edgbaston said, "When parents complain." I have not had a single parent alleging what the hon. Member for Edgbaston alleged concerning any school in Lambeth. There has not been a single individual complaint from parents on those grounds. I have not had a single letter supporting the clause. I have received many letters and representations opposing the clause.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for passing across the literature alleged to be from the Terrence Higgins Trust, which was referred to earlier. The hon. Gentleman may agree that it is not evident that that literature was published by the Terrence Higgins Trust. It looks rather as if it was produced by a local group advertising the Healthline service of the Terrence Higgins Trust. The whole thrust of the trust's argument is precisely to combat AIDS. It is widely recognised that unless literature concerning AIDS is sexually explicit it will not reach its target audience and will in no way serve to combat AIDS.
      While there is next to no evidence of public sponsorship of homosexuality, there is overwhelming evidence of private sponsorship of heterosexual pornography, with indecent displays giving grave offence to many people. That is especially relevant to the clause inasmuch as it affects the young.
      One of my constituents recently sent me a leaflet advertising various forms of sexual aids, including a broad range which I am sure is known to hon. Members, whether or not they use them. In reality, these are very offensive to many people, whether they are vibrators or stimulators, or other forms of sexual aids. The point was that my constituent picked up the leaflet outside an infants' school. He was offended and outraged that it should have been on the pavement outside a school. He asked me what was my view of the impact which that would have on infants or young children if they saw it, and he asked why the Government do not seek to introduce legislation to restrain the availability of such literature.
      It is very difficult to reply for the Government on this matter. They are overwhelmingly concerned to ensure that local authorities are not seen to promote or to be interpreted as promoting any activity which supports homosexual behaviour, yet show no concern whatever about pornographic literature, including literature about bondage or other forms of abuse which is so widely available and so offensive to women, parents and others. One can only conclude that it is available because it serves the interests of profit. It is such a profitable trade that there is no restraint on it, whereas the other does not involve profit but allegedly involves public spending.
      Mr. Fisher: Does my hon. Friend agree with me and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that the crucial difference is that the things he

      401
      is talking about are designed to harm and humiliate people, whereas homosexuality is about loving and comforting and caring for people of whatever sex?
      Mr. Holland: I very much agree with my hon. Friend.
      Grave problems are raised by the wording of the clause, including the amendments suggested in the other place. For example, how does one distinguish in a court of law between a relationship which is loving and not seeking to promote offence and one which is not? The Government seem to be incredibly sanguine about that. The other place seems to be very optimistic that the word "intentionally" will remedy the matter.
      I do not know how many hon. Members have actually studied the issue of intention, or have been able to enjoy what was a standard textbook on that matter in an undergraduate course, certainly read by some hon. Members at a certain university. The book is by Miss G. E. M. Anscombe. The whole point about intention is its ambiguity. Determining what is a fact and the difference between fact and intent is itself ambiguous. Just as the determination of what is a fact may itself be difficult, the problems involving determining intention can be virtually impossible to resolve. That issue is stressed by many philosophers. In some universities that issue has come into the teaching of law. I very much regret to say that in that respect the Lords amendments will not be adequate.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the definition of "promote" is ambiguous, the addition of the word "intentionally" does not remove the ambiguity?
      Mr. Holland: The ambiguity remains and is being compounded. It will certainly be good news for lawyers, as one can argue as long on the meaning of "promotion" as one can on the meaning of "intentionally". The most common-sense course would be to delete both words from the clause and preferably to delete the clause from the Bill.
      The Minister intervened with some enthusiasm when the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about quotations from a dictionary. But the Minister was quite unaware of precisely what that meant. Indeed, it was part of a debate by a renowned philosopher, A. J. Ayer, who recognised that it was indeed difficult to determine the meaning of words. He ended by saying that by and large the meanings of words corresponded with their use in the Oxford English Dictionary.
      Even if one accepts that approach, one still cannot determine meaning unambiguously in an individual context. Wittgenstein stressed that the meaning of words depends on their use, and that the use of words depends in turn on the perception of those who use them, which amounts to their prejudgment of the situation—which, in turn, too often amounts to prejudice. That is the bottom line in the interpretation of those words by those who are likely to bring the actions concerned.
      9 pm
      The Minister's claim that there was no danger in the use of a word in a court action because its meaning had been defined as obsolete or was reckoned as obsolete by the Oxford English Dictionary is absolutely no safeguard with this Government. In retrospect, given the outcome, I am glad to say that I was one of those who, when protesting against apartheid outside the South African embassy,
      402
      found that the rules on picketing had been changed. I was with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and we both had a short ride at the pleasure of the Metropolitan police. The Act under which we were prosecuted was introduced by Wellington after the Napoleonic war. It had not been used since the 1820s or early 1830s, until it was employed, over 150 years later, by the Metropolitan police to justify the restriction on the right to picket and protest against apartheid outside the South African embassy.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I hope that my hon. Friend will not leave this subject without telling the House—indeed, I shall do it for him — that, although we were both arrested, we were subsequently let off without a stain on our characters.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that we can now get back to the amendment before the House.
      Mr. Holland: I shall be glad to get straight back to the amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I think that on reflection you will agree that my hon. Friend's point is not irrelevant.
      Although the redundant clause was rejected by the courts, none the less, the police sought to use it. As that Act had not been used for 150 years, I see no guarantee or assurance — I do not know about other hon. Members—when the Minister says, "The meaning of that word is obsolete. Therefore, there will not be a prosecution." There will be prosecutions, which will be time-consuming and involve a great deal of personal strain and anguish for many of those involved. While my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West and I may be sufficiently thick-skinned by exposure in public life not to be concerned about such matters, many people who are not in public life and who do not face its challenges and responsibilities will suffer from such actions in the courts.
      I have great problems understanding the arguments not only by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), but especially by the hon. and learned Member for Perth Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). The hon. and learned Gentleman has a peripatetic relationship with this Chamber. He is like the Scarlet Pimpernel—we see him here, we see him there and some times we see him nowhere. I very much regret that he is not here at the moment because I should have been glad to have some clarification of what he thinks the clause is about. It seems that, for him, the clause is about buggery, because he stressed that that is an unnatural act.
      I hesitate to suggest this to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I am not sure that I am more expert in these matters than he is. I will none the less put it to him that if one takes a book such as Sade's "Justine" or the play "Marat-Sade", one has certain difficulties in defining a relationship which involves penetration of the back passage as "homosexual". In "Justine"—one thing that many people find abusive — the sexual intercourse between a range of persons and Justine was exclusively by the back passage. Let us be quite clear in this instant that Justine was a young woman.
      There can be no basis for the kind of claims that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made that in some sense a particular form of sexual intercourse is de facto or by association homosexual rather than heterosexual. I very much regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not present to answer certain other questions. Indeed, I am

      403
      sure that he would have risen to his feet, and I am equally sure that I would have given way. For example, what is homosexual about oral sex? I wish the hon. and learned Gentleman was here so that he could assure the House that he has never had sex on any occasion except by one passage and one passage only. If the hon. and learned Gentleman could assure us about that, we would also be assured about several other matters.
      The question of the promotion of homosexuality as a result of events or literature has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) who opened on the Conservative Benches — his speech was extremely persuasive — referred to Benjamin Britten and Peter Pears. Let us consider a performance of Benjamin Britten's setting of the Michelangelo sonnets. I happen to be extremely familiar with those sonnets and Britten's setting of them. In my opinion, there is no question that, by choosing to set those sonnets, Britten approved of the relationship that they reflected. The Michelangelo sonnets were written not to some young woman in Dantesque manner, but to a papal guard. They are quite explicitly homosexual.
      Mr. Fisher: And beautiful.
      Mr. Holland: Very beautiful, especially when they are sung by myself. I will not detain the House with a rendering of those sonnets, unless there is overwhelming support from both sides of the House.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I have heard my hon. Friend sing those sonnets and he tells the truth. I hope that he will regale the House for just a brief moment.
      Mr. Holland: Not this evening, unless joined by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross.
      Mr. Allan Roberts: The only evidence that has been presented by Conservative Members relating to the promotion of homosexuality in schools and its abuse has been quotes from particular newspapers—the Evening Standard and The Daily Telegraph. Is my hon. Friend aware that, on 19 February 1988, The Daily Telegraph produced a list of 100 books that every school leaver should have read? That list included "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabokov, "Collected Poems" by W. H. Auden, "Don Juan" by Byron, the works of Oscar Wilde and the short stories of Guy de Maupassant. I hope that Conservative Members will take that list seriously and that those books will not be banned from school libraries.
      Mr. Holland: My hon. Friend has made an important point, with which I agree.
      The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross passed through Socrates—stamping where others fear to tread—and then moved swiftly on, in a bound, to the Renaissance and started to speak about Leonardo. I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has read Freud's essay on Leonardo's homosexuality and what may have caused it. Several of my hon. Friends have said how difficult it is to date a particular sexual orientation.
      Freud said that Leonardo's sexual orientation was reflected in his art. It appears that his sexuality derived either from an experience in his cot no less, when it was possible that his mouth was brushed by a bird's tail, or in the particular manner in which he was kissed by his mother. I am sure that Conservative Members do not
      404
      regard this as very serious, but I cannot be entirely sure whether the hon. Member for Edgbaston is up with the arguments. I am not sure whether we are safe from the risk that she and others will regard Freud's essay on Leonardo as pernicious in the sense that, by implication, it condones homosexuality, and therefore seek to exclude it from libraries.
      The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross came out with words that, if he reads Hansard tomorrow morning, he may come to regret. He referred to Leonardo's squint. Of all the draughtsmen in the world, Leonardo is surely the last whom one can accuse of squinting. But it seems that the hon. and learned Gentleman disapproves of the creative genius of the Renaissance.
      We have no idea how the clause will be used. I am concerned because it is unsound in philosophical and legal terms. It will give rise to considerable abuse and will bring considerable distress on those in the homosexual community. Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross, I use the word "community" since gays tend to stick together in their social life precisely for reasons of mutual and collective defence. Such self-defence will be made more necessary by the clause. I oppose the clause because of its ridiculous conceit, as well as because of the offence it will cause to many people who, as my hon. Friends have said, have decent, caring and respectful relationships that happen to be homosexual. I recommend to the House that it reject the amendment.
      Mr. Wilshire: We have spent three hours discussing the general issues, and it would seem helpful if we could focus our attention on the Amendment Paper, for a moment or two at least, and consider both the Lords amendments and the Opposition amendments to them.
      The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that after all this time perhaps those of us who have been closely involved with the clause now regret what has happened. I have no regrets. I have worries about some of the things that others have done and said, and before I discuss the detailed issues, may I place it on record once again that I most certainly deplore bigotry of all kinds. I accept that during the debate over the past few months there have been occasions on which 1 have heard bigotry. Equally, I join Opposition Members in deploring what they describe as the gutter press—their words, not mine. In a debate of this nature, salacious and cheap attacks on people will not achieve what is absolutely necessary if we are to get to the heart of the issue—a constructive, friendly and thoughtful exchange of views between people of different opinions.
      As the proposer of what was originally clause 27—I am still trying to keep up with the numbers; at the moment it is clause 28 but I am sure that we shall reach 30 or 31 before the Bill is enacted—I welcome for two reasons the amendments that the Lords have sent us. First, in not rejecting the clause, the Lords have accepted what this House originally accepted—that there is a need for action now and that the Bill is the correct means of taking it. Secondly, the amendments prove the point that those of us who have argued for the clause have always been ready to listen and to take on board suggestions that clarify what was intended at the outset.
      The amendments give the lie to the spurious claims that some of the scaremongers have been putting about. By the same token, I totally oppose the two amendments tabled

      405
      by the Labour party. The first of them seeks to torpedo one of the basic intentions of the clause and the second seems to be a statement of the obvious, which is totally unnecessary in an Act of Parliament. It is interesting that the justification advanced by the hon. Member for Copeland simply fell back on exaggerations that we have heard before, on red herrings with no relevance to the debate and on the scare stories put about by those who want us to change our minds.
      Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman asserts that I exaggerate, although I do not. Does he make the same assertions about the Arts Council, the National Council for Civil Liberties, library associations, various local authority associations and all sorts of other bodies and organisations concerned with freedom and civil liberties in our society? Are they all exaggerating too?
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Wilshire: I shall deal with that question in detail. For the moment I am saying that I was replying to the earlier speeches of Opposition Members. Many of the organisations which have been mentioned, with the exception of the Arts Council, have raised red herrings that have nothing to do with the clause or the Bill. I was suggesting that they have raised red herrings and scare stories, not that they have exaggerated.
      I consider amendment (e) to be a wrecking amendment. It resembles the amendment that the Arts Council tried to get the other place to take on board. It seems to suggest that homosexuality can be intentionally promoted by local government if the motivation is to prevent discrimination or abuses of civil rights. That smacks of the argument that the end justifies the means, an approach that is unacceptable to the overwhelming majority. My postbag—I suspect that this is true of the postbags of many other hon. Members—has been enormously illuminating. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not in his place. He, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), moves in and out of the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman is present when I am not speaking and now, when I am on my feet, he is absent.
      Mr. Tony Banks: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not silly.
      Mr. Wilshire: The right hon. Gentleman helped me by spelling out the policy of the Labour party. I have received quite a few letters on this issue and when he was speaking I wondered whether he would be able to help me to reply to them. I shall read part of the letter that I received from a gentleman who lives in London, SE3. He writes:
      "I have been a member of the Labour Party and I have supported it ever since 1945, yet I totally agree with your views on homosexuality."
      He continues:
      "I have already written to Mr. Neil Kinnock … I have told him that unless he and other Labour leaders repudiate the view that homosexuality is on a par with normal sexuality"—
      He then says that if that does not happen there is no hope of the Labour party ever again gaining power. I wonder whether any Opposition Members can help me answer letters of that sort.
      Amendment (e) has three faults. First, it is wrong in any circumstances for local government to try fundamentally to change our national society. In continuing with this
      406
      theme, I shall try to answer a question posed by an Opposition Member, who asked why I was prepared to support the clause. It is wrong for local government to seek to usurp the rights of this place to discuss the fundamental values of British society. If there is to be a discussion about the promotion of homosexuality, it should take place in the Chamber. If there is to be an attempt to change society, it should be made in our national Parliament and not within local government.
      Secondly, amendment (e) is wrong because it is not for local government to advocate—I choose the next words deliberately — abnormal sexual activity for whatever reason. Thirdly, the amendment is wrong because it is not for local government to divert itself from basic services when those services are so in need of improvement.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman has said that if there is to be any change in our national society in terms of sexual mores, the change should be made in this place. Is he suggesting that if we were to pass a law to the effect that everyone should have homosexual relationships those outside would take it seriously and change their way of life?
      Mr. Wilshire: All I am saying is that the people who say that society should have different values, morals and ethics—I have deliberately kept out of those arguments—and who wish to alter fundamentally national society must do it through the national democratic process and not act in an ad hoc fashion through local democracies.
      Amendment (f) has absolutely nothing to do with the Bill because clause 28, or 29 as it will become, says nothing about discrimination or about civil rights. We have been round the argument for nearly three hours. The clause will not prevent homosexuals from doing anything. It will not deny homosexuals any of their civil rights. The clause is about homosexuality and local government; it is not about homosexuals and their personal lives.
      Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Sexual Offences Act 1967 showed tolerance, compassion and understanding, though not necessarily approval? If gays and lesbians want people like ourselves to stand shoulder to shoulder against the so-called queer bashers, they have to take this gently and steadily and not expect too much. Certainly they should not expect the 90 per cent. majority in the country to allow that to be a subject on the curriculum in schools.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point because it gives me the opportunity to say once again for the record that I am totally against any attempt to turn the clock back on the 1967 legislation. This clause has nothing to do with that.
      The second point raised by my hon. Friend is also relevant. The very fair point that is important about amendment (e) is that again it raises the problem of the ends justifying the means. The idea is that it is wrong to discriminate against people and that the clause will somehow affect civil rights. We must stand up and say that we agree that that must not happen. The way in which we do so is crucial. If things are advocated, as they have been advocated, argued about and abseiled in the last few months, that will produce a backlash. It is not the clause that will produce the backlash but the arrogant, self-assertive, aggressive boastfulness and self-glorification of

      407
      a particular lifestyle which is upsetting the overwhelming majority of the people. The lesson which we can learn is that if we wish to change society and to be seen as reformers, we must take society at its own speed. If we try to stampede society, people will feel threatened and there will be a real risk of a backlash.
      This is why I am in no way sorry that we have been engaged in this debate over the last few months. Over recent years a dangerous head of steam has been building up. The minority have made the majority feel threatened. If we do not take steps to deal with that, pressure will build up. It is to be hoped that the debate that has taken place has had the effect of lancing the boil so that the minority can become aware of the views of the majority and the majority can say to themselves, "Let us try to understand and answer some of the worries of the minority."
      As for amendment (f), as I said at the beginning, I believe it to be totally unnecessary. Local government has already got power to do most things unless the law specifically prohibits it. All the amendment does is state the obvious. The amendment seems to be trying to draw attention to claims about problems which will be caused to particular services. That is complete nonsense, as the past three hours have shown.
      Much has been made about sex education. There are no problems for teachers provided that they handle the subject of homosexuality in a neutral and objective way. It is interesting to note that, although clause 28 has triggered an enormous amount of discussion, there are some important points in the Department of Education and Science circular No. 11/87. Indeed, this circular was available for debate long before the Local Government Bill was considered in Committee. Paragraph 22 of the circular sets the scene for sex education. It states:
      "There is no place in any school in any circumstances for teaching which advocates homosexual behaviour, which presents it as the 'norm', or which encourages homosexual experimentation by pupils."
      I can only express surprise at the indignation of Opposition Members. If that indignation were genuine, it would have focused on the points in circular No. 11/87 long before the Local Government Bill appeared.
      Worries have been expressed that amendment (f) might affect artistic freedom. We need only consider the legislation that seeks to prevent discrimination against people on grounds of race. Over the years since that legislation has been on the statute book, I have not noticed that Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" has been performed any less frequently.
      There is an argument that local authorities should be able to give money to people for counselling services if that helps with problems. I support that, but it is totally spurious to argue that clause 28 has anything to do with that. As I have said elsewhere, I know of no one who has ever argued that the Samaritans promote suicide.
      I urge the House to support the Lords amendments and to reject the Opposition amendments to the Lords amendments. By accepting the spirit of the clause, the other place agrees with us that there is a grave abuse of the real role of local government in this country. Local government is intentionally promoting homosexuality. It is assisting others to do the same and it is trying to portray homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
      408
      By producing the amendments the other place has helped us to clarify exactly what we mean — that our target is local government. By making local government the clear target for the clause, we are answering our critics and we will reassure those who have been worried by the debate that has taken place over the past few months. Above all, by accepting the Lords amendments and rejecting the Opposition amendments, we will do everything that we possibly can to protect our children, our society and above all our future.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I will be brief, but I want to say something about the speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). I felt that her speech owed more to imagination than to truth. I listened to an interview that the hon. Lady gave on Radio 4's "Today" programme. Mr. Brian Redhead asked her to support her statement that she had a great deal of evidence about schools promoting homosexuality. Mr. Redhead asked her what evidence she had and she replied that she had not brought her files with her, but she claimed that she had the evidence. When she was pressed even further, she said "I didn't offer to name any schools." I am not surprised that the hon. Lady has received letters from parents who have been alarmed about the position. They have been alarmed by what the hon. Lady said.
      Dame Jill Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Banks: No. If the hon. Lady will wait a moment, I will give way to her, and that is more than she did to me or to anyone else.
      It is not surprising that parents have become alarmed by the kind of scare stories and fantasies that the hon. Lady has propagated in her various interviews and speeches. She has no evidence and she has never been able to produce evidence, other than that which comes from her over-fertile imagination.
      Dame Jill Knight: I have repeatedly given a list of local authorities in whose areas this has been going on. It seems odd to me that Opposition Members are apparently unaware that local authorities run local schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name the schools."] I have repeatedly given all the names of the local authorities, and this is local authority policy. I must also say that parents were complaining long before—
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Banks: Which schools?
      Dame Jill Knight: I have named them. The hon. Gentleman must not nit-pick with me. If he does not understand that local authority education runs the schools, he ought to go back and start learning about how these things are done—[Interruption.] Let me complete my remarks to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who was good enough to give way.
      None of this clause would have come into being without ample evidence, some of which I have read out tonight. All the parents complained long before I made that broadcast. A pregnant woman was kicked in the stomach and jolly nearly lost her child long before it.
      Mr. Banks: The hon. Lady has not mentioned one school. She is clearly guilty but insane. I rest my case.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: When the Bill was before the House last time, I voted for the clause, because I believed that it would provide a degree of valuable

      409
      protection for the children of this nation against what I saw as a possible over-enthusiasm on the part of a small section of people, many of whom flaunt their homosexuality in a way that I regard as unnecessary. Since then, however, I have been reflecting on the clause, and have decided not to support the Government this evening.
      I have three reasons. First, I think that the clause is unnecessary. Secondly, although I am certain that my hon. Friends had no intention of causing any such development, the reaction to the clause seems sufficiently dangerous and hysterical to make any value that might be derived from it far inferior to the damage that it will cause.
      The third reason is linked to that. I think that we are in serious danger of allowing our desire to deal with various ills in society to spill over into finding nice little target groups on whom the evils of society can be blamed. At present, homosexual groups happen to be that target. That kind of hysteria leads to danger for those in such minority groups. When similar prejudice was evinced publicly against Asian immigrants, when they really were immigrants, it led to considerable dangers for the immigrant community.
      Let me elaborate those points. I find it very strange that, in this enormously permissive and, on the whole, liberal age, it is probably uniquely difficult for a bachelor to share a house with another man — or for a single woman to share a house with another woman—without a kind of prurient voyeurism being beamed upon them, and all sorts of people speculating, often openly, on whether their friendship issues from some kind of physical behaviour, of which they then choose strongly to disapprove. That is extraordinarily illiberal, dangerous and totally unnecessary.
      I believe that if our Lord were here now in physical presence walking about with his group of disciples, there would be plenty of people anxious to view his progress through the world with exactly the same sort of prurient voyeurism as we tend to display now. That is dangerous. What we should be inculcating in our children and the nation as a whole is that relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should be non-exploitative. The partnerships should be equal in dignity and affection, if that is possible. We are in danger of creating an atmosphere in which it is difficult for people to attain that sort of relationship, and I find that distasteful and worrying.
      Homosexuals who have taken it upon themselves to make the maximum demonstration of their anxieties about this clause have done themselves no good. I do not believe that one can promote tolerance or affection by the use of foul language or criminal behaviour. For example, the idea that the secretary of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) should be telephoned in the middle of the night and subjected to obscene language does the cause no good. It is absurd to present that as a full argument against the case. There are extremists on both sides of the argument. They are ugly and unattractive people and their behaviour should be deplored.
      During the debate no hon. Member has addressed the issue of the proper function of the teacher. That function should be to assist a child to understand the subject that it is studying and the world in which it is being brought up. Any teacher who uses his or her position to exert undue influence upon a child to believe something simply because the teacher believes it, or worse, because the
      410
      teacher hopes subsequently to exploit the child by teaching it in that way is a poor teacher. Such teachers are dangerous and should be disciplined out of the profession if they cannot reform.
      We do not need this clause because we are in the process of introducing a Bill to reform education. One of the purposes of that Bill is to bring regular assessment of teachers into being and to improve the discipline of teachers. If a teacher behaves in the way that I have described, the new Bill will make it possible to discipline or get rid of that teacher in an appropriate way. We do not need a heavy-handed clause of this sort to achieve that.
      Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend may have reservations about what happens in schools and what legislation is available to prevent it, but will he accept that there is a whole lot more to local government than schools? There is an awful lot more promotion of homosexuality going on by local government outside classrooms.
      Mr. Rowe: The difficult decision that is faced by any part of our society is where one draws the line to prevent discrimination against an individual or group without appearing in some way to encourage or sell the nature of an individual group. I believe that some local authority officials have gone over the top and, as they did when they tried to prevent discrimination against ethnic minorities, they have evoked precisely the response that they were trying to avoid. I do not believe that that by itself constitutes an adequate reason for this clause.
      We would do well in the House and in society as a whole to do our' best to promote privacy and permanence. As to privacy, we live in a society that flaunts private lifestyles to an extent that makes it extremely difficult for an adult or child to be able to enjoy the proper privacy of their own way of life. The media have responded to the voyeurism that is so widespread in society by pandering to it, and that makes it difficult for many people to preserve their own privacy. It is not society's business what individuals do in the privacy of their own homes, provided that they are not exploiting one another. We fought a hard battle about this matter some years ago, and I fear that this clause might be seen as the thin end of the wedge for the gradual destruction of privacy.
      With regard to permanence, what matters most is the mutual dignity of a relationship. Children should be taught to honour their partner and to strive for a measure of permanence in their relationships and the mutual support and esteem that a permanent relationship affords. Society has failed to promote that, whether it be between friends of the same sex or of the opposite sex, and that failure helps to account for the extraordinary difficulties that we all have in trying to maintain a permanent, supportive relationship in the privacy of our own homes.
      Miss Joan Lestor: Looking back over the years at the subject of homosexuality and lesbianism, I have been struck by the fact that for so long homosexuals were the butt of the music-hall artist. They were stereotyped as being effeminate, made-up, powdered and mincing. This was the general way in which homosexuals were presented to society.
      When I was a girl, people did not talk about lesbianism because Queen Victoria said that it did not exist. Nevertheless, the way in which homosexuals were

      411
      presented was that of stereotyping them as people to be laughed at, to be degraded and to be classified as being something outside the norms of society.
      We hoped that the Sexual Offences Act 1967 would begin to change people's attitudes—I believe that it did —and that we would have a society more tolerant of the behaviour of people whose sex life, as the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said, is entirely their own affair.
      But some of the stereotyping continues. What interests me is that the moment a local authority or group of people challenge that stereotyping and says, "Hold on a minute, homosexuals are not like that. Lesbians are not like that. They are not all stereotypes. They are not all mincing and effeminate and they do not all wear make-up or wigs. Let us present people in a positive way as individuals, making a contribution to society"—as we all are—they are told, "My God, you are promoting homosexuality. You are saying that it is a good thing and something that everyone should emulate."
      9.45 pm
      While all the stereotyping, character assassination and discrimination is going on, most people make no complaint at all. It is extraordinary that when groups of individuals, local authorities or whatever say that they want people, particularly young people, to have a positive image of their sexuality, which they have not chosen, all hell breaks out and we are told that that is actively promoting homosexuality.
      Some hon. Members, although not all, talk about homosexuals and heterosexuals, but some people are bisexual and there are all sorts of degrees of sexuality. People cannot be categorised in the way in which many would try to do.
      The clause is about much more than protecting children. So many of the speeches that have been made in defence of the Government's position have talked not about children, but about all sorts of practices and ways in which promotion is taking place.
      As many hon. Members have said, although some people are supporting this in the genuine belief that it will be a help, they are wrong. What they are really talking about is re-criminalising homosexuality, as it was in the past. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] If we are not talking about that, we would not have had the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). I am glad that hon. Members say that that is not true. I hope that nobody who supports the clause would say that they would go back to that situation.
      But if it were true that the clause is only about protecting children, as one or two hon. Members have said, as did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), there is a solution. The hon. Lady could have gone along to the Department of Education and Science in which I have been a Minister, with all the evidence that she failed to produce, and she could have said to the Secretary of State, "Look, this is what is going on in our schools. Look at this school. Look at that school. What are you going to do about it?".
      If the evidence had been produced—it was not, as has been pointed out—the Secretary of State could have issued a circular or guidelines, he could have pointed out what is already in existence or assisted people in such a situation. That is what could have been done. But no, the
      412
      clause goes much wider than that. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent hit the nail on the head. A climate of opinion is now being created that makes homosexuals and lesbians the butt of those people who are bigoted and prejudiced. It makes them the scapegoats in our society.
      The hon. Member for Edgbaston said that she had been the subject of a great deal of abuse, as had her secretary. She said that her car had been vandalised. What was the point of saying all that, unless she was saying that homosexuals and others who disagreed with her were doing those things to her? My car was vandalised last week, but I do not go around accusing people who hold an opposite view to mine of doing it. It would be completely erroneous to do so.
      It is frightening and worrying that reports from, for example, the gay London group of young people show that there is an increase in attacks upon young gays and lesbians in our society. More of them are being beaten up and 20 per cent. have attempted suicide. Ten per cent. of them are thrown out of their homes and large numbers of them are homeless. Some of the arguments and language used in the debate, and some of the attitudes struck in it, promote intolerance towards homosexuals and lesbians, and should have no place in a modern society. We should not be doing that to people.
      I found the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross frightening. He said that if a child went to a teacher and said that he wanted to steal or do something else bad the teacher would tell him not to, because one should not give in to feelings such as that. He even equated homosexuality with murder, if my notes are correct, and said that people should not give in to such feelings. I cannot understand how anyone who knows anything about law or society can possibly equate feelings of homosexuality or lesbianism with a desire to murder or steal. That is utterly ridiculous. It is all right, if one is heterosexual, to give vent to feelings and express them in any way that one wants. Such people may form any relationships that they want, and that is fine. But homosexuals must repress their feelings, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, because they are as undesirable as stealing, shoplifting or murder. That is an unbelievalbe argument.
      Some Conservative Members, among them the hon. Member for Edgbaston, said that they were not concerned with reverting to the law as it was before and did not want to discriminate or make life difficult for homosexuals—they wanted only to protect children. The hon. Lady, who started all this, offered no evidence that children were in danger. When challenged, she has never been able to bring forward evidence, and none has been produced. If hon. Members are concerned on the basis of no evidence, they should not support the clause.
      Mr. Marlow: It is late; I shall be brief; I shall not give way.
      The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) invited me to speak. I apologise, but it would be ungracious of me not to accept his invitation. I know why he invited me to speak—he was hoping that I would make some injudicious comment that might help him in pursuance of his case. I hope and anticipate that I might disappoint him.
      The first rule of politics is that one can make enemies but never friends. If we do something right, we are expected to do so; but, by and large, we will offend

      413
      someone. On that basis, I understand that many of my hon. Friends want to keep their heads down, and people have advised me to keep mine down on this issue. But there is a case to be made against what has been said by the Opposition.
      Those of us who were here at the time were impressed by the articulation—if that is the right word—of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). He made a speech, as he did three months ago, of great honesty and integrity, and we all respect the points that he made. But 1 feel that he was wrong in his basic premise and alarmist in some of his later remarks.
      The hon. Gentleman's basic premise — I may be wrong—and the basic premise put by hon. Members on his side of the argument was that the hand is dealt. One is born either heterosexual or homosexual. There is another point of view, and I am not saying that it is right, either. That may happen to some people, but some people become homosexual. They are persuaded, converted or, dare I say it, seduced into becoming homosexuals. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury may think he is right; other people may think they are right; but the reality may well be somewhere in between. We must all accept that that may be so.
      The hon. Member is also wrong to say that the measure is anti-homosexual. It is not. There are real concerns among parents that if their children go to school there is a chance, on the argument I have advanced, that some people might seek to convert them from being heterosexual to being homosexual. If they have that concern, it is right and proper that the Government should take account of it. It is therefore right and proper that this amendment should be accepted by the Government.
      The hon. Member for Copeland thinks that it is wrong that the Government should listen to public opinion and take account of it. The hon. Gentleman is wrong also to think that the amendment is anti-homosexual and that it is our desire to drive the homosexual community back into the closet. That is not right at all. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said. Homosexuals have friendships and lovers. They live together. They have a way of life. They are entitled to it. That is their life. It can be beautiful. Conservative Members respect that, too. We are not anti-homosexual, nor is the measure that my hon. Friend put forward.
      Mr. Chris Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if a schoolteacher said what he has said about some homosexual relationships, he or she would quite probably be in contravention of the clause?
      Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman said that in his speech. That is his view. My hon. Friend the Minister might refer to that in his winding-up speech. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is being alarmist in his interpretation of the measure.
      One of the problems is that some Opposition Members have been alarmist and have misrepresented the matter, because they do not understand or believe in the measure or, perhaps, for political mischief. They have misrepresented what the Government are trying to do. They have had the effect of whipping up hysteria amongst the homosexual community—quite wrongly. The danger is that they will provoke members of the homosexual community into a reaction that will have a counter-effect — the danger that this provocation will cause public
      414
      opinion to move against homosexuality when it would otherwise not have done so. I caution Opposition Members not to be alarmist about the Government's measure. There is no need for alarm. The more alarmist they are, the worse the effect they will have.
      The new clause constrains local authorities against intentionally promoting homosexuality or publishing material with the intention of promoting homosexuality. We have heard semantic discussion by the hon. Member for Copeland. Really, does the hon. Gentleman wish intentionally to promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality through the local authorities that the Labour party controls? If he does, it might satisfy some members of the management committees of the Labour party but, by golly, it will turn off its supporters.
      Mr. Pike: Having spoken in the debate on 15 December, I regret that, at this stage, Conservative Members have still failed to produce any evidence in support of the clause. The problem with tonight's debate is that we can consider only the Lords amendment and the amendments that have been tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We need to eliminate the clause from the Bill, but that is not our choice tonight.
      If the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) really believes that the Bill's objectives are limited solely as he described, he is mistaken. He must understand that many people have fears. Indeed, the hon. Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) clearly demonstrated their fears and reservations about the clause.
      Conservative Members have not produced their evidence, but have used a lot of rumour and misinformation to put their case. Certainly there have been press reports that have never been substantiated as to the type of material that is claimed to have been used in schools, or the way in which that material has been used in schools. It is a question not simply of the material which has been referred to by Conservative Members in making their case but of the way in which that material has been used or has been intended to be used.
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
    Question again proposed, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made.
    Mr. Pike: It has to be said that frequently the material has not been used in the way described by hon. Members supporting the clause.
    The hon. Member for Hornchurch said that there was a solid view on both sides of the House that we wished to protect children. He was absolutely right to say that. Of course we all wish children to be protected from sexual abuse, whether homosexual or heterosexual. We also wish to protect them from mental and physical abuse of any kind. There is no dispute whatsoever about that.
    However, the amendment does not deal only with education, as some Conservative Members have claimed. Its scope goes way beyond that. If the protection of

    415
    children is the main criterion on which the Government wish to take action, the Local Government Bill is not the means by which they should do that.
    In my last speech on this issue, I said that, if it were in the Local Government Bill, it would not apply to children being educated in the private sector. If one takes the Government's point of view and says that promoting homosexuality is totally wrong, effectively the clause is saying that it is all right in private education. If one accepted for a moment that there was a problem, and I do not, the amendment would not deal with it.
    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) referred to instructions to teachers about teaching about homosexuality in a positive way. She objected to that. Teaching about homosexuality in a positive way is not telling people receiving education that they should be homosexual, gay or lesbian.
    The hon. Lady really should examine the education guidelines in other fields such as religious education, which state that teachers should give a positive image of religions other than Christianity—such as the Hindu and Moslem religions. I am sure that those guidelines are not arguing that children should convert to those religions. It is right that they should be taught in a positive way about those religions so that they can understand them, just as we believe it is right that they should recognise that homosexuality exists, that people do not make a choice and that homosexuality should he recognised and fully understood.
    In the last debate on this issue I referred to two letters which clearly made that case. One was from a teacher who expressed concern and doubt about the clause. I have had a number of such letters since that debate.[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult to hear at this end of the Chamber.
    Mr. Pike: I have had a number of letters since that debate that have supported my argument and have expressed similar fears to those in the letter I quoted in that previous debate. I have received letters from teachers, youth workers and community workers expressing genuine fears about how they will be inhibited in dealing with problems. For example, a young person may think that he or she is gay or lesbian and want to be understood and given advice. Young people may feel that they are the only gay or lesbian people in the whole world and that there is no one else in that position. They want to be advised that it is not totally abnormal but quite common and that it can be accepted and fully understood. Such a person should have the opportunity to live his or her life in peace and freedom, just as a heterosexual person does.
    10 pm
    Having analysed the speeches by Ministers, including that made by the Minister in Committee, those in the Chamber and in the other House, it is clear that they believe that the clause will be interpreted in a narrow way and that our fears will not be fulfilled. If that is what they genuinely believe, they must recognise that, as I have said many times, interpretation of the clause once the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament will be not for the House to determine, but for the courts. The courts will determine the word "promote" in a way which the Ministers do not.
    416
    I give Ministers the benefit of the doubt because I do not believe that they want to go as far as the way in which the wording may be interpreted if the Bill is carried.
    I sent to the Minister a letter from a youth community worker in my constituency. I asked the Minister to meet me to discuss that letter because it summarised that youth community worker's feelings and fears about the way in which the clause will be interpreted.
    The amendments in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends should he carried because, like the Lords amendments that have gone through, they make at least some improvement to the situation. Even at this late stage, it might be advisable for the Government to say, "We have thought again. We have gone too far. We withdraw the clause and will send it hack to the Lords and ask that it be deleted from the Bill."
    Mr. Dickens: This House should address itself first of all to the reason why the 90 per cent. majority of parents and grandparents in this country feel threatened and intimidated by the 10 per cent.
    Back in 1967, when the Sexual Offences Act was introduced, we said that it was an Act of tolerance, compassion and understanding. I think that it will always so remain. However, it seemed to give the homosexual fraternity an opportunity to run gay clubs, gay centres and gay pubs that specialised in a homosexual clientele, where magazines could flourish and contacts be made, enticing and corrupting others to join their ranks who perhaps would never have done so.
    Much more serious than that are the memories of grandparents who remember Cambridge in the 1930s, when the intellectuals of Cambridge—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must listen to the hon. Gentleman's argument.
    Mr. Dickens: I am not intimidated by the noise, Mr. Speaker. It is like addressing an audience from the stage of "La Cage Aux Folles". I should like to remind hon. Members of that well-known hymn "I am what I am", and this is no illusion.
    I return to my point about Cambridge university in the 1930s. The so-called intellectuals of that time were latching on to every minority group in the hope of gaining power. Many of them flirted with Communism in exactly the same way—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a place where we all express our opinions freely.
    Mr. Dickens: Many of them flirted with Communism in exactly the same way—Conservative Members will agree with this—that the loony Left has attached itself with a sympathetic ear to the homosexuals to snare them into its ranks. That is something we must watch.
    What is the homosexuals' shopping list and why do the 90 per cent. of society feel intimidated? They now want the age of consent to be lowered to 16 years if you please and they want spouses of the same sex to be allowed entry to the United Kingdom as immigrants. They even want to adopt children. Such is the path to be followed by the homosexuals. It is doing homosexuals no favour to flaunt their activities by marches and protests in our cities.
    A few weeks ago I was debating this subject in the Oxford union — [Interruption.] I have to be fair. I listened to a speech by a student who opened the innings for the other side with a straight bat—[Laughter.] That

    417
    speech was one of the best and most moving that I have ever heard. That student was a self-confessed homosexual and he made a sincere speech. I am sure that those who were on my side of the argument were greatly touched by his contribution — [Interruption.] This is a serious subject.—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is getting on.
    Mr. Dickens: The homosexual fraternity should not expect too much from the 90 per cent. majority. There is no way in which that majority want homosexuality to be a subject on the school curriculum. My hon. Friends and I are determined that they will not get it. By the same token, people like me should stand shoulder to shoulder with the homosexual fraternity against the so-called "queer bashers". They are only likely to get that support if they stop continuing to flaunt their homosexuality and thrusting it down other people's throats.[Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We will all digest that. Mr. Livingstone. [Interruption.] Order. Mr. Livingstone.
    Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you not aware that 90 per cent. of this House would like to hear more?
    Mr. Livingstone: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) because he said that he is what he is. All we are asking is that he should allow other people to be what they are. The Bill will not allow that; it will reinforce discrimination.
    I doubt whether people can remember their own early sexual experiences. Conservative Members have told us that there are points in time when one can go one way or the other, that a bit of pressure or persuasion can turn someone into a homosexual or, presumably, a heterosexual. Is there any hon. Member who can say that, at some point in their early years, they faced a conscious choice of whether to be homosexual or heterosexual? Of course not. We all know that that is nonsense. Our sex drives are there before we are aware of their existence—perhaps even before we can speak. We have to ensure that we do nothing in this House that makes it more difficult for people to give expression to their sexuality. Broadly, I support people's right to do whatever they choose as long as it does not impinge on the freedom or welfare of others.
    10.15 pm
    As well as some interesting early reminiscences, several bits of what has now become folklore have been invoked to support the clause. All that we hear is the repetition of vague innuendo. Again and again we have called for the name of one school that is teaching homosexuality. No Conservative Member has been able to name a single school in a county or city in this country that is doing what they claim is now so widespread that legislation is needed to stop it. I have listened carefully, and I have heard only three examples given to justify the clause. One was an article in the Evening Standard and one was an article in The Daily Telegraph. Since when did the legislature base legislation on two articles in newspapers? Before introducing detailed legislation affecting the lives of millions, should we not do a little better than to rely on what some journalist has cobbled together, regardless of whether it is accurate?
    The only example given to justify the measure to which we should perhaps pay some attention is the third—a GLC publication "Changing the World". Hon. Members
    418
    say that all this has happened in the past 18 months. I speak with some authority when I say that it is almost two years since the GLC was abolished. I am sure that Conservative Members were delighted to advance my rapid appearance in this place by abolishing it—and I thank them for it.
    If Conservative Members have copies of "Changing the World", they will see it for what it is. It is a result of two years of debate, discussion and research in which the lesbian and gay community in London came together to produce a list of 142 changes in legislation and administrative practice that would remove discrimination against them. The only one of those 142 recommendations referred to today was the one dealing with heterosexism.
    There is a genuine misunderstanding here. Heterosexism as a term does not mean that we are opposed to heterosexuality or that we wish to discriminate against it. Heterosexism is exactly the same kind of term as racism or sexism. They all describe discrimination against a particular group or class or gender. Heterosexism is no more than a way of describing the institutional and legislative discrimination against homosexuals in our society. If anyone has misunderstood that, I apologise. If hon. Members have thought that those using the term "heterosexism" are in favour of discriminating against heterosexuals, I am sorry, but they are wrong.
    I wish to deal with two points that call into question the sincerity of those who will vote for the measure tonight. There is a problem relating to the protection of children in our society. There is widespread and systematic abuse of children—perhaps beyond anything that we fear at present. [Interruption.] I hear Conservative Members saying "Rubbish." It is not on to argue that one is supporting the clause to protect children and then to reject out of hand the suggestion that there is widespread sexual abuse of children in our society.
    Studies have been undertaken by centres and groups that provide support for those who have suffered from incest. Their works suggest that one child in 10 is sexually abused by a relative. Almost all these instances of abuse involve fathers and uncles within the family and they are directed against their sons, daughters or nephews. Conservative Members who may want proof of this assertion should be aware that the evidence to support it is more substantial and better documented than any of the arguments that we have heard Conservative Members advance in support of the clause.
    I do not accept that the clause is a serious attempt to protect children. I believe that the Government are pandering to bigotry in the hope that that will produce votes.
    There are instances of homosexual abuse of children, and I have brought the issue before the House four times since my election to it. Four times I have asked the Prime Minister to open an inquiry into one of the most appalling examples of the homosexual abuse of children in this century. On all those occasions, the Prime Minister has refused my request. The reason is simple. During the homosexual abuse of the children, MI5 was photographing the perpetrators so that it could blackmail the Loyalist politicians who were committing the acts.
    If the Government are appalled by the buggery of children, why do they cover it up when it is carried out by one of the state agencies? Why is it that every attempt to raise this issue is stamped upon? [HON. MEMBERS:

    419
    "Proof."] Conservative Members ask for proof. Proof is available to the House if it is prepared to assert its right to see the MI5 files, including the photographs.
    However much Conservative Members may try to prevent this issue emerging, enough is known now and enough people are now prepared to talk to make it inevitable that the proof will be revealed. How can any Conservative Member vote for the clause one day while refusing to investigate a well-documented case of homosexual child abuse the day before? That brings into question any claim of sincerity. It opens Conservative Members to the charge of the grossest hypocrisy. They are prepared to cover up homosexual child abuse when it is politically embarrassing for the Government of the day while stamping around Britain trying to stir up hatred against the gay and lesbian communities to try to gain votes.
    The heterosexual community is not living in fear and intimidation as a result of any activities of the 10 per cent. of society that is homosexual. The people who live in fear are those who are killed in the most appalling way by the queer bashers in our society. There is a growing catalogue of the most horrifying incidents—no doubt egged on by the general climate of homophobia in the press and the media and on the Conservative Benches—where thugs have come out on to the streets to murder gay men.
    Mr. Fairbairn: The activities of certain individuals, such as members of the IRA, whatever their sexual habits, are rather worse than anyone to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate is going rather wide of the clause.
    Mr. Livingstone: I condemn any act of violence wherever it takes place, as I condemn any act of child abuse, whoever commits it and whatever the individual's orientation.
    I have one last abiding worry about some of the reasoning that lies behind the clause. The Conservative party whipped up homophobia in the run-up to the last general election and now it feels that it has to pander to the forces that it whipped up. When he was orchestrating the election campaign in the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) made homosexuality an issue in the crudest and grossest way. I hope that he can live with his conscience because of what he has done to demean the lives of gay men and lesbians in Britain, as I hope other Conservative Members can live with their consciences every time another gay man is murdered by queer bashers.
    Mr. Howard: It would be difficult to do full justice to all the varying qualities of this remarkable debate. Many of the contributions have been based, like the amendments to the Lords amendment, on a misapprehension of the nature and effect of the provisions which are before the House. That observation also applies to the campaign which has been waged against the provisions of the clause since the Bill left the House for another place.
    I re-emphasise that it is no part of the Government's intention in supporting the provision to remove the rights of homosexuals to receive council services. As ratepayers and electors, they are entitled to access to council services
    420
    on the same basis as anyone else. There is nothing in the provision which would damage that right. Allegations that the provision would lead to censorship of the arts, stop activities in health care and counselling and prevent local authorities from granting entertainment licences are quite unfounded. I am happy that that was recognised.
    Ms. Clare Short: I do not believe it.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady says that she does not believe it, but it was recognised by the Opposition spokesman in another place, the noble Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who on Third Reading accepted that the clause did not have the kind of restrictive effect which was feared by many, particularly in the artistic world, who had been so worried about it. Of course, he was speaking in sharp contrast to the observations of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) in making that point.
    Mr. Tony Banks: This morning I got from Luke Rittner, the secretary general of the Arts Council, a statement which says that the Arts Council remains deeply concerned at the possible implications and effects of clause 28. The Minister has not satisfied the worries of the Arts Council.
    Mr. Howard: No, we have not satisfied all the concerns, but those, including the Opposition spokesman, who have sat through all the debates in another place have a greater appreciation of the true effect and nature of the provisions than do some others who have been considering the matter from outside.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: Can the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that, if a local authority makes a grant to an arts association to put on a play, let us say, about the life and times of Oscar Wilde, that would not fall foul of the cause of promoting homosexuality?
    Mr. Howard: I find it a little hard to respond to such questions because, when I do, as I did in a letter to which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred in his speech, I am told that nothing that I say is of any relevance because at the end it is all a matter for the courts. Indeed, it is, at the end of the day, a matter for the courts. Opposition Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that the assurances given by Ministers are worthless because at the end of the day the matters are for the courts, and in the next breath pop up with questions about the effect of the provisions.
    The best answer that I can give to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is that it is most unlikely that such an event would fall foul of the provisions. In order for it to fall foul of the provisions there would have to be a deliberate intention to promote homosexuality behind the act of the local authority in funding that performance. I think that it is most unlikely, in the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, that the event would fall foul of the provisions.
    In a speech which was characterised by a schizophrenic approach, of which I shall have more to say in a moment, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) asked for an assurance that we had no intention of extending the purport of the clause to other areas. I think that he specifically mentioned broadcasting and the Arts Council. I am not aware of any abuses in those spheres of the kind

    421
    which have given rise to the need for the clause. In those circumstances, I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he has asked.
    10.30 pm
    Clause 28 was introduced because of the growing concern inside and outside Parliament about the use of ratepayers' money by some local authorities to promote homosexuality. In particular, there was real concern that local authorities were targeting some activities on young people inside and outside schools in an apparent endeavour to glamorise homosexuality. Not surprisingly, parents have become increasingly concerned about public money being used in that way to influence the attitudes and behaviour of impressionable young people.
    Dr. Cunningham: If that is so, and all the evidence is in the Government's hands, why was clause 28 not in the Bill in the first place?
    Mr. Howard: Many of the clauses were not in the Bill in the first place and we will consider some of those later. When the matter was brought forward by the sponsors, my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), the Government shared their view that there could be no justification for local authorities using public money for that purpose.
    Dr. Cunningham: Where is the evidence?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, asks, "Where is the evidence?" There is evidence. I have a list of the evidence. I will content myself with two examples. The first piece of evidence is the publication "Young, Gay and Proud." I have an excerpt from it here and it contains a most explicit description of homosexual activities. The Inner London education authority recommended it for children aged 13.
    My second piece of evidence is from another publication called, curiously, "The milkman is on his way." That also contains very explicit and rather offensive descriptions of homosexual acts. ILEA recommended that publication for children aged 15. It was available for lending from the children's section of a library in the London borough of Haringey, and I have a copy of the sheet which shows that it was taken from the library and used on numerous occasions.
    There is no doubt that there is evidence. There is equally no doubt that these activities have provoked considerable public disquiet.
    Mr. Battle: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Howard: Not yet.
    We believed that removing that source of disquiet would do much to alleviate the resentment that had undoubtedly been building up and that had been having a growing and adverse effect on tolerance and understanding.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: How could the Minister's ministerial colleagues have advised the other place exactly one year before the Minister accepted a Conservative Back-Bench new clause that it should not accept an identically drafted clause because there was no need for legislation of that type and that the wording was dangerously vague?
    Mr. Howard: if the hon. Gentleman studies the record closely he will find that the remarks made by my noble
    422
    Friend Lord Skelmersdale in another place were made about a draft of the clause that differed significantly from the form of the present clause. We must also consider what has happened since the remarks were made.
    When the Bill started its passage last year it was passed without opposition in another place. It then came to this House and was prevented from passing into law by a filibuster waged by an Opposition Member who has since lost his seat. I believe that his filibuster was carried out on the last day that he was an hon. Member of this House.
    In those circumstances, it is reasonable that the Government should have considered the views of another place and of this place and the way in which the wording of the clause differed from that referred to by my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale. When the Bill was before Parliament, Government spokesmen made it clear that they were sympathetic to the intention behind the clause and, in the light of all those circumstances, acceded to the amendment brought forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Edgbaston and Spelthorne.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand that, and I hear what the Minister says. But surely the Government have the same responsibility a year later to caution Parliament about wording that is vague and dangerous. No change in circumstances justifies a Government adopting dangerously wide definitions. Their duty, surely, is to ensure that definition accurately fulfils intention, and does not risk infringing other rights and liberties.
    Mr. Howard: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the vagueness of the wording. We are satisfied that the clause can be interpreted by the courts in a perfectly satisfactory way.
    Let me now deal with the amendments made to the clause in another place. They have the effect of achieving greater clarity—the kind of clarity that I understood the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to desire.
    Amendment No. 10 makes it explicit that the clause is concerned only with the intentional promotion of homosexuality by a local authority. Amendment No. 11 is consequential on that change. The alternative to deleting the words in question would have been a complex prohibition which, in essence, simply reinforced the effect of the basic prohibition. Amendment No. 12 is, we believe, a useful safeguard. It makes it clear that a court considering a challenge against a local authority would be required to consider all the circumstances of the case and come to a reasonable view on the basis of the evidence before it. It would not be sufficient for an authority simply to claim that its purpose was one thing, when it would be clear to any independent observer taking a reasonable view that that was not its only purpose.
    Amendment No. 34 is a necessary amendment to the title of the Bill, which includes a reference to the prohibition of homosexuality by local authorities in clause 28.
    Having made that background clear, let me deal with the two amendments proposed by the Opposition to the Lords amendments. They have been explained by the hon. Member for Copeland. The gulf between the words that he used and the effect of the amendments is almost as great as the gulf that opened up, in the course of the Opposition's consideration of the matter, between the view of the hon. Member for Copeland and that of his right

    423
    hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. When the matter first came before the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Copeland said that he would vote for the amendment that embodied the clause and that he hoped and expected that his hon. Friends would so the same. He spoke, it is true, of certain amendments that he intended to put down on Report, but he said that he would do nothing to change the first part of the clause, which states that a local authority shall not promote homosexuality or publish material for the promotion of homosexuality. He did not wish to change what that said in any way, shape or form.
    In the event, the Committee did not divide on the clause; it was accepted without a vote. That was in December. By the end of January, the Leader of the Opposition had taken an interest in the matter. He made a speech that was widely reported, in which he referred to
    "a pink triangle clause produced and supported by a bunch of bigots."
    It must be very gratifying for the hon. Member for Copeland to know that his leader is willing to express his confidence in him in such resounding terms.
    By February, Labour Campaign Briefing was telling the world:
    "Jack Cunningham and Labour's front bench have made plain their total opposition to Clause 28 … if it should become law Labour is committed to its repeal."
    In my innocence, I always supposed that if one was totally opposed to a clause the appropriate thing to do was to vote against it. However, the Labour party takes a far more sophisticated approach to such matters. In the new Labour party, if one is totally opposed to something, the thing to do is to say that one supports it and will vote for it, refuse to divide in Committee and, when one's leader has declared one a bigot, to put out a piece of paper saying one is totally opposed to it. That is the extent of the humiliation to which the hon. Member for Copeland has been subjected by the leader of his party. It is against that background that the Opposition's amendments to the clause have to be considered.
    Dr. Cunningham: That is a cheap misrepresentation of the position we have adopted from the beginning. We made it clear that we would be moving amendments to the clause. We did so on Report, we did so in the House of Lords, and we are doing so here. Will the Minister now address himself to some of the issues in the debate and to the fears and concerns of people?
    Mr. Howard: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman.
    I shall now deal with the amendments that have been tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Ian Gow: Before my hon. and learned Friend leaves that point, will he please give way again to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend tempts me. As I have said, I have great sympathy with the position in which the hon. Member for Copeland finds himself.
    The first of the amendments tabled by the Opposition, (e), would exempt from the prohibition of the promotion of homosexuality
    "any action undertaken for the purpose of discouraging discrimination against or protecting the civil rights of any person."
    424
    Let me make it plain that it is no part of our intention in supporting this clause to affect the civil rights of any person. We are talking about the use of public money to give preferential treatment to certain people, activities and tendencies. The clause prevents discrimination in favour of a particular purpose—the promotion of homosexuality. Therefore, there is nothing in the clause that would give any local authority any justification for discrimination against homosexuals. To the extent that the Opposition's proposed amendment is aimed at making that clear, the amendment is unnecessary. The clause is already clear enough. Whatever the aim of the Opposition, the effect of what they are proposing is very different. Intentionally or otherwise, their proposal would enable local authorities to continue all the practices that the Government find so objectionable. Let me try to explain why.
    Since the Opposition's amendment operates to exclude from the provisions of the clause action for certain purposes, we are, by definition only, considering those actions that could be affected by the clause. What are those actions? By definition, they must be actions intended to promote homosexuality. Therefore, a council would be able to do anything it wanted, if the amendment were accepted, provided that it could show that, as well as intending to promote homosexuality, it had the purpose of protecting the civil rights of some person. The plain fact is that it is quite unnecessary to promote homosexuality in order to protect anyone's civil rights.
    The second amendment is equally, if not more, objectionable. If the Opposition's purpose is simply to say that what is not prohibited by the clause is not prohibited by the clause, it is unnecessary. Whatever their intentions, we have to look at what their drafting would achieve. It is the effect of their amendment that makes it completely unacceptable. It says that any action, however much it promotes homosexuality, is to be permitted if that action is necessary in the authority's view to provide a service for some other purpose. Therefore, any local authority that intended to get round the clause would simply have to show that in its view it was providing the service for some other reason as well as the promotion of homosexuality. We do not accept that a local authority cannot provide the services its ratepayers and electors require without promoting homosexuality. The Opposition appear to take an opposite view. Its amendment would allow a coach and horses to be driven through the prohibition. It has only to be considered in this way for the true nature of the amendment to become apparent.
    10.45 pm
    The clause has overwhelming public support. Many thousands of worried families in Britain have been concerned about the abuses that have taken place. I shall conclude my observations with a description of how that abuse has grown up. Before Labour Members react with outrage at what I am about to say, I caution them that the words that I am about to use are not mine. Some Labour councils, not all,
    "abused their powers. They took no account of the views of the majority of ordinary people. They launched and financed programmes to aid and abet homosexuality, lesbianism and other minority causes until they became the laughing-stock of the nation … Under the reselection system of Labour councils those minorities apply pressure well beyond their electoral strength. Councillors will be bound to bend the knee. 'Do as you are told, or else' is the theme that determines their reselection. So inevitably all the Labour groups and councils

    425
    will gradually be pressurised into promoting homosexual activity."—[official Report, House of Lords, 2 February 1988; Vol. 492, c. 1000.]
    Those are the words of the noble Lord Mason of Barnsley, who, as Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the last Labour Cabinet, performed more distinguished service for this country than any of those Labour Members sitting on the Opposition Front Bench have clone or are likely to do. There can be no better indication to the people of this country of the difference between the Labour party of 10 years ago and the Labour party of today and the gulf between the words of the noble Lord Mason and those that have come forth from the Opposition Front Bench during the debate on this clause.
    For the reasons that I gave earlier, I urge the House to reject the amendments moved by the Opposition.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: I should like to begin by paying tribute to the hon. Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for their brave and courageous speeches, for standing up to the intentions of this clause and for standing against obtaining votes by bigotry, to which some of their colleagues are putting their names.
    I have noticed a change among Conservative Members since the debates on Third Reading and Report. It is now being said, "The clause will not attack gay rights and the civil liberties of homosexuals; it will not prevent a lot of the funding by local authorities of gay groups and other organisations". Those are the same groups that Tories were attacking so vehemently on Third Reading and Report.
    A massive campaign against the clause has been organised by the Arts Council, local government, the National Council for Civil Liberties and many other organisations. There was a march of 20,000 people in Manchester, at which there was no violence or arrests, protesting against this clause.
    The approach that is now being adopted by Conservative Members is, "Gently, gently, offer faint praise and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." Those who try to use other people's bigotry to obtain votes are as bad as the bigots themselves.
    The bigotry and prejudice still came through, even in the smooth Minister's speech, but he did not produce any evidence. It has always been verdict first and evidence second. He produced no evidence of abuse in schools and he did not name any schools. The Minister quoted one of the few sources that he has been able to quote throughout the Committee proceedings—the book, "Young, Gay and Proud", which he claimed is recommended by ILEA for children of 13. He knows that that is not true. It was put on a reading list for parents by ILEA advising parents of books that they might want to read if they wanted to understand their homosexual children. The Minister is about to intervene, as he did in Committee, and read from the sleeve of the book, which says:
    "Recommended for children of 13 and over."
    That was the publisher's recommendation, nothing to do with ILEA, and it was on the reading list for adults. The Minister knows that.
    Mr. Howard: Is the hon. Gentleman denying that in the reading list issued by ILEA against the title, "Young, Gay and Proud" there appear the words:
    426
    "Its friendly, unpatronising and reassuring tone make it easy to read and very helpful for everyone—13-plus, staff and parents."?
    Mr. Roberts: The Minister has quoted the publisher's notes about a book which was on a reading list for adults and was never recommended by ILEA for children. He gives the lie to his own misrepresentation.
    Let me read a paragraph from a leaflet entitled "Understanding homosexuality". It says:
    "Medical evidence suggests that a person's sexual orientation is formed before the age of five. It is, therefore, unlikely that an adolescent could be turned into a homosexual by an occasional contact. But such a contact might bring to the fore an orientation which is already there but unrecognised. The realisation could put an end to a young person's confusion and unhappiness."
    Hon. Members: Who wrote that?
    Mr. Roberts: I guess that it is controversial literature. It was written and issued by the Mothers Union in 1983 and is still available today. But it will be caught by the clause if the Mothers Union is funded by local government.
    The variety of organisations that may find themselves under attack once clause 28 becomes law is staggering. All they need is to be funded by the local authority. The Minister has made that clear in his speech. The Government will not discriminate against the civil liberties of gays, homosexuals and lesbians; they will just make sure that local authorities do not spend money on them, provide services for them and help and assist them. If that is not discrimination, what is?
    Another pillar of the community, founded by ladies doing good works, is the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. Last year, at its national conference, it voted to take account of lesbian and gay issues, oppose discrimination and, where possible, to recruit people who are homosexual to their management committees. Will the Government now turn on the citizens advice bureaux?
    The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said that the Government were worried not just about schools, but the whole of local government. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said that the clause was just about protecting children, but the Government have produced a clause that has nothing to do with protecting children. According to the advice of lawyers and many organisations, it will make illegal the provision of joint tenancies for persons seeking housing as open homosexuals. It will put in doubt the provision of social services advice and assistance to persons who are uncertain of their sexual orientation. It will put in doubt whether local authorities can refer people seeking advice to social services, and, via social services, to voluntary groups run by and for homosexuals, the provision of grants to students and student unions in higher education, the position of lesbian and gay societies, the stocking and display in public libraries of books and periodicals written by and for homosexuals and the financial support for gay and lesbian centres.
    If that is not the case, why are Right-wing Conservative councillors in places like Manchester threatening that when the clause is enacted they will use it to take councillors to court to prevent such funding and activities? That is what is happening at the moment. Yet the Government say that they are against public money being spent for specific purposes. All those activities may,

    427
    depending on the circumstances and interpretation of the words "promoting homosexuality", be made illegal by the clause.
    The Minister admits that he cannot say how the courts will interpret the word "promote" or the words "intentionally promote". The danger that he is putting the civil liberties of homosexual people in by promoting the clause is unbelievable.
    The other week Elizabeth Taylor was asked on the Michael Aspel show why she got involved with raising money for AIDS research. She said that she was appalled by the silence from Hollywood. She said that homosexuality had become a taboo subject, and yet, as she put it,
    "Hollywood was built by homosexuals."
    That is not true only of Hollywood; there are homosexuals everywhere. Homosexuality is a part of society. So why do people fear it so much? Is it because, as some Conservative Members said, people fear the abnormal? [Interruption.] In the case of the clause, we are talking about fear of abnormal relationships and families. That is what Conservative Members say exists.
    But what is normal? Are single parents, step-parents, heterosexual couples living together, married couples without children, single sexually active heterosexuals and celibates normal? Is what the majority does normal? Most people who get married get divorced. Is that normal? Normal is hard to define. Morality is based not on what most people do but on what is acceptable. I find love, care and respect acceptable, and exploitation, bullying and unreasonable prejudice unacceptable.
    The clause is unacceptable because it is based on unreasoned prejudice. It is a bullying tactic to push homosexuals back into secrecy. It exploits the fear of AIDS and the misinformation that has been whipped up around it. Fear of AIDS has whipped up prejudice against gay people and the Government are cashing in on that. To quote Tom Robinson,
    "The solution is simple. They could do it with ease—stop attacking the patients and attack the disease."
    To listen to some Conservative Members one would think that homosexuals were going around proselytising and that homosexual images were being presented everywhere—especially by local authorities—to convert people. The opposite is true. Heterosexual images are used to sell everything from chocolate to cars. Exhibitions of homosexuality are discreet compared with those of heterosexuality, but Conservative Members think that because local authorities help gay groups, homosexuals and lesbians, everyone will suddenly be converted. What nonsense. What nonsense.
    The hon. Members for Spelthorne and for Edgbaston—
    Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark rose—
    Mr. Roberts: —want homosexuality to disappear, and do not want to know of its existence. The hon. Member for Edgbaston has opposed all sex education in schools for years. She would rather that any complication to do with sex disappeared. From the beginning, the Labour party has stood firmly—
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark rose—
    Mr. Roberts: —against the Government's intention in the clause. My hon. Friends and I made it clear in Committee that we had seen the clause for the first time only briefly and did not know what the word "promote" meant — [Interruption.] If it means advocating homosexuality as an alternative to heterosexuality, we have not changed our position on that. We have tabled amendments to ensure that the clause does not discriminate in the way that the Government refuse to accept that it does.
    If the Government do not seek to destroy the civil liberties of gay people, why will they not accept the amendment, which reads:
    "other than by any action undertaken for the purpose of discouraging discrimination against or protecting the civil rights of any person"?
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech and departed for a moment from his pre-arranged rant, he would have known the answer to that question.
    Mr. Roberts: If the Minister had listened to informed public opinion, or the National Council for Civil Liberties, or the associations of local authorities, he would have withdrawn the clause.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman, whose indignation about the proposal I accept, explain why when he, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the Minister, other Committee Members and I were together in the Committee, we heard the following phrase, said on behalf of the Labour party:
    "I shall vote for the amendment and I hope and expect that my hon. Friends will do the same." — [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1987; c. 1213.]
    That was for this clause as proposed and supported by the Government. Why the change?
    Mr. Roberts: I just hope that the hon. Gentleman's party's campaign on the issue of gay rights — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I shall answer the question in my own way.
    I just hope that the hon. Gentleman's campaign on the issue will be based on the speech that he made today and not on the kind of literature and gay rights campaign with which he and his party have been involved. A June 1987 general election leaflet, entitled "Bermondsey constituency Liberal focus leaflet in support of the Simon Hughes candidacy", states:
    "Labour's support for positive discrimination for gays is a key reason why Labour was not even fit to be the Opposition, let alone the Government."
    It ill-behoves the victor of Bermondsey to lecture us about gay rights.
    Homosexual people are ordinary people made extraordinary or different by other people's and Conservative Members' obsessive interest about what they might, and probably do not, do in bed. Conservative Members' obsession with sex makes me sick.
    Mr. David Shaw rose—
    Mr. Roberts: I shall not give way.
    To quote Michael Cashman, Colin in "Eastenders", who spoke at the gay rights rally in Manchester, we could round up gay people, we could shoot them or gas them, but they will not go away. As long as men and women procreate, they will continue to create homosexuals, and there is nothing that we can do about it, even if Conservative Members want to.

    429
    I urge all those Conservative Members who claim that this is not a bigots' charter and that it is not against the civil liberties of gay and lesbian men and women to vote for our amendments.
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 254.

    Division No. 207]

    [11.03 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Galbraith, Sam

    Allen, Graham

    Galloway, George

    Alton, David

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    George, Bruce

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Gordon, Mildred

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Graham, Thomas

    Battle, John

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Beckett, Margaret

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Beith, A. J.

    Grocott, Bruce

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Haynes, Frank

    Boateng, Paul

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Boyes, Roland

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Bradley, Keith

    Henderson, Doug

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Holland, Stuart

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

    Home Robertson, John

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Buchan, Norman

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Buckley, George J.

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Caborn, Richard

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)s

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Illsley, Eric

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Janner, Greville

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    John, Brynmor

    Clay, Bob

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Clelland, David

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Cohen, Harry

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Kennedy, Charles

    Corbett, Robin

    Kilfedder, James

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Cousins, Jim

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Cox, Tom

    Lamond, James

    Cryer, Bob

    Leighton, Ron

    Cummings, John

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Lewis, Terry

    Dalyell, Tam

    Litherland, Robert

    Darling, Alistair

    Livsey, Richard

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

    Loyden, Eddie

    Dixon, Don

    McAllion, John

    Dobson, Frank

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Doran, Frank

    McCartney, Ian

    Douglas, Dick

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    McFall, John

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Eastham, Ken

    McKelvey, William

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    McTaggart, Bob

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    McWilliam, John

    Faulds, Andrew

    Madden, Max

    Fearn, Ronald

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Marek, Dr John

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

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Fisher, Mark

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Flannery, Martin

    Martlew, Eric

    Flynn, Paul

    Meacher, Michael

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Meale, Alan

    Foster, Derek

    Michael, Alun

    Foulkes, George

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Fraser, John

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    430

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

    Morgan, Rhodri

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

    Morley, Elliott

    Snape, Peter

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Soley, Clive

    Mullin, Chris

    Spearing, Nigel

    Murphy, Paul

    Squire, Robin

    Nellist, Dave

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Steinberg, Gerry

    O'Brien, William

    Stott, Roger

    O'Neill, Martin

    Strang, Gavin

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Parry, Robert

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Patchett, Terry

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Pendry, Tom

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Turner, Dennis

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Wall, Pat

    Prescott, John

    Wallace, James

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Walley, Joan

    Radice, Giles

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Randall, Stuart

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    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)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    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 Cook and

    Short, Clare

    Mr. Tony Banks.

    Skinner, Dennis

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Butterfill, John

    Alexander, Richard

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Amess, David

    Carrington, Matthew

    Amos, Alan

    Carttiss, Michael

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Cash, William

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Ashby, David

    Chope, Christopher

    Aspinwall, Jack

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

    Atkins, Robert

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Colvin, Michael

    Batiste, Spencer

    Conway, Derek

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Beggs, Roy

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Cran, James

    Bendall, Vivian

    Critchley, Julian

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Benyon, W.

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

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Day, Stephen

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Devlin, Tim

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Boswell, Tim

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Bottomley, Peter

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Dover, Den

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Dunn, Bob

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Durant, Tony

    Bowis, John

    Dykes, Hugh

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Eggar, Tim

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Evennett, David

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Brazier, Julian

    Fallon, Michael

    Bright, Graham

    Farr, Sir John

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Favell, Tony

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Forman, Nigel

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Burns, Simon

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Burt, Alistair

    Forth, Eric

    Butler, Chris

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    431

    Franks, Cecil

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Freeman, Roger

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    French, Douglas

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Gale, Roger

    Hunter, Andrew

    Gardiner, George

    Irvine, Michael

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Jack, Michael

    Gill, Christopher

    Jackson, Robert

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Janman, Tim

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Jessel, Toby

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Gow, Ian

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Key, Robert

    Gregory, Conal

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Knapman, Roger

    Grist, Ian

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Ground, Patrick

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Grylls, Michael

    Knowles, Michael

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Knox, David

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Lang, Ian

    Hannam, John

    Latham, Michael

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

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Harris, David

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Lilley, Peter

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Lord, Michael

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Hayward, Robert

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    McCrindle, Robert

    Heddle, John

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Maclean, David

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Hind, Kenneth

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Madel, David

    Holt, Richard

    Maginnis, Ken

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Howard, Michael

    Malins, Humfrey

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

    Mans, Keith

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Maples, John

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Marlow, Tony

    432

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Miller, Hal

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Mills, Iain

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Ryder, Richard

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Moate, Roger

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Needham, Richard

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Neubert, Michael

    Shersby, Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Sims, Roger

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Page, Richard

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Paice, James

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Pawsey, James

    Thurnham, Peter

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Portillo, Michael

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Watts, John

    Price, Sir David

    Wheeler, John

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Rathbone, Tim

    Wilshire, David

    Redwood, John

    Wood, Timothy

    Renton, Tim

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Mr. Peter Lloyd and

    Riddick, Graham

    Mr. David Lightbown.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12 agreed to.

  Local Government Bill
    New clause

      ADDITIONAL PPOWERS FOR AUDITORS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES ETC.
      Lords amendment: No. 13, after clause 29, insert new clause—
      ". —(1) After section 25 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 there shall he inserted the sections set out in Schedule [Sections to be inserted in Part III of Local Government Finance Act 1982] to this Act.
      (2) In section 16 of that Act (auditor's right to obtain documents and information) for the words "for the purposes of the audit", in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted "for the purposes of his functions under this Act".
      (3) This section and that Schedule shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
      (4) This section and that Schedule shall extend to England and Wales only."
      Read a Second time.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Jeff Rooker: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 10, leave out 'two months' and insert 'one year'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 27, amendment (b) to Lords amendment 27, and Lords amendment 35.
      Mr. Rooker: I sincerely apologise to the House for returning to the subject of local government, which is the purpose of the Bill, and delaying the House by seeking to debate, for the first time in the House of Commons, the new powers of the local authority auditors in relation to the new clause and schedule that was slipped into the Bill in the other place—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members whose interest in our proceedings is diminishing please leave the Chamber quickly and quietly?
      Mr. Rooker: I am well aware that local authority issues are pretty gripping to hon. Members, as is suggested by the interest in the Bill itself. Nevertheless, we want to go through some of the remaining Lords amendments simply because in the past the House has never had the opportunity to get from the Government the reasons for the new powers being given to the local authority auditors.
      The changes involved in the part of the Bill relating to the local authority auditors are important structural changes to local government. There is no question about that. In fact, the argument that was deployed as a result of the Widdicombe report said that those changes should be made as part and parcel of a major change. We register our protest at the Government dealing piecemeal with this matter. On the one hand, the powers for the auditors are put in the Local Government Bill as Lords amendments, when powers which are similar to those of the local authority chief finance officers—again something with which the Widdicombe report dealt at length—are being put in the Local Government Finance Bill, which is known to all and sundry as the "poll tax" Bill, and which is still
      434
      upstairs in Committee. Therefore, in two different Bills two substantial changes to the structure of local government are being dealt with.
      I allude to amendment (a) briefly. I do not want to go over all the issues that were raised in the Lords or through all the parts of the clause because I do not think that the House would be with me if I did. Basically, the purpose of amendment (a) is to put off the coming into force of the provisions that give new powers to the local authority auditors. We are seeking to put them off for one year instead of two months. The amendment provides an opportunity to criticise the Government for using the Local Government Bill as the legislative vehicle.
      I wish to put on the record two simple and short points. First, there has been minimal parliamentary scrutiny of the new auditors' powers under the Bill. We must register that point. It is OK for Governments to find things that are technically wrong with a Bill at the last minute and to make changes in the Lords. That is fine and we accept that because it is part of the process of having two Chambers of parliament. However, the debate that has just taken five hours, took five hours only because that clause was slipped in at the end of the Committee stage. In fact, it was slipped in on the very last afternoon of the Committee stage when we had an agreement with the Government, which we were going to honour, about a finish date. It was not as though we could get any extra half days or an extra few hours. We make no complaint about that. However, that is why the promotion of homosexuality took up so much time on Report and so much time today.
      Hon. Members have demonstrated that they believe that the issue of homosexuality is more important than the substance of the Bill—competitive tendering, contract compliance. That is the will of the House. It is no good any hon. Member complaining about the fact that I intend to spend only a few minutes on this amendment. I believe that those hon. Members who spent so much time debating clause 28 should also be made to vote on all the other amendments down for discussion. However that is not how this place works. I believe that what took place tonight was an abuse and should be stopped.
      There was nothing to prevent the Government from including the auditors' powers in the Local Government Finance Bill. We would not have complained about that. By the time the Government inserted the clause relating to the new powers for auditors in the Local Government Bill in the other place the poll tax Bill had already had its Second Reading in this place. Hon. Members will remember that the whole thing was done before Christmas. It would have been possible to add new clauses to the poll tax Bill. After all, upstairs the Government have promoted almost 500 amendments to that Bill and 16 new clauses. There is much more to come. Today we had a statement that further clauses, schedules and amendments on important issues will be introduced to the poll tax Bill even after the guillotine motion.
      The new powers of the auditors will go hand in hand with the new powers of local authority chief finance officers. Those new powers resulted from the Widdicombe report and they could have been included in the poll tax Bill. In that way those powers would have been subject to parliamentary scrutiny. As it is, those powers will not receive such scrutiny and I make no apology for that. The House cannot do its job properly until those hon. Members who are interested in local government, either for party political reasons or as a result of service in local

      435
      government, have the opportunity to scrutinise those matters properly. Indeed, there has been no opportunity for hon. Members to consider the implementation of the Widdicombe proposals.
      I accept that, since the Minister's appointment in July, the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and myself have been locked in Committee almost every day of the parliamentary week. We know what the Minister has been doing, but that means that he has not had the opportunity to sit back and take a long-term view of his responsibilities and what is in the pipeline as a result of reports upon which the Government may wish to legislate, with or without the support of the Opposition — we do not oppose everything.
      The Minister should learn a lesson from this parliamentary fiasco. He should decide that the rest of the Widdicombe report should be put to the House of Commons as a coherent package. In that way the House would be able to consider those legislative proposals and give the package proper scrutiny. If the Minister takes that lesson on board I will not have spent the past five minutes in vain.
      Mr. Bruce Milian: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that the relationship between auditors and local authorities and the new powers of auditors are extremely important.
      It is wholly unsatisfactory that we should be dealing with this matter on the basis of amendments that were moved by Ministers at a later stage when the Bill was in another place. That denied us the opportunity of dealing with such matters at an earlier stage when we were considering the Bill.
      I should declare an interest as parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. Although the provision applies only to England and Wales, the Scottish institute has an interest in audit functions generally; that is why I declare my interest.
      It is nonsense to be giving additional powers in this Bill to auditors to act when they believe that a local authority may be about to behave illegally when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr pointed out, similar provisions in relation to chief financial officers are being dealt with in the Local Government Finance Bill. It is even greater nonsense given that the Minister in charge of this Bill in the Lords said on Report that the Lords intended to move amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill relating to chief financial officers and that there may then be consequential amendments to this Bill in the House of Lords.
      We are dealing with essentially the same question here. Whatever view one takes of the merit of giving the powers, they relate to circumstances in which there may be reason to believe that a local authority may be acting illegally. Certain powers are given to chief financial officers in the Local Government Finance Bill and certain powers are given to auditors in this Bill, but the two matters are very closely related.
      Neither the English nor the Scottish chartered accontants are happy with the proposals. The main reason for that is that it is not the function of an auditor, in a commercial concern or in a local authority, to monitor the
      436
      day-to-day activities of the organisation being audited. Therefore, in the normal course of his business, an auditor will not necessarily know that a local authority is behaving in a manner verging on illegality.
      In my view there is no reason of principle for introducing the powers. However, if they are to be introduced, we need to ask how the auditor will get to know that the circumstances in which he is supposed to act have arisen. If he is to get to know because the chief financial officer supplies him with the information under the powers conferred in the Local Government Finance Bill, his responsibility will be restricted to some extent. If he will have to act only when the information is supplied to him, that at least makes a bit of practical sense, whatever the principle of the thing may be. However, if the auditor is to act on his own initiative, it is difficult to envisage how he will get to know that the circumstances have arisen in which he has been given power to act.
      Even if the auditor acts only on the basis of information supplied by the chief financial officer, there will be problems. What happens if the chief financial officer takes the view that the authority may be behaving illegally but turns out to be wrong after the auditor has exercised the prohibition powers provided for in the amendment? What happens if the auditor then finds that he has caused the local authority expense? Will he be subject to claims for damages? And what happens if the chief financial officer was right in believing that an illegality was involved but the auditor took another view and did not act on his powers? If it is found that the chief financial officer is right and the auditor wrong, will the auditor be subject to action for negligence?
      Those are important issues, on which I shall not elaborate at this time of night and at this stage in the Bill's proceedings. They demonstrate the close connection between the powers given to chief financial officers in the Local Government Finance Bill and the powers given to local authority auditors in this Bill. It is nonsense, and an offence to the House that these provisions are being dealt with in two Bills that are proceeding through the House simultaneously.
      11.30 pm
      The amendment that seeks to put power in the hands of the Audit Commission rather than in those of the local authorities has not been selected for debate. However, it is in line with the recommendations of the Widdicombe report and corresponds with the view of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. If the Government wanted to introduce the procedure, it is a pity that they did not put it in the hands of the Audit Commission.
      The Opposition amendments would improve what I consider to be a fundamentally misconceived provision. A delay of one year would enable the provisions in this Bill and the Local Government Finance Bill to be more sensibly co-ordinated and allow us to see the entire picture. I do not understand why the Government cannot accept that deferral. The argument that the auditors should act only when a significant sum is involved would seem to be one of common sense. I hope that the Government, on reflection, will be able to accept it.
      My personal view is that the provisions in this part of the Bill are fundamentally misconceived. If the Government want to give additional powers to local authority auditors, they should not proceed in the way set

      437
      out in the clause. That which applies in England and Wales is not what applies in Scotland. I would not say that the Scottish procedure is entirely satisfactory—certainly it is not, from a local authority point of view—but it makes more sense than that which the Government seek to introduce.
      Mr. Battle: As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has said, the Government cannot even suggest that there has been proper consideration by Parliament of the issues that are before us. We are left with the impression that the Government are determined to bludgeon these provisions through the House.
      The Government argue that they are concerned about the balancing of budgets, yet on this very day the Secretary of State for the Environment, in his statement and his actions on leasehold arrangements, has pre-empted the new clause, a provision that would empower the auditor to issue a prohibition order if he had reason to believe that the authority was about to take a decision or course of action that would lead to unlawful expenditure. The actions of the Secretary of State today have made the clause redundant.
      The Government's argument is based also on the provisions that are contained in part IX of the Local Government Finance Bill. The Minister said, "It is a part of the new system of financing local government." After today's events, it seems that the system that the Government have introduced amounts to them saying, "Don't finance it at all." That is why the Government need to take swift action to extend auditors' powers. The phrase used was, "The need for a quick pre-emptive act." It is a classic case of: lest they may, prevent. That is not justice; it smacks of vindictiveness. That shows that the Government are out to get local authorities. Perhaps that is what the Prime Minister meant on election night when she talked about the inner cities and said, "We shall get them next time." This is hardly a friendly amendment that can be wrapped up in a glossy brochure entitled "Action for Cities".
      Mr. Irvine Patnick: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made cash available to support her statement. Sheffield has been given £50 million for an urban development corporation. There have been other initiatives over the past seven years. An urban development corporation has been set up in Sheffield and there will be others in other areas.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is all very interesting, but I find it difficult to see any relevance to the matters before the House.
      Mr. Battle: I am sure that I would be ruled out of order if I were to reply that the amount put in matches in no way the amount taken out of local authorities for mainstream funding, which is a crucial issue. That is certainly the case in Leeds.
      The amended clause would change fundamentally the role of the local government auditor not just to that of adjudicator or quasi-prosecutor, as the Widdicombe report put it, but to a much more active role. At present the auditor's powers are retrospective. In future the auditor will be asked to seek out unlawful acts. The Government say that these are pre-emptive powers to be used in anticipation of the accounts. That is a power to fix
      438
      the accounts in advance. Auditors will be Government monitors. Dare I suggest that they will be Ridley's eyes, or Marsham street spies? Once again: lest they may, prevent.
      The amended clause would give power to lay a prohibition order on to put a stop notice on a local authority. No details have been given in the debate, and none were given in another place, about the procedure for the imposition of the stop notice. There were cursory references to guidelines. What does the Minister see as the guidelines, or will it be left to the Audit Commission to draw them up? What happens when the stop notice causes a local authority to break off a major contract and it is left wide open to paying damages? The auditor would be identified, but what about local authority? I am tempted to add that that in itself puts auditors in a potentially lethal position in regard to contract corruption.
      The Government must accept in all natural justice fiat local authorities—in other words, the ratepayers—must be indemnified against loss. I look forward to the Minister's comments and reassurances on that. If the amended clause goes through, it will undermine the everyday working trust between auditors and local authority Officers. Who would be an auditor in those circumstances?
      The auditors' professional body, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, has challenged extension of their responsibilities. In a feature in Accountancy Age, the institute recommended that any legal powers to stop local authorities spending illegally should be vested in the Audit Commission and not in individual local authority auditors. It pointed out that there were other problems:
      "If the powers were to be invoked with any regularity they would soon become a costly and time-consuming obstacle to the conduct of local authorities' business and the auditors' other responsibilities."
      I urge the Government, even at this late hour, to put off the introduction of these provisions which would give new powers to local authority auditors, particularly when other related legislation is being dealt with in the House. The Government should not hijack the Bill at the end of its journey through the House as the legislative vehicle for these provisions; they should use the Local Government Finance Bill. I urge the House to insist that the Government tackle the issue in that way.
      This is another provision to undermine local authorities which is being slipped through Parliament by being tacked on at the end of a Bill. The Standing Committee has been prevented from considering in detail the statutory provision dealing with the powers of appointed auditors in relation to elected members. It verges on constitutional abuse and is another surreptitious shift of power to the centre. The Government are forcing it through the House without giving hon. Members the opportunity to consider it properly. That is an abuse of political power which is being used to bludgeon local authorities because their supporters have the political audacity to vote Labour.
      If the Government are unable to desist from that politically vindictive strategy, can we appeal to them not to be so devious as to put the men and women who serve society as auditors into the heart of the conflict to carry out their dirty deeds? Auditors deserve to be treated fairly as independent public servants even if the Government cannot bring themselves to accept the legitimately and democratically elected Labour council. Although the

      439
      councils may differ politically from the Government, they are damned good public servants and they also deserve to be treated with political respect.
      Mr. Michael Howard: That was an extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). It would be difficult to extract from his remarks the fact that we are dealing with illegal conduct by local authorities, how that illegal conduct can be controlled and what the powers of the auditors should be in relation to that conduct. I had hoped that there would be common ground between the Labour party and the Government on this matter, because I assumed that Labour Members recognised that auditors should have proper powers to enable them to control illegal spending.
      Mr. Rooker indicated assent.
      Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman nods. Although his amendment would delay the coming into force of the powers for a year, which is a little surprising if Labour Members share our view, his attitude falls far short of the language that has just been used by the hon. Member for Leeds, West.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) commented on the fact that we are seeking to extend auditors' powers in this Bill instead of in the Local Government Finance Bill, alongside the new powers which it proposes for the chief finance officer. Those measures were foreshadowed in the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" and are part of the new system of financing local government and making it more accountable to its electorate which is provided for in that Bill. The provisions concerning the powers of auditors in this Bill follow not from the Green Paper but derive from Widdicombe, as the hon. Member for Perry Barr recognised. We consulted on them separately, and I emphasise the fact that there has been proper consultation. The proposal has not been inflicted on Parliament without proper, thorough consultation, and the matter has been fully considered.
      The powers of auditors are not part of an authority's financial administration, but they relate to the legal and regulatory framework in which authorities operate. The two measures are closely related, and we have taken and will be taking steps to ensure that they operate entirely consistently. The new powers for auditors stand on their own and are not dependent on the chief finance officer's powers. We believe that the powers should be introduced as quickly as possible, and I see no case for delaying their coming into force either until the Local Government Finance Bill reaches the statute book, or—this was the second point made by the hon. Member for Perry Barr—until we are ready to make an announcement on our attitude to the other measures recommended by the Widdicombe committee.
      Mr. Millan: Will the Minister give us an idea of the circumstances in which an auditor may detect that a local authority is likely to act illegally while the chief finance officer has not?
      Mr. Howard: I was coming to that point. One of the main ways in which the auditor will obtain information will be from the chief finance officer, although one Lords
      440
      amendment amends section 16 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to ensure that the auditor has access at any time to whatever information he needs for the purpose of exercising his new powers as well as his existing functions. We had the right hon. Gentleman's points well in mind, and we are providing the auditor with powers that he will need to provide information.
      Mr. Millan: The Minister is not answering my point. It is not a question of providing the auditor with powers. In what circumstances will those powers be used where the chief finance officer has not detected that the local authority is acting, or is likely to act, illegally? It is difficult to conceive of such circumstances.
      Mr. Howard: The auditor may have access to many sources of information, apart from the authority. The chief finance officer is an officer of the authority. The auditor will have access to other information—
      Mr. Milian: Such as?
      Mr. Howard: Any other sources. A member of the public or a member of the council may draw information to the attention of the auditor. But I do not suggest that that will be the ordinary way in which the auditor will obtain information. We are providing the auditor with powers to obtain the information that he needs. In many cases that information will come from the chief finance officer, but it is important that the auditor should have powers to enable effective action to be taken to control illegal activity and spending by local authorities.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Milan: Does the Minister understand that if the auditor received information which was not, for some extraordinary reason, available to the chief finance office, the obvious thing for the auditor to do in the first place would be to draw it to the attention of the chief finance officer so that he could exercise his power? I do not believe that the Minister really understands the way in which audits are carried out.
      Mr. Howard: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is that the auditor will have to consider whether the circumstances are appropriate for the exercise of his own powers. He will consider the information that has been made available to him and make his decision in that context.
      Mr. Millan: Without telling the chief finance officer?
      Mr. Howard: No, not necessarily without telling the chief finance officer. I did not say that the chief finance officer would not be told.
      Dr. Cunningham: If the auditor comes by some information from a member of the public or from some organisation, he would first have to verify the authenticity or otherwise of that information with the chief finance officer or the chief executive of the authority. The district auditor cannot he given powers to act on hearsay, gossip or innuendo; he can act only on matters of fact. The people able to verify those matters of fact would be the appropriate officers of the authority who, in all circumstances, will have far more accurate and full information than the district auditor.
      Mr. Howard: I did not suggest that the auditor would act on hearsay. Of course he would not do that. We would expect him to verify any information that he had received

      441
      with the chief finance officer. However, there may be a difference of opinion between the auditor and the chief finance officer. The auditor may regard it appropriate to act in particular circumstances, but the chief finance officer might take a different view. As I said a few moments ago, the auditor has his own responsibilities and powers and his decisions must he taken on the basis of the information available to him in the context of his own powers.
      The right hon. Member for Govan, who acknowledged that the auditor would be immune from suit so long as he acted in good faith, asked whether the auditor would be immune from suit if he did not take action against an authority when it subsequently became clear that action should have been taken. I confirm that the immunity that we are providing in the provision before the House will extend to conferring immunity on the auditor in those circumstances so long as he acts in good faith.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister tell us whether one of the factors that prompted this amendment at this late stage in the passage of the Bill was the recent experience in Southwark? The Minister will be aware that the district auditor recently issued notices against certain present and former councillors in the borough of Southwark. He will also be aware that the group of recipients of notices included 26 Labour councillors, past and present, one independent councillor, three Liberal councillors, two present and one past, and eight Conservative councillors. Later this month they will all give evidence to the district auditor and they all face disqualification and surcharge.
      I believe that I am right to say that that will be the first time that any non-Labour councillors have faced disqualification and surcharge as the result of delaying the setting of a rate, which in Southwark's case dated from 1985. From reading the district auditor's conclusions it appears that the Conservative group, as much as any other, ignored advice from the council and from its officers.
      An argument that we had during a debate on a private Member's Bill in February 1986 about disqualification and surcharge revealed that many of us, myself included, believed that there should be a power of pre-emptive action. Obviously, it is far better that intervention on behalf of ratepayers should take place early, when it looks as if something is going wrong, rather than its being left until much later after the event, when action to recover any loss will take years. The Southwark case is an example. The principle, therefore, strikes me as appropriate and worthy of support.
      The only point that troubles me is one that was raised by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian). I think that the Minister may have misuderstood how the Widdicombe report, for instance, envisages that the powers will be used. The problem is not that the district auditor will be acting on information not available to the chief finance officer of a local authority. Experience suggests that the evidence of a chief finance officer is either that his or her advice may not be followed, or that he or she may not be certain about the result in law—as then perceived and adjudicated by the district officer — of certain actions of council members.
      Clearly, what is necessary is an authoritative decision. Of course, the district auditor will have to go to the chief finance officer, because he will have all the figures; I
      442
      cannot imagine that anyone else will be similarly equipped. But the district auditor, surely, will be acting as the judical intervention, if that is thought appropriate. The merits of whether that will be achievable at notice of a few days or, at most, a week or two, are questionable. If an injunction could be sought whereby the district auditor could intervene—which is the effective aim of the amendment — that method of intervention would seem to be appropriate.
      In Southwark, a meeting is taking place at this moment to set this year's rate. While we need powers for the auditor, or someone authoritative, to intervene at an early stage to protect the ratepayer, we also need to tidy up the system so that officers are equipped with the information and the basis of auditors' decisions and can give councillors accurate and authoritative information as early as possible.
      Rather than base the law only on what is in the legislation, a better course may be to reflect a bit more on the proposal in the Widdicombe report—in conjunction with others—and to seek some form of declaration, as is available in other parts of the law, on exactly what is the duty of the council in a particular circumstance. Although the intention is clearly sensible, I feel that the clause may be somewhat otiose in practice.
      Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on the matters into which the district auditor for Southwark is currently inquiring. But one of the reasons why we think that the power contained in the provisions is so necessary is the frustration that is undoubtedly felt at the working of the present system. It takes a very long time for hearings to take place and for decisions to be made; meanwhile, the ratepayers see no investigation taking place.
      As for the hon. Gentleman's other points, I can add little to what I said a few moments ago to the right hon. Member for Govan. The powers of the district auditor and chief finance officer will not be the same, and will not be conterminous. The chief finance officer will have the power to put a stop on spending pending the meeting of the council, but if the council wishes to proceed it will be able to do so, notwithstanding any reservations that the chief finance officer may have.
      On the other hand, the auditor will be able to obtain an order preventing the spending from taking place. Therefore, they are different powers. The auditor has more extensive powers and, in the Government's view, it is right that he should have those powers as soon as possible
      For those reasons, I commend the Lords amendment to the House and invite the rejection of the amendments tabled by the Opposition.
      Question put. That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:
      The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 175.

      Division No.208]

      [11.55 pm

      AYES

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Cryer, Bob

      Battle, John

      Cummings, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Boyes, Roland

      Darling, Alistair

      Bradley, Keith

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Dixon, Don

      Clay, Bob

      Doran, Frank

      Clelland, David

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      443

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Nellist, Dave

      Fisher, Mark

      O'Brien, William

      Foster, Derek

      O'Neill, Martin

      Fraser, John

      Parry, Robert

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Patchett, Terry

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Henderson, Doug

      Prescott, John

      Home Robertson, John

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Robertson, George

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Salmond, Alex

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Short, Clare

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Skinner, Dennis

      Livingstone, Ken

      Spearing, Nigel

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Stott, Roger

      McCartney, Ian

      Strang, Gavin

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Turner, Dennis

      McWilliam, John

      Wall, Pat

      Marek, Dr John

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Meacher, Michael

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Michael, Alun

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Mr. Frank Cook and

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Mr. Frank Haynes.

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Devlin, Tim

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Amess, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Amos, Alan

      Dover, Den

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Durant, Tony

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Ashby, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Farr, Sir John

      Atkins, Robert

      Forman, Nigel

      Batiste, Spencer

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forth, Eric

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Franks, Cecil

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Freeman, Roger

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      French, Douglas

      Boswell, Tim

      Gale, Roger

      Bottomley, Peter

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gill, Christopher

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bowis, John

      Griffiths. Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Grist, Ian

      Brazier, Julian

      Ground, Patrick

      Bright, Graham

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hanley, Jeremy

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

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

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Burns, Simon

      Harris, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Butler, Chris

      Hayward, Robert

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Heddle, John

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Chope, Christopher

      Holt, Richard

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Howard, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

      Conway, Derek

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Cran, James

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hunter, Andrew

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

      Irvine, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jack, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Janman, Tim

      444

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Page, Richard

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Paice, James

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Patnick, Irvine

      Key, Robert

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Pawsey, James

      Knapman, Roger

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Portillo, Michael

      Knowles, Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Redwood, John

      Lightbown, David

      Renton, Tim

      Lilley, Peter

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Lord, Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Maclean, David

      Ryder, Richard

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Mans, Keith

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Marlow, Tony

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Sims, Roger

      Miller, Hal

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mills, Iain

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Moate, Roger

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Thurnham, Peter

      Neale, Gerrard

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Needham, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Neubert, Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Mr. Peter Lloyd.

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    New clause

      LOCAL AUTHORITY COMPANIES
      Lords amendment: No. 14, after clause 31, insert new clause—
      ".—(1) A local authority or relevant public body shall not enter into a contract under which a company which is associated with the authority or body is to carry out work falling within a defined activity, unless, before entering into that contract, the authority or body has taken reasonable steps for the purpose of securing competition for the carrying out of that work.
      (2) For the purpose of this section a company is associated with a local authority or relevant public body if, by virtue of any decision of the authority or body (including that of any committee or sub-committee thereof in the course of discharging any function conferred upon them by virtue of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, or, in relation to Scotland, section 56 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973)—

      (a) the authority or body, or

      (b) any member or officer of the authority or body, or

      (c) any nominee of the authority or body,

      is a member either of the company or of another company, which, in accordance with section 736 of the Companies Act 1985, is the company's subsidiary or holding company.
      (3) In this section—

      (a) "defined activity" has the meaning assigned by section 2 above;

      445

      (b) "local authority" has the meaning assigned by subsection (2) or, as the case may be, subsection (3) of section 1 above; and

      (c) "relevant public body" means any authority or committee falling within paragraphs (e) to (j) of subsection (1) of section 1 above.

      (4) This section (and, so far as is relevant for the purposes of the definitions in subsection (3) above, sections 1 and 2 above) shall be deemed to have come into force on 11th February 1988 and, accordingly, has effect in relation to contracts entered into on or after that day."
      Read a Second time.
      Dr. Cunningham: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 17, leave out 'is a member' and insert
      'form, whether separately or together, either—

      (a) a majority of the officers of the company; or

      (b) a majority of the shareholders'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, in subsection (4) leave out '11th February 1988' and insert
      'the date of royal assent'.
      Dr. Cunningham: The Government apparently introduced the amendment to block a loophole which they thought they had identified in part I. They apparently believed that some authorities were contemplating setting up private companies to take over defined activities on long-term contracts with the local authorities before the relevant section of the Act comes into effect. If that happened it would have the effect of frustrating the timetable for the introduction of competitive tendering in such authorities.
      We are not aware of what, if any, evidence the Government have in support of the change, although there have been press comments about some local authorities contemplating such action. However, local authorities and their associations are concerned at the introduction of the new clause because of its implications for possible future Government action on local authority companies generally. Moreover, if we are reading the clause correctly, it has some serious implications for the activities of voluntary organisations.
      The Widdicombe committee considered the question of limited companies controlled by local authorities. Its general conclusion was that the case for such companies could he properly assessed only in the context of a detailed appraisal of the requirements of the service in question.
      Nevertheless, it recommended that the law in relation to local authority-controlled companies should be amended first, to make clear that they may be set up only where there is specific enabling legislation, and, secondly, to incorporate safeguards concerning their articles of association, membership and audit and reporting arrangements.
      In April last year, the Department of the Environment requested information from all local authorities on the Companies Act 1985 companies in which they had an interest. I understand that the Department is still seeking responses from some authorities to that questionnaire so the results of the survey were not available—as of a few days ago—to the Government, and they have shown no intention of following up the Widdicombe recommendations.
      Subsection (2) is a highly prescriptive, rigorous definition of what might constitute
      "a company … associated with a local authority".
      446
      The impression is given that, whatever the institutional link with the authority, even if it consists of a single nominee on the board, the company is subject to undue and illegitimate influence from the authority. That seems rather draconian.
      We recognise that the Government's intention to close a loophole in the Bill may be legitimate, but the subsection goes well beyond what we think is necessary. It is surely sufficient to require an authority not to have a controlling influence in a company, either through the majority of its officers or its shareholders. Beyond that, the new clause sets an unfortunate precedent by seeking to control the influence that an authority has over a company by regulating the membership of the company.
      One must examine the objects, purposes and utility of a company, the non-local authority interests it may have, and other relevant matters. A good example of a company involved in one of the defined activities could be a voluntary body whose legal form was that of a company limited by guarantee. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations and other bodies are concerned about the implications of that sort of case. It is important that Parliament does not prejudge wider discussion and consideration of local authority companies on the basis of the Government's current perceived need to block a loophole that may exist in the Bill.
      Examples of companies in which member authorities of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities have interests are a company to run a multi-purpose arts centre, a company limited by guarantee, a charity, a company to make investments to promote the development of industry, the creation of jobs and job training in a borough, a regional tourist board, whose membership is spread among various local authorities, a company to advance public education in a subject such as archaeology within an authority's area, and the membership of a regional library association, which is a company limited by guarantee. There are other similar examples.
      The key point about local authorities deciding to set up or participate in a company is the flexibility that that gives the authority. It is essential that companies should be able to operate speedily, confidentially, and with minimum bureaucracy, or the employment and economic advantages that have flowed from local authority companies involved in these activities might be nullified. If the Widdicombe recommendation that companies may be set up only when there is specific enabling legislation—a proposition that we would not be inclined to support—is accepted by the Government, either much of the employment and economic development activities of local authorities will be curtailed, or such specific legislation will be required. Such legislation must not be as highly prescriptive as the new clause about local authorities' interests in companies.
      12.15 am
      Here again, we have an example of a late addition of considerable significance being made to the Bill in the House of Lords. There has been no time properly to scrutinise the proposals in Committee. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), I seriously doubt whether debating these matters at this time and in these circumstances is an adequate scrutiny of powers.
      Certainly, in addition to local authority concerns, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has advised

      447
      us of its anxieties. Many voluntary organisations have company status, as the Minister will recognise, although they are obviously not public limited companies such as profit-making concerns. Instead, many are limited by guarantee, bound not to make a profit, and subject to the Companies Act 1985. Therefore, the limitation of the clause to cover companies is not sufficiently precise to serve the Government's purposes and needs to be rewritten at least to include an exemption for companies that are voluntary organisations. The definition of voluntary organisation is taken from previous legislation.
      Our understanding of the clause as presented leads us to believe that it will be harmful to the legitimate, effective—indeed, some would say necessary — and beneficial activities of local authorities, and harmful also to the legitimate and constructive activities of voluntary organisations, sometimes on their own account and sometimes in conjunction with local authorities. We know that from time to time voluntary oganisation companies have local authority representatives on them. In such circumstances, it seems that they would be caught by the legislation. That may not be the Government's intention. The Minister may be able to persuade us that that is not likely to be the case, but, for the moment, we believe that it is the case, and that is why we have tabled the amendments to the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the amendments. Local government should be entitled to have discretion to make decisions about such matters. The amendments seem to achieve the sort of compromise that even the Minister should be able to find acceptable. They respect the interests of local authorities of all political persuasions which have shown a desire to be able to work not only with the voluntary sector, although it is important, but independently in the community, while recognising that independence, by making sure that there is no majority domination in such separate companies. I hope that the amendments are recognised as a reasonable compromise between total independence and total dependence on the commercial activities of local government, and that the Government will support them.
      Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) asked for evidence to justify blocking the loophole. On this occasion, I am not sure whether I can give him much evidence.
      Dr. Cunningham: The Minister did on the last occasion.
      Mr. Howard: I did on the last occasion, but not on this occasion.
      This is an attempt to close the stable door before the horse has bolted. The Government have received many reports. Local authorities were actively examining the possibility of setting up companies, consisting essentially of their existing direct labour organisations, to carry out work falling within the defined activities listed in the Bill. It seemed to us that, in some cases at least, developments of that kind were likely to be aimed at circumventing competition, rather than putting direct labour organisations into a fully commercial arm's-length relationship with their parent authorities.
      No other provision in local government law requires competition prior to awarding work to a company when
      448
      the work consists of services of this kind. Therefore, the Lords amendment fills the gap in respect of defined activities. What it requires is hardly onerous. Authorities are to take reasonable steps to secure competition before entering into a contract with an associated company. An associated company is not just any company in which the authority holds shares, because that could apply to companies where the shareholding came about simply as a result of pension fund management. Association exists, therefore, only when the authority is a shareholder by virtue of a decision to that effect.
      I cannot agree to the amendment further to restrict the definition of an authority so that the clause bites only when an authority and its members or officers hold a majority of a company's shares or form a majority of its officers. It is possible to exercise effective control without having a majority in either of those senses. I am sure that on reflection the hon. Member for Copeland will recognise that.
      It is imperative that such provision be retrospective to the date of its announcement, so I cannot accept amendment (b) which would delay its effect until Royal Assent.
      As for voluntary bodies and charities, amendments (c) to (e), which were not selected, addressed those issues. I acknowledge that a number of voluntary bodies and charities are established as companies limited by guarantee and that in some cases the links between those bodies and local authorities are close enough to be caught by the new clause. In many cases, however, the authority provides a grant to the voluntary body, and that will not necessarily lead to a contractual relationship between the two. It certainly seems unlikely that many voluntary bodies will be entering into contracts with authorities to carry out defined activities such as refuse collection and street maintenance. The extent of the problem has been greatly exaggerated in some of the views that have been expressed.
      I should emphasise that these amendments do not in any sense prejudge the wider question of regulating local authority companies generally. The new clause does not prejudge anything; it merely requires contracts for defined activities to be subject to competition where the local authority has a link with the company.
      If there are examples of voluntary bodies which are associated companies entering into such contracts, the new clause would not make that impossible. It would mean only that authorities have to take steps to secure competition from other contractors. That does not seem a huge burden and it will provide a useful check on the value for money secured by using the voluntary body.
      The term "voluntary organisation" covers a wide range of bodies. The definition that the Opposition proposed in amendment (d) encompassed wholly owned local authority companies which are not run for profit, which could well have been how authorities would have set up their direct labour organisations. Of course, amendment (d) would have driven a coach and horses through the new clause.
      We have never considered the provision to be more than a modest measure likely to affect a small minority of authorities, and even then only by way of requiring financial prudence which should not reasonably he regarded as a burden by any self-respecting body. I shall therefore be asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the two Opposition amendments to the new clause and to accept the clause as passed by the other place.
      Dr. Cunningham: With the leave of the House. The Minister's response is not satisfactory. During the last debate he produced bad-natured and abusive representations in place of evidence. This time he freely confesses that he has no evidence at all to support the Government's proposals—as we suspected when we saw the proposals. Nor does his understanding of the implications accord with ours or, indeed, interesting and importantly, with the views of the local authority organisations or of the voluntary bodies themselves.
      The voluntary organisations believe that the new clause would force voluntary organisations to tender for services that they currently provide for local communities. Invariably, those services are based on a joint concern on the part of the voluntary and statutory sectors to promote community development and the provision by local people of flexible services sensitive to local needs. That work is not prescribed by the Government, and in certain areas it is encouraged, but it could be threatened by the new clause.
      Therefore, it seems clear that the broad brush approach of the Government is imprecise and dangerous. Even if a perceived loophole in the legislation makes the Government want to act without any evidence at all, that is bad enough. However, it is unsatisfactory that the innocent activities of voluntary bodies and the local authorities that provide them with their funds should be so threatened. It would be far better to write an exemption into the Bill and thereby remove the doubt. The meals-on-wheels service that is provided by voluntary organisations and companies limited by guarantee could be affected. It cannot be the Government's intention that such activities should be caught by draconian legislation. We shall invite the House to vote on our amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 153.

      Division No. 209]

      [12.25 am

      AYES

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Livsey, Richard

      Battle, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Boyes, Roland

      McCartney, Ian

      Bradley, Keith

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      McWilliam, John

      Clay, Bob

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Clelland, David

      Martlew, Eric

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Michael, Alun

      Cryer, Bob

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Cummings, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Darling, Alistair

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Nellist, Dave

      Dixon, Don

      O'Brien, William

      Doran, Frank

      O'Neill, Martin

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Patchett, Terry

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Fisher, Mark

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Foster, Derek

      Rooker, Jeff

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Henderson, Doug

      Stott, Roger

      Home Robertson, John

      Strang, Gavin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Turner, Dennis

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Wall, Pat

      450

      Wallace, James

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Mr. Ray Powell and

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Mr Frank Haynes.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Holt, Richard

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Howard, Michael

      Amess, David

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Amos, Alan

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Ashby, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Irvine, Michael

      Batiste, Spencer

      Jack, Michael

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Janman, Tim

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Boswell, Tim

      Key, Robert

      Bottomley, Peter

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Knapman, Roger

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Bowis, John

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Knowles, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Bright, Graham

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lightbown, David

      Burns, Simon

      Lilley, Peter

      Burt, Alistair

      Lord, Michael

      Butler, Chris

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Carrington, Matthew

      Maclean, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Chope, Christopher

      Malins, Humfrey

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Mans, Keith

      Conway, Derek

      Marlow, Tony

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Cran, James

      Miller, Hal

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Mills, Iain

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Day, Stephen

      Moate, Roger

      Devlin, Tim

      Moss, Malcolm

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Neubert, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Dover, Den

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Durant, Tony

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Page, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Paice, James

      Farr, Sir John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Forman, Nigel

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Forth, Eric

      Pawsey, James

      Franks, Cecil

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Freeman, Roger

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      French, Douglas

      Portillo, Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Gill, Christopher

      Rathbone, Tim

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Redwood, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Riddick, Graham

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Grist, Ian

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Ground, Patrick

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Ryder, Richard

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

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

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Herris, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hayward, Robert

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      451

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mr. Peter Lloyd and

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Mr. Alan Howarth.

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    New Clause

      COMMUTATION OF SMALLHOLDINGS PAYMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 15, after clause 33, insert new clause—
      ".Any annual or other periodic payments under the terms of any settlement in respect of amounts payable under section 27 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act 1919 which, apart from this section, would fall to be made to a county council or district council by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State may be commuted by him into a single payment, either by agreement with that council or, in default of agreement, by an order made by him in that behalf."
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I must inform the House that this amendment involves privilege.
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This new clause will enable Agriculture Ministers in England and Wales to commute into a single payment, either by agreement with the individual councils or, in default of agreement, by order, payments made under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act 1919 for the losses they incurred in first establishing smallholding estates for the settlement of demobilised ex-service men after the first world war.
      Payments are currently made in half-yearly instalments on a diminishing scale. It is generally recognised that commutation of those payments would be an administrative convenience.
      Mr. Roger Gale: The House will recall that when we last debated this matter I said that I hoped that the other place would show a little more sense than we had demonstrated at that time. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for accepting the amendment in the spirit in which it was tabled in the other place.
      There are five prerequisites for a registration scheme—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has anticipated the next Lords amendment.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    New Clause

      DOG REGISTRATION SCHEME
      Lords amendment: No. 16, after clause 33, insert new clause—
      ".—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the establishment and administration of a dog registration scheme by local authorities, or such other organisations as he may, after consulting with them, designate.
      (2) Regulations made under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument."
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 17, 36 and 37 and amendment (a).
      Mr. Chope: Each of the amendments seeks to improve the already extensive range of legislation that relates to the control and welfare of dogs. The first gives a permissive power to the Secretary of State to introduce a dog registration scheme, the second gives powers to local authorities to deal with stray dogs.
      The new clause which is the subject of amendment No. 16 was inserted in the Bill despite our strong reservations about the cost and effectiveness of a dog registration scheme. At present, we simply do not see how registration would add anything to existing legislation. However, we do not want to delay Royal Assent by having unnecessary argument with the other place and we are therefore content to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Fairbairn: Before my hon. Friend makes this momentous decision, I wonder whether he understands the reasons why dog licences were introduced in the first place. They were introduced in the middle of the last century because there was a major criminal trade in stealing and selling dogs in London. As late as 1889, my father came to London—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did not."] Yes, he did. He was prevented from bringing his terrier to London because he was told by his father that there were men in London who stole dogs. He made the observation that looking out of the bus he did not see any men stealing dogs.
      That is why dog licences were introduced. It had nothing to do with paying for dog wardens, the licensing or registering of dogs or anything else. If someone could not produce a licence, it proved that the dog was stolen. As that criminal purpose has been succeeded by worse, I do not see the point of having licences of any kind at all.
      Mr. Chope: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving us that insight into the reason why the licence was introduced in the first place.
      Mr. Andrew Bowden: My hon. Friend will recall the debate that we had on dog licences before the Bill went to another place. I think that it is probably fair to say that if the Government accept the amendments they are going back on the arguments that they presented to the House only a few weeks ago. I hope that I have interpreted my hon. Friends remarks correctly. I understood him to say that the only reason why the Government are accepting the amendments is that they do not want to have to send the bill back to the Lords. Can my hon. Friend give us a specific assurance that the new clause will not be implemented during the lifetime of this Government?
      Mr. Chope: The Government have no intention of using the powers under the new clause but no Government can bind their successor.
      Amendment No. 17 deals with stray dogs. At present, the police have powers to seize, detain and dispose of stray dogs. Local authorities in Scotland have similar powers, in parallel with the police, under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, while about 100 local authorities in England and Wales have taken the same powers under local Acts. In Committee, we undertook to consider extending this power to all authorities without the need for them to resort to separate, primary legislation.

      453
      Consultation with local authority associations indicated general support in principle. I should also stress that the police will retain their existing powers to deal with stray dogs. This is essential because there are areas, such as motorways, where it is only the police who are in a position to take any necessary action.
      The powers that will become available to local authorities will enable dog wardens appointed by them to seize stray dogs and detain them until claimed by their owners, who will he required to pay all costs incurred in their detention. If the owner of a stray is identified, a notice must be served on him in writing saying that the dog has been seized, and that it will be sold or destroyed if not claimed within seven days. If a dog remains unclaimed after seven days, it may either be sold or destroyed in a manner to cause as little pain as possible. Authorities which choose to exercise this power will be required to maintain a register of stray dogs that they seize.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: First, I welcome the fact that for amazing reasons the Minister has accepted these amendments. It is somewhat paradoxical that earlier today the Secretary of State urged the House to reject the Lords amendments relating to disabled people, he is presumably willing to incur delay and disagreement between the two Houses over that. However, the Minister's only substantive reason for not wanting to disagree with the Lords in this instance is that he does not want to incur delay and disagreement, having already done so on a matter that is arguably of greater importance.
      12.45 am
      Putting that to one side, we are left with the Government agreeing to accept the Lords amendment while saying that they will not implement it. I hope that the Minister will accept that he should have a little more grace in accepting that the Lords have overturned the Government on this issue, they having been given considerable encouragement to do so in this place when we last debated the matter. It was argued that at least there should be a registration system, if not a licence, and that is what amendment No. 16 provides.
      Mr. Fairhairn: There is in that well-known Liberal newspaper, The Scotsman, a headline to the effect, "Support for the Alliance Plummets". Can the hon. Gentleman advise the House what an alliance plummet is and tell us whether it is covered by the registration scheme?
      Mr. Hughes: Whatever the support at present, I do not think that there will be any difficulty in leaving the party of the hon. and learned Gentleman a long way behind before long. Its support in Scotland has been plummeting for some years, not least because of local government legislation, of which the Bill is an obvious example. I guess that the more the Scots hear of the Bill the more likely it is that support for the Conservative party in Scotland will plummet.
      I am glad that the Minister has decided to accept the amendment that I moved when the Bill was last before us. As he knows, the proposal to tidy up the law on stray dogs emanated from the Association of County Councils, which argued that often the police did not want to have responsibility for dealing with stray dogs, whereas the local authority did and was willing to exercise it. The only concern is that local authorities are not yet to receive any more money for the responsibility of dealing with strays.
      454
      To direct a new responsibility and to provide no extra money for discharging it is a tradition with the Government, but that does not mean that it is satisfactory. It is accepted that stray dogs pose a substantial problem, and accordingly the necessary resources should be provided. We are saying that it should be made clear in any given area whether the police or the local authority have primary responsibility.
      The Minister said that the police may want to retain responsibility for dealing with stray dogs in the vicinity of motorways, but experience suggests that it may he better to transfer primary responsibility from the police to local authorities, which have other enforcement responsibilities under this sort of legislation. They should be able to retain their environmental control and responsibility.
      The Government's acceptance of the amendments is welcome but I seek to push the Minister a little further along the lines of amendment (a). Having accepted the undesirable prospect, for him, of accepting amendment No. 16 and overturning Government policy, I ask him to accept the implications of that and to ensure that the scheme that will be written into the Bill will be implemented to curb the nuisance that dogs can cause. I ask him to provide local authorities with the resources to ensure that dogs are less of a nuisance environmentally, more under control and generally looked after more responsibly by local authorities on behalf of the local community.
      Mr. Gale rose—
      Hon. Members: Sit!
      Mr. Gale: I apologise for my eagerness in seeking to speak early in the debate.
      I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has accepted the amendment. It would have been kinder to the House if he had accepted it rather more gracefully and had said that he would be willing to consider implementation. As I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted a few moments ago, there are five ingredients in a registration scheme—that a dog should have a national identification, that the number should be carried by the dog at all times, that there should he one legally responsible keeper, tha the scheme should be self-financing and that the scheme must assist in the financing of local authority dog warden schemes. I add a sixth—that, so far as humanly possible, the Government should have no involvement in it.
      A few days ago, a representative of the National Farmers Union, one of the organisations which support a registration scheme, took the trouble to visit the Wood Green animal shelter, which serves as a model for a national registration scheme. I ask my hon. Friend to consider an invitation to that animal shelter to see for himself the manner in which the registration scheme has been implemented. If, after a visit, we can convince him that it is a practical working scheme, he should consider the implementation of the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Cryer: I hope that the Minister will be able to elaborate on the wording of the new clause which says:
      "The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the establishment and administration of a dog registration scheme".
      Although it is permissive, I hope that the Minister, if approached by a local authority, will consider the scheme put forward. The Secretary of State is shaking his head. It

      455
      appears that the Minister will tell the House that under no circumstances will the Government approve a scheme which is put forward by a local authority and that a local authority would be wasting its time and official power in drawing up a scheme. Local authorities should know, because they are being squeezed in every way by the Government as they are trampled on by every legalistic and other influential means which the Government can muster.
      There is no point in local authorities wasting the valuable time of officials in producing schemes if the Government intend once more to kick them in the teeth, although the amendment is being accepted by the Government and was voted for in the House of Lords. It is the Government who place such emphasis on the importance of the House of Lords as the second part of the legislature. Then they turn round and say to the Lords in effect, "Get lost, because, whatever you do, we will take no notice of it. Although the powers will be there, we will say to local authorities that we will not exercise them." That seems to be flying in the face of the spirit of the amendment which the Lords — the body which the Government defend to the hilt—have made and have sent here for our consideration.
      When the Bill was considered before in the House, there was a great deal of support for a dog registration scheme. I outlined various considerations, as did other hon. Members on both sides of the House, in support of a scheme. I pointed out that a number of my constituents had written to me. One woman could not take her children into a park because of stray dogs ganging up, roaming round and, as she thought, placing her children at risk. Of course, there was also the problem of the dogs fouling the footpaths and the grass so that it was difficult for her to take her children to play freely in the park without the dangerous, offensive and messy business of the children being fouled by dog excreta.
      I mentioned too the headmaster in my constituency who took home a small boy who was suffering from ill health. When he got to the house a Doberman pinscher set about the headmaster. The dog literally had to be dragged off and was subsequently killed. The vet who attended said that that breed of dog was extremely difficult to deal with because often they were untrained and were hard to control. The dog attacked the headmaster so savagely that he was off work for several weeks. The police took no action. The police informed me that there is no legislation under which, once the dog is killed, they can take action against an owner. They cannot take him to court to bring a dangerous dog under control because the dog has gone.
      That omission in legislation should be rectified. The dog that was killed has been replaced—[Interruption.] The portly hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who is so fond of making sedentary interventions, finds all this very amusing. But ordinary people live in fairly modest houses, not the jazzed-up mansion that I imagine he inhabits—with his many suits. That is in stark contrast to the terraced houses in which many of our constituents live, and parents in such houses dare not let their children out because of dogs roaming loose.
      I believe that a dog registration scheme is needed so that we can have some control over dogs that are not properly looked after. There is no bone of contention with owners who look after their animals. There would be no problems
      456
      if everyone was of good will, care and devotion and looked after their dogs well. The problem is that not everyone does. When they do not, it is not the fault of the dogs, but the consequences are visited upon perfectly respectable, law-abiding citizens.
      One such example is a constituent with a six-month-old baby who lives near a house where three Doberman pinschers or rottweilers are allowed to roam loose in the garden — [Interruption.] Perhaps the Conservative Members who find this so funny would put up their hands if they would like a six-month-old baby to be lying in its pram in the garden with those three dogs roaming loose next door. Of course they would not. It is a potential danger, and the dogs have already leapt over the fence. Parents must have some assurances.
      Bradford runs a perfectly good dog warden scheme, but it is not on call when an immediate problem arises. It rounds up stray dogs and helps to contain the problem, but it does not have the facilities to cope. Bradford, like every other local authority, has many more matters on which to spend money and, inevitably, the problem of stray dogs has a lower priority. The dog registration scheme proposed by the House of Lords would be useful if the Government—
      Mr. Ridley: How?
      Mr. Cryer: If there was a fee for registration, the income could be used to extend the scheme. The Secretary of State cannot be so blasé as not to be aware that local authorities are short of money. They must provide education, housing, roads and all the rest, and the dog warden service must have a lower priority.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Conservative Members take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously, as we did when he ably presented his amendment last time. But neither then nor now do I see the relevance of registration. I do not believe that that rottweiler would have acted differently had it been registered. I do not understand what difference it would make.
      1 am
      Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman has obviously been doing some analysis, and he will realise that dogs cannot read the registration document and would not behave differently. But without a registration scheme, the presence of three rottweilers or Doberman pinschers would be brought to the attention of the authorities only when an accident occurred. If an adult is bitten, it may be an inconvenience and it may be painful. If a child is bitten, depending on the age, it could be fatal. Then people will say, "Goodness gracious, we have some dangerous dogs at 24 Acacia avenue." Without a dog registration scheme, it would be impossible to know that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Of course it would be impossible for anyone to take remedial action.
      The police do not take remedial action. That action is provided by the dog warden service, but only when complaints are made. If the local authority operates a dog registration scheme, the authority will be able to help people to look after dogs and provide them with guidance. The authority representative would be able to tell owners that they should have decent premises and that they should not keep three dangerous dogs tied up all day while they are at work. The authority can explain that if owners do not provide the dogs with exercise, they should not be

      457
      staggered when the dogs behave in what might be termed an anti-social manner when they are released. It is simply a matter of help and guidance for owners who do not look after their dogs.
      If Conservative Members believe that some dog owners do not look after their dogs, then they recognise reality. However, if they believe that all dog owners, at all times, supervise, train and exercise their dogs with complete dedication, they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. That simply is not the case.
      The scheme that has come from another place is useful. It is not as good as the scheme that I proposed in an amendment which was designed to help dog owners provide better guidance and better care for dogs and at the same time would have provided better care for the public. Those are reasonable aims.
      I cannot understand the Minister's obdurate refusal to accept the provision. It fits in perfectly with his philosophy, which is not for collective provision out of general taxation revenue, but for specific charges. Where people use facilities, the Government argue that they should be charged because that is much closer to the philosophy of the market place. The Minister has been obdurate; perhaps that results from the fact that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State glowers at him constantly. I suppose that that is enough to frighten most reasonable people in the Conservative party.
      However, the Minister has not provided a philosophical reason to tell local authorities, "We've got the legislation. It's come from the place we revere." Truth to tell, most members of the Conservative party try to get into the other place at some point in their lives—
      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: And one or two Labour Members.
      Mr. Cryer: Another sedentary intervention. Of course one or two Labour Members try to get to another place, but they are, thank God, a minority. The majority of Conservatives dedicate their political careers to reaching the other place. Yet when it comes to producing a tiny piece of sensible legislation, the Government obdurately refuse even to consider implementing it. That is a matter of deep regret.
      Mr. Peter Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Minister's grudging acceptance of the amendments from another place will be a gross disappointment for many people inside and outside the House who strongly believe that a registration scheme would help. Now that they see that such a scheme is approaching the statute book, they will not be satisfied for it to remain a dead letter. They will constantly press hon. Members to remind my hon. Friend the Minister and his ministerial colleagues that the provisions exist and should be used.
      Even after my hon. Friend the Minister's earlier comments, I urge him to reconsider the possibility of looking closely at schemes produced by local authorities and, as the clause seems to suggest, bodies other than local authorities which might administer such a scheme.
      If proposals are brought forward, if people make the effort to produce them, they deserve the care and attention that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues can give them. I commend the amendments and trust that they are the forerunners of action on the registration of dogs.
      Mr. Pike: I will be very brief because I do not want to delay the House. I was a member of the Select Committee on the Environment that considered the question of dog licences on several occasions, and I am aware that some pressure must have been brought to bear on the Government to deal with the present crazy situation in which we spend far more collecting the licence fee than we receive. I also want to speak from my experience in Burnley about banning dogs in a few parks.
      I am well aware of the controversy that can arise on issues affecting dogs. I believe that the present licence system is stupid and crazy and cannot go on, but what we are to do if we do not abolish it is a different issue. Speaking, as I say from local government experience, I feel that we should have reservations about allowing local authorities to determine the fixing of a local fee in any registration scheme. That is quite contrary to my normal stance, which is to disagree with the Government taking powers away from local authorities. However, I recognise the difficulties that will be caused—difficulties out of all proportion to the decision involved.
      I believe that there is a case for a national registration scheme, with a fixed fee at national level to be operated by every local authority. The provision introduced by the Lords for the Secretary of State to consult with a view to setting up such a scheme should not be ignored. It was somewhat regrettable that the Minister implied that the Government would accept the amendment but take no notice of it and hold no consultations. Perhaps at the end of such consultations the Government would say that the scheme was not a goer; nevertheless, I feel that they should look at it.
      The Association of District Councils has expressed the view that the amendment is worth while and should be pursued. I am sure that many other hon. Members will also have received a letter from Michael Ashley, the assistant secretary with responsibility for community services, who writes:
      "The ADC gave support to the amendment and believes that a registration scheme with a once-only fee of about £15 will meet the objective of getting dog owners to take their responsibilities seriously and enable district councils to provide an effective dog warden service."
      I think that those two points are worthy of consideration and consultation. I do not disagree with the Government's line on the amendment, but I hope that they will be a bit more positive, that there will be some genuine consultation and that a scheme can be set up that will allow local authorities to deal better with the problems of dogs.
      Mr. Marlow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government on their sagacity in accepting the amendment. The last time that this issue was debated in the House, there was something of a punch-up and a small revolt on this side of the Chamber. Their Lordships, in their wisdom, have introduced this amendment, and the Government, in their wisdom, have come to understand the will of both Houses of Parliament and have now accepted the amendment. I hope that my hon. Friend, despite what he has said this evening and his lack of enthusiasm, will come forward with an order before too long.
      The amendment, as I understand it, will allow local authorities to introduce schemes for registering dogs and raising funds that they will be able to spend on schemes for the control and welfare of dogs within their individual

      459
      local authority areas. I imagine that the limits on the amount that can be raised will be set by central Government.
      Many of my hon. Friends rightly have a horror of bureaucracy, and I have a horror of it as well. But I put it to my hon. Friends that in some parts of the country—in the urban and inner-city areas mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)—there is a real problem of dog noise, dog nuisance, dog disease and swarms of dogs roaming the streets. In those areas it is probably the strongest local problem that comes to Members of Parliament. My area is not as deprived as that of the hon. Member for Bradford, South but I receive a great deal of correspondence on the problem of dog nuisance and there is very little that we can do about it at the moment.
      The Lords amendments will allow a dedicated source of funds to provide wardens to deal with this very real problem that disfigures so many of our inner city areas. At the moment, we are introducing schemes for local government finance which will make it more difficult for the areas represented by Labour Members to raise and spend money. The last thing they will do when they are being squeezed of finance, which they will be—I am not against that—is seek to spend what little money they have on dog warden schemes. The order, if introduced, will allow a special sum of money to be used to address the problem; otherwise nothing will happen.
      I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider this issue, to look at it symathetically and, hopefully, to come forward with an order. The great beauty of this amendment is that in the past, to do anything about this problem, we have required primary legislation, a dogs Bill. No Government would gird themselves up against the opposition they would meet. People would say that it was a trivial measure. It would be putting their head in the dog's mouth, and no Government would risk that because they would get their head bitten off. However, an order, late at night, which could introduce exactly the same legislation is sexy and exciting. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to let us have one quickly.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: It is not often that I find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) about anything. However, there is an overwhelming case for having a national dog licensing scheme set at a reasonable rate in order to provide funds to enable local authorities to provide the services that are required.
      I was a little disturbed to hear what the Minister said this evening. He agreed to the amendment but said that there is no intention of implementing it in England and Wales. However, two Secretaries of State are referred to in the Bill. Since a Minister from the Scottish Office is sitting on the Government Front Bench and since there will be scope for introducing separate orders affecting Scotland, it would be useful if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) could give us some indication as to whether it would be possible, or, indeed whether it is likely, that the Scottish Office would be prepared to introduce an order to enable local authorities in Scotland to introduce licensing schemes on
      460
      the basis of the Lords amendment, which seems to be a constructive one. I hope that it will not remain a dead letter.
      Mr. Chope: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
      The Lords amendment gives my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the power to make regulations. It does not require him to do so. I can understand that some hon. Members may have wished the amendment to say that it should require my right hon. Friend to make regulations but that is not what it provides. It is perfectly right and proper that we should be open with the House and say that the Government have no intention whatsoever of making the regulations and exercising the power being given by the amendment.
      Mr. Marlow: Having listened to the debate, can my hon. Friend say why the Government have no intention of doing that?
      Mr. Chope: Yes, I can say why the Government have no intention of making the regulations. There are two separate rationales put forward in favour of a registration scheme. The first is to raise money for local authorities in order to enable them to exercise greater control over dogs in their area. In effect, that would be to go back to a dog licensing scheme, which we have abolished by the Bill. The alternative rationale for dog registration would be to improve the identification of dogs that commit offences. That point was made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
      The hon. Gentleman told a story about a Doberman pinscher. There is no way in which a registration scheme would have resolved that problem. He told the House that the dog was apprehended and put down because it was so unruly. Under the law as it is now, anyone may complain to the magistrates court that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control and the court may order that it should be kept under proper control or be destroyed. Therefore, massive powers are already available.
      Mr. Marlow: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) made a good and clear speech. He said that, if there were a dog registration scheme and a system of dog wardens, the dog wardens would know where these large dogs were and when there were two or three large dogs in a house. The dog registration scheme would enable dog wardens to provide advice and assistance to people owning those dogs. What my hon. Friend the Minister has just said is not correct.
      Mr. Chope rose—
      1.15 am
      Mr. Cryer: In addition to the location of dogs, dog wardens would advise and guide dog owners. Dog experts have pointed out that there has been growth in the use and breeding of large and savage dogs such as rottweilers and Doberman pinschers. Owners often buy such dogs without any proper knowledge. They do not know about training, housing, feeding or controlling them. As I made abundantly clear, the dog registration scheme would offer advice and help to dog owners.
      Mr. Chope: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that matter; he takes a very paternalistic view about dog owners. Many measures are already available to local authorities, the police and other individuals to deal with dogs.

      461
      Those who argued in favour of a dog registration scheme assume that it would be easy to register all dogs and to maintain and enforce the register. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) say that a registration scheme would be a practical possibility, because he and some of his hon. Friends have been arguing for many hours in Committee that the much simpler and more straightforward process of registering for the community charge will be so fiendishly complicated, so easily avoided and so difficult to enforce that it is not worth introducing. The community charge registration scheme will be straightforward and easy. However, a registration scheme for dogs would be a lot more complicated than the community charge registration scheme.
      Mr. Pike: On reflection, I am sure that the Minister will agree that his comparison is completely irrelevant. If the registration of dogs were to be agreed, the system would be quite different from a poll tax that has a rolling register, that will change every day. I am sure that the Minister is making a false comparison.
      Mr. Howard: What about student dogs?
      Mr. Chope: My hon. and learned Friend mentions the problem of student dogs, but I do not want to get involved with such problems.
      Mr. Andrew Bowden: It is easy for hon. Members to talk gaily about registration schemes, but what would happen in practice is the same as what has happened with the dog licence in the past—irresponsible dog owners would not buy licences or register their dogs. Hon. Members who believe that it will solve all the difficulties are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
      Mr. Chope: I agree with my hon. Friend, which is why the Government do not intend to introduce a scheme.
      Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Chope: I will not give way again to my hon. Friend because as yet I have not answered the points raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). We cannot accept the amendment that he moved because, in effect, it asks for powers that at present are permissive to be made mandatory. The power of the police to deal with stray dogs has been discretionary since the Dogs Act 1906 because it is essential for the police to be flexible in dealing with different cases. It may not always be necessary to seize a dog which appears to be a stray if the owner is nearby.
      The Government deliberately did not make it mandatory upon local authorities to appoint dog wardens. They must remain at liberty to decide whether to appoint them or not, depending on local circumstances. Where a local authority does decide to appoint dog wardens, that local authority will no doubt give them policy guidance on how to exercise their discretion under the Dogs Act. The amendment would therefore be superfluous in that context.
      If a local authority does not appoint its own dog wardens, the amendment would require local authorities to secure that police officers exercised their powers. Since their powers are discretionary it is very unclear how that would operate in practice. There is also a more fundamental objection in that the amendment would give local authorities a power to interfere in police activities. It is eminently sensible that local authorities and the police
      462
      should co-operate where they are both dealing with stray dogs so that owners searching for their strays can be directed to the police or local authorities—
      Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend might like to contact the Medway towns, where, under the current system of dog wardens, the take-up of the licence is enforced. If people were working at it, there could be an effective registration scheme, particularly if it was raising money for the dog wardens who would then be able to spend that money on the control and welfare of dogs.
      Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend has made the same point in an earlier debate. That is an example of how a local authority is able to operate perfectly effectively under the existing law. There is no reason why other local authorities should not do likewise.
      Mr. Rooker: The Minister had finished.
      Mr. Chope: I was about to make one more point against the amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, but if that is not necessary—
      Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend said, quite rightly, that the Medway towns run a good dog warden system, collecting the licence fee and so on. But, to be fair, some local authorities — Left-wing Labour authorities and urban authorities—will be further constrained financially and have a severe problem of dog nuisance. Under the existing financial arrangements, they will not set up dog warden schemes. A dedicated scheme, of the sort that has been described, could be financed by such authorities.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 18 agreed to.

    Schedule 1

      COMPETITION
      Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 33, leave out lines 14 and 15.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a technical drafting amendment. I can speak on it at great length, but it is not necessary in the circumstances. It deletes an unnecessary definition consequential on an amendment made in the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 22 agreed to.

    Schedule 3

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
      Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 37, line 27, at end insert—
      "(2) In subsection (2) (complaint not to be entertained unless made through a member of the authority concerned) after 'unless' there shall be inserted 'it is made in writing to the Local Commissioner specifying the action alleged to constitute maladministration or'."
      Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will he convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 24 to 26.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: This allows people to go to the ombudsman directly and is to be welcomed. The matter

      463
      was raised during consideration of the Bill that implemented part of the recommendations of the ombudsman's report, and will short-circuit some of the delays that people experience in getting maladministration by local authorities rectified. I hope that wide publicity will be given to the fact that when this Bill become law, people will be able to go to the ombudsman on their own without needing to go through a local councillor. I ask the Minister to make this long-sought-after extension of remedy widely known as soon as possible.
      Question put and agreed to
      Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 37 agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Dr. Cunningham, Mr. Grist, Mr. Peter Lloyd, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Howard; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Howard.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  Rate Support Grant (England)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 4) 1983–84 (House of Commons Paper No. 325), a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.—[Mr. Chope.]
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I inquired after this report a moment or two ago in the Vote Office. It appears that there are no copies of it, although copies are being brought. The Leader of the House has a responsibility to ensure that copies are available. The Government Whip is passing me one, but another half dozen hon. Members may want copies, too. It is inadequate that the Leader of the House has not ensured that sufficient copies are available.
  1.30 am
  Mr. William O'Brien: I shall briefly refer to the report, because it would be wrong to allow it to go without comment. It is the fourth supplementary report to the main 1983–84 RSG report in four years. I understand that the Secretary of State has consulted local authority associations on the content of the report. The main points raised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities related to the GRE, and data corrections. Certain errors were made by the Department of the Environment in the social services GRE, which, when corrected, had devastating implications for GRE revisions and consequential grant reductions, which are significant for some authorities.
  I shall give some examples. Newham lost £1·1 million, Wandsworth and Waltham Forest lost £1 million, and Hammersmith and Fulham lost £700,000. The biggest loser was Southwark, which lost £2·5 million. The adjustments were made retrospectively, after the local authorities' accounts had been audited. Therefore, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities takes the view that, as the errors were of the Secretary of State's making, they should be corrected at his expense and not at the expense of local authorities. The grant pool should be increased to compensate the authorities which have lost by the error; otherwise, all other authorities' grants will be reduced to pay for the correction. Obviously, the AMA's representation has been ignored. Therefore, other authorities will be unfairly penalised for an error made by the Secretary of State's Department.
  I refer also to relevant and total expenditure and specifications under the Local Government Finance Act 1987. The Secretary of State intends to amend the definitions of relevant and total expenditure under powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1987. The proposed amendment would take out transfers to special funds that give rise to a deficit on the rate fund revenue account, which are not in respect of specific liabilities, or transfers back to the rate fund account of sums so transferred—so-called deficit financing transfers.
  The association objects to the fact that the adjustments are made retrospectively. The proposals require authorities to change their earlier accounting practices, which, at the time, were quite proper and have not been subject to any criticism from external auditors.
  The grant implications of the enforced change in accounting practices have not been revealed by the Government, but it is thought that in some cases there could be significant reductions in authorities' grants. All

  465
  the representations that have been made by local authority associations have obviously been ignored. The issues are important to local government.
  I draw attention to annex 1 of the report. The estimates in the third supplementary report, compared with the one that the House is now considering, show that there has been no increase in domestic rate relief. The report also shows a continuing reduction in local government expenditure in significant respects, such as education, school meals and milk, libraries and museums, police, local transport, local environment services and employment. Other services are also affected.
  In the report, the Government make provision for police pay and the policing of industrial disputes, but they disregard the increase in police recruitment. During the past four years, local police authorities have made representations for additional resources to make sure that the streets of our towns and cities are safe. Their requests found no favour with the Secretary of State. The adjustments in the report are retrospective and require authorities to change their accounting practices. I put it to the Minister that that principle is wrong and that local government is entitled to better consideration.
  I ask the Minister to consider carefully the implications that face local authorities, because of what has been reported to the House tonight, and that certain provisions should be made to ensure that local authorities do not suffer because of errors that have been made by the Department of the Environment. I ask the Minister to take note of those points with a view to correcting the errors.
  1.36 am
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Given the fact that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said that the London borough of Southwark is most severely affected by the report, it will not surprise the House that I intervene briefly to make a specific point about my local authority and the people of Southwark, although it applies generally to the nature of the report.
  Last month we debated the rate-capping order on a series of local authorities which included Southwark. We debated that the day after we had debated the other supplementary rate support grant reports, with which this report was originally intended to be debated. As the House will remember, it was withdrawn at that stage because there had been some Government error and it could not be debated.
  At that stage, the effect of the remaining supplementary orders in relation to other years, was that Southwark received a £2·7 million reduction in the money it was to receive for the coming year. By the rate-capping order the following night, Southwark was not allowed to raise any more money to compensate for that. The effect of that was a 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. cut in real services.
  When, within a matter of weeks, we are back again to have another slice of money taken off, we have to ask Ministers why the system is working in relation to the financial year 1983–84 to remove more money from Southwark at this late stage with no compensating recovery.
  I do not propose to examine the subject in great detail, but in general terms we all understand that a corrective mechanism is built into the existing rate support grant allocation system whereby grant entitlements are altered depending on the latest information as to what local authorities spend, the changes in the methodology of
  466
  calculating grant-related expenditure assessment, new principles for calculating grant-related poundages and on certain local authority expenditure being disregarded.
  The figures in Southwark give rise to questions as to whether it has worked out fairly for Southwark. If it has not, presumably other boroughs and districts have also been affected. Between the third and the fourth supplementary reports laid this year, relating to four years ago, Southwark has lost £2·6 million. The figure for the supplementary grant in the third report was £38·13 million, and in the fourth report the figure was £35·53 million. The total loss of grant between the original 1983–84 rate support grant settlement and this report is some £3·806 million, according to officers in Southwark whom I have consulted today and during the past few days.
  I could go through a list of the effects in each year during the past five years. Without going into detail, they show that there is a substantial net loss to Southwark, which at this late stage, only three weeks before the end of the financial year and too late for Southwark to do anything about the next financial year, will result in a loss of income to Southwark and less money being available to the borough.
  I should like to ask the Secretary of State a specific question that follows the general point made by the hon. Member for Normanton. Is it fair to justify to a particular borough and its residents—in this case, Southwark—how the miscalculations and wrong estimates given four years ago can be corrected at this late stage to the detriment of a community of 250,000 people? If the Government are arguing that theoretically the rate support grant should enable a standard level of services to be provided, by removing at this stage £2·5 million the Secretary of State is saying that the local authority cannot be allowed to provide a standard level of services.
  Is there any way in which the Secretary of State could concede that Southwark's rate-capped figure or grant-related expenditure figure for next year could be looked at again to compensate for this late-in-the-day withdrawal of a substantial sum of money? The council has a budget of only about £130 million. To take £2·5 million out of it would have a substantial effect on its provision of services. The borough's resources are being enormously stretched to provide nursery places and home helps. It is threatening to close homes for the elderly, lunch clubs, day centres and the like. It does not seem that the borough will be able to recoup the £2·5 million.
  Greater accountability is not achieved, four years after the event, by readjusting the figures to compensate for a miscalculation four years ago. About an hour ago Southwark's budget for next year was set in Southwark town hall. The rate has also been set and is now in place, but it was set without this report having been approved, without its effect having been worked into the Southwark system and without Southwark having been able to compensate adequately, both this year and next, for adjustments that have nothing to do with Southwark's alleged failings or defects.
  I cite Southwark as an example of the way in which the report appears to be unfair to the borough, but I believe it to be unfair generally. The report is very much a last-minute adjustment to an accounting year that is now nearly four years ago. On the face of it, it is very much a tidying-up exercise and involves millions of pounds. It

  467
  ought not to be approved without representatives of those communities seeking assurances that money lost through no fault of their own can be recouped in some other way.
  I hope that the Minister will consider ways in which he can help Southwark. I hope that he will be prepared to meet representatives from Southwark and other communities that will be affected by the report so that means can be found to compensate them for these late-in-the-day losses and so that justice can be done, even at this late stage.
  1.42 am
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The order shows how the Government are making a trawl, four years after the relevant year, in order to make adjustments to expenditure. It also shows how scrupulous the Government have been in battening down local authority expenditure. Increases in the rate poundage have been brought about in every case by the cuts, the clawbacks and the rate capping by central Government. In our earlier debate, several Conservative Members said how proud they were that local authority expenditure had been squeezed.
  The order provides for a wide range of services. The poorest, those who need the most help and guidance, are in difficulties because of the constant adjustment of local authority expenditure by central Government. It would be useful if the Government applied the same scrupulousness to their own expenditure, but they do not. Local authorities nearly always meet their expenditure targets. It is central Government who are sloppy.
  For example, defence expenditure is out of control. If some items of central Government expenditure were incorporated in a report such as this—for example, the millions, even billions, of pounds spent on devices such as the Sting Ray torpedo by the Ministry of Defence—the Government would press forward eagerly to the Dispatch Box to attack the local authorities responsible, whether Conservative or Labour. Naturally, however, the Government would be more gleeful if they attacked a Labour-controlled local authority. However, the Government cannot pick out any local authority in that fashion because such things do not happen: scrutiny is tight and central Government weigh down heavily on local authorities.
  Four years on, this scrutiny seems unnecessarily zealous, especially when we consider that the order provides for disregarding expenditure on several items, such as the 1983 police pay award, which is perfectly reasonable; civil defence, which is some of the lunatic expenditure that the Government insist that local authorities undertake as part of the Government's cloudcuckoo-land of a radioactive cinder heap—part of the Prime Minister's vision for the future; and expense incurred in policing the miners' industrial dispute of 1984 and the mass demonstrations at Ministry of Defence sites—presumably against nuclear weapons.
  Instead of following the example of the ordinary sensible housewife—so beloved of the Prime Minister's vision—and being paid on the nose at the time and with a clear object, the expenditure is often shielded by being forced on local authorities, although at the time of the dispute some local authorities refused to sign the cheques for the extra police time and police costs. I am convinced
  468
  that it was forced on them because, if central Government had been seen to spend millions of pounds policing the miners' strike, that would show how much public money—not their own money, as the Prime Minister keeps inveighing about Government expenditure—was spent on attacking the miners; then the shift of mood and opinion might have been much more marked.
  Section D of the introduction provides for that sort of disregard. I assume that the mass demonstrations at Ministry of Defence sites were associated with nuclear weapons. Again, the cost of policing those demonstrations was unnecessarily high because the Government wanted to demonstrate a paramilitary might to intimidate the demonstrators, which they nevertheless failed to do.
  The report is a demonstration of the crushing weight placed by central Government bureaucracy on local authorities, instead of giving them the freedom of choice—much vaunted by the Conservatives—and allowing them some choice in expenditure so that they can improve services. The report is introduced by the Government at a time which forbids or inhibits the detailed examination that could usefully be given to such a report because the Government seem absolutely obsessed with filling the House with legislation.
  The Committee Rooms are bursting with people working at all hours for some frenetic purpose that is quite beyond the comprehension of the ordinary average sensible citizen, who does not think that Lords amendments to the Local Government Bill need to be dealt with tonight. We could usefully have spent a great deal more time on this report, which is important as it points to the structure of the local government system, which is vital to us all but which is being increasingly pressed by the Government.
  1.48 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): The report is important. As a result of new information from the local authorities, we have made changes.
  The report reflects the final outturn expenditure information which, for most local authorities, is certified by the auditor. That is why the report has been introduced rather late in the day.
  There are a small number of cases where deficit financing issues have led my right hon. Friend to the conclusion that total expenditure figures, other than those given to us by the authorities, are the correct ones. The final figures show that the relevant expenditure for the year was £34 million less than the amount estimated in December 1984 for the previous supplementary report. We estimate that the relevant expenditure was almost £23 billion, which is £700 million more than the amount provided for in the 1983–84 settlement. We now estimate that the total of specific grants was £42 million higher than in the last report. There are no changes to be made to the total of rate support grants. Therefore, this report increases aggregate Exchequer grant by £42 million to £11,528 million.
  Mr Cryer: That is not enough.
  Mr. Chope: I would impress upon the House that the sum of £11,528 million is substantial. The report brings up to date our assessments of what authorities needed to spend to provide a standard level of service—that is,

  469
  their GREs. We have incorporated into the revised GREs a final estimate of the level of interest rates paid to local authorities on their cash balances, final outturn information on non-discretionary expenditure on certain items such as mandatory student awards and land drainage precepts to water authorities.
  We have made other changes affecting individual authorities, including the effects of the boundary changes made at the beginning of 1982 and 1983. We have corrected an error which was made in the personal social services components. When the numbers of elderly people in certain categories in each local authority were calculated from census information, the wrong scaling factors were used and that also affected several other indicators. We have now put that right.
  The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said that it was extremely unfair that the consequences of that change will be paid for by local authorities.
  Mr. O'Brien: The cut in the allocations to personal social services is the most important part of the report. Serious consideration should be given to the joint financing between health and local authorities. The House is aware that more and more elderly and mentally sick people are being discharged by health authorities into local authority care. No provision is made in the report to cover the additional expense that must be borne by local authorities. The cut in the allocations to the personal social services is denying local authorities the resources to provide the services that they are being forced to provide by health authorities.
  Mr. Chope: The report has nothing to do with the GRE indicators for the community care programme. The provision for personal social services has changed because of new information that became available. Incorrect population figures were used in the 1983–84 settlement main report to scale the numbers of elderly living alone. There were various other errors and changes resulting from that information. The effect of those changes has meant some losses for some local authorities.
  Those losses are nothing like the £2 million that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) says has been lost by Southwark. As a result of the social services changes, that borough has lost £43,000. I accept that Southwark has suffered some other losses, but the borough has been aware of those impending losses for some time and they were the result of other changes to the GRE.
  The hon. Gentleman understands local government finance and he will know that changes to GRE feed through to alter the amount that is given to individual local authorities. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the rate limit for Southwark for 1988–89 took account of the estimated effects of this supplementary report. There is no significant difference between our estimates and the actual effects arising from the supplementary report. I believe that the treasurer of Southwark exaggerated when describing to the hon. Gentleman the effects of the supplementary report.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I will confirm the treasurer's remarks later. Will the Minister confirm that the change between the No. 3 and No. 4 supplementary reports means
  470
  a loss of £2·6 million for Southwark? The change in the original rate support grant report means a loss of £3·8 million for Southwark. Although an authority budgets against the contingency of money being taken away, it is clear that an assessment of Southwark's needs made a few years ago has been altered to Southwark's detriment and has affected a substantial proportion of its allocated budget. Over the past few years we have not gained; we have lost. Surely the Minister accepts that, even though only a small part of that is due to the technical changes made since the report was originally tabled and then withdrawn.
  Mr. Chope: I cannot accept that. On the latest information, Southwark received more money than it was properly entitled to. It has benefited from that money over a period and it is only as a result of this latest adjustment, following the final audit, that we can see that Southwark has been overpaid in the past. Naturally enough, that money is being clawed back from Southwark. The Southwark treasurer, as a prudent man, will have been able to anticipate that.
  We are talking about one of the effects of the present rate support grant system. As the hon. Gentleman knows, when we move over to the new system, each local authority will know in advance of each financial year exactly how much grant it will get, and the grant will not vary according to the authority's level of expenditure over the year. There will be much more certainty and simplicity, and we shall not be debating supplementary reports going back four years.
  Mr. Hughes: I hope that the Minister will not mislead the House into thinking that the new community charge or poll tax system means either that there will not be a rate support allocation or its equivalent or that there will be absolute certainty from one year to the next. There will always have to be a rolling method of calculating allowances for local authorities. Of course the prudent treasurer budgets for potential take-back, but what happens if he has nothing left in his reserves because he has had to spend it all? There is nothing more to provide from the budget. That is the problem for overstreched authorities such as Southwark.
  Mr. Chope: Those considerations were taken into account in arriving at the rate limit for Southwark this year. I do not say that under the new system the grant will be the same each successive year for each local authority, but it will not be subject to the same degree of variation as under the present system. In the year that we are discussing—1983–84—not only did we have variations resulting from individual changes in expenditure by individual authorities, but those changes had an effect upon the grant of every authority as a result of recycling.
  We have covered the points raised in the report. The new changes to the revenue support grant and the grant system that will come in in 1990 will make debates such as this a thing of the past. I am sure that most hon. Members will welcome that change when it comes.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 4) 1983–84 (House of Commons Paper No. 325), a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.

  Electricity Generation and Transmission (Inquiries)
  [Relevant document: First Report from the Energy Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 310 of Session 1987–88), on the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1987.]
  1.57 am
  Mr. John Garrett: I beg to move,
  That the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 2182), dated 16th December 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be revoked.
  Even at this late hour we are pleased to have the opportunity to debate the rules and we are also pleased to see that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy has managed to find time in his busy schedule to join us; at one time we thought that he had gone missing. He will now know that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew attention in its 16th report to the defective drafting of this instrument. I shall not rehearse the points that the Committee made. There were two substantial elements in the observations of defective drafting and no doubt the Under-Secretary will wish to answer the Committee's concerns.
  The effect of the rules was summarised in paragraph 5 of the first report of the Select Committee on Energy of 3 February:
  "All of these changes tighten procedure in a way which enhances the position of the CEGB and the Area Boards…Although the Government consulted widely, it seems that it has paid particular attention to the arguments from what might be described as the establishment side."
  In a brief but useful report, the Select Committee drew attention to a number of features of the rules that it saw as causes for concern. We see them as raising a number of issues of public policy, including citizens' rights, secrecy and the democratic right to know what powerful and dangerous bodies are doing. In a short debate, these issues can receive only a brief hearing. British Governments arc notoriously secretive and a citizen's right to challenge the activities of, for example, the nuclear power industry is already loaded in favour of large organisations and against the objector. We consider that the rules are evidence of more loading on the wrong side of the balance.
  The debate gives us the opportunity to raise a number of important issues for the Minister to answer. First, we would like the Minister to explain the manner of the introduction of the rules. As the Select Committee on Energy said, the 1986 consultation paper dealt with rules for inquiries under the Town and Country Planning Acts. Yet no comparable rules have been produced by the Department of the Environment or the Department of Transport. It is said that the Department of Energy has been rather more precipitate, and we do not have to look very far for the reason.
  In August, 1987, the CEGB applied for consent to build a pressurised water reactor at Hinkley Point in Somerset. On 16 December the new rules were produced, and they were laid on 18 December. On 17 December the Government announced the public inquiry into the Hinkley Point power station. The Select Committee on Energy stated:
  "It can hardly he a coincidence that the rules were made the day before the inquiry was announced."
  On 22 January, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy announced that an application had been made to divert
  472
  transmission line entries to Hinkley Point. The local planning authority objected and said that an inquiry must be held under the rules. The remarkably abbreviated timetable did not give the Select Committee time to take oral evidence. Why not? Why the rush? In his commentary on the Select Committee's report of 6 February the energy correspondent of The Guardian observed:
  "The new rules were laid before Parliament two days before the Christmas recess at a time when the House was winding down. There was no press release from the Department of Energy and their existence was first reported in the national press by The Guardian on January 14, the day they came into effect."
  The headline that appeared in The Times read:
  "Guidance to reactor inquiry inspector is rigged, say MPs."
  It is clear that the rules were rushed out to limit the objections to the proposed Hinkley Point development. This view is confirmed by an analysis of the changes proposed in the new rules from the existing rules of 1981. The purpose of the changes is to increase the power of the Secretary of State to limit the time taken by pre-inquiry procedures and to increase the inspector's power to require information in advance of the inquiry. They are designed also to confine the evidence that may be presented at the inquiry.
  There appear to be nine new provisions in the rules, and no fewer than seven of them have the effect of limiting the effectiveness of objectors. Clause 5(6) constrains the pre-inquiry meeting to within 16 weeks of notification of the local planning authority and potential appellants and objectors. Clause 6(2) allows the inspector to confine evidence to the inquiry to matters set out in the statement of case made by the applicant. It changes the serving of a statement from six weeks before the inquiry to six weeks after the notice of intent. This will disadvantage objectors. Objectors will have only four weeks to serve their statement of case on the Secretary of State.
  Clause 10(1) governs the date of the inquiry and introduces yet another new time constraint. Clause 10(3) alters established planning practice by changing 42 days' notice of the inquiry to 28 days when all other inquiries are subject to 42 days' notice. The Select Committee on Energy referred to this provision as "most striking". Clause 13(3) obliges witnesses at an inquiry to set out their case three weeks before the inquiry. Clause 14(4) is a new provision that gives additional powers to the inspector to restrict evidence and cross-examination that he considers irrelevant or repetitious.
  We have seven new provisions that are all aimed at limiting the scope of objections to nuclear power stations and similar developments. Perhaps the Minister will explain the justification for all these restrictions. What problem are they intended to overcome? I can answer that question. They are intended to overcome the Sizewell problem, the inquiry that lasted two and a quarter years. But, as I shall show briefly, there were many features of Sizewell which were unique.
  A second area of concern for us is secrecy. That again was usefully discussed by the Energy Committee. The Committee was supplied by the Department of Energy with extracts from the Department of the Environment's planning inspectors' handbook which gives guidance to inspectors on the procedure of inquiries, with useful definitions of such terms as "irrelevant", "repetitious", "contrary to the public interest" and "disruptive manner" as applied to the behaviour of people who attend inquiries.

  473
  The Committee was asked to treat the procedural guidance as confidential. The Committee observed at paragraph 2:
  "We can see no good reason why this part of the handbook should not be in the public domain."
  The Energy Committee went further:
  "We recommend at least that these extracts should be made available to any interested party. If this does not happen there will always be the natural suspicion that 'contrary to the public interest,' for example, is equated with 'contrary to the Government's interest'."
  Why is there to be no public right to know what is contrary to the public interest? Surely there must be considerable public interest in knowing what is contrary to the public interest, and such knowledge would influence the behaviour of those making objections. Why is the definition of
  "conduct in a disruptive manner"
  not a matter of public guidance? What good is served by secrecy on such trivial matters? Such information would be helpful to participants in inquiries. Secrecy about them is petty regulation at its worst. I would like the Minister to undertake to make the inspectors' guidelines available to the Hinkley Point inquiry. Will he also issue the code of practice for the pre-inquiry stage?
  Clearly there are justifiable concerns about the length and cost of major public inquiries. The Government's objective, stated in their consultation document, is that
  "inquiries should he as efficient and effective as possible, while not in any way impairing the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings, or the ability of the participants to make representations which are relevant to the decision".
  The Energy Committee commented:
  "This is an objective of which the Committee broadly approves: we have no wish to see the Sizewell marathon run again. However, the construction of a power station, and especially a nuclear power station, raises local and national environmental, economic and safety concerns. There must be an opportunity for these concerns to be aired and assessed."
  That is the Opposition's position in agreeing with the views of the Energy Committee.
  Sizewell was exceptionally protracted, at 340 days, for a number of reasons which are unlikely to recur at an inquiry into Hinkley Point, for example. The Sizewell inquiry was the first on a nuclear power station in Britain which gave detailed consideration to safety. The applicant, the CEGB, appeared to be inadequately prepared, to put it mildly. The fifth report from the Select Committee on the Environment in July 1986 pointed out at paragraph 152 that the nuclear installations inspectorate promised that a full safety assessment of the pressurised water reactor project at Sizewell would be available before the inquiry began. In the event that did not happen. The nuclear installations inspectorate blamed the CEGB, whose pre-construction safety report was 10 months late. I believe that it arrived after the end of the inquiry.
  There were universal complaints about the unsatisfactory quality and presentation of much of the CEGB's data on safety matters. The CEGB took 32 days to read its opening statement. There were 130 days of the inquiry spent on safety, of which only 19 were taken up by the objectors. The Sizewell inquiry ranged over the issue of advanced gas-cooled reactors against PWR comparisons, thanks to the diligence of my distinguished constituent, Mr. Round, formerly deputy chief engineer of the Eastern electricity board.
  The Sizewell inquiry examined fuel policy and other national issues. In addition, there were many site-specific issues about access, unemployment, accidents, evacuation
  474
  and the effects on wildlife habitats of international importance. Sizewell, known as the inquiry to end all inquiries, ventured into unknown territory. It was a learning experience for everyone. Its lessons do not lead automatically to the stifling of objections in the interests of efficiency, as these rules seek to do.
  There were many lessons to be learnt from Sizewell, but the Government have drawn only one: the need to shut up objectors. The other lessons included the opaque and confusing adversarial style of the proceedings, the legalisms, the cross-examination, the formality, the ritual, and especially the grossly unbalanced funding arising from the costs of legal representation. Time and again, the weighting in favour of applicants because of the unsustainable costs of representation by objectors is mentioned in connection with Sizewell. Objection, dissent and inquiry are rationed by the purse, on this most crucial issue of the development of nuclear power.
  The Select Committee referred to funding at paragraph 8:
  "One other topic which concerns the Committee is the lack of financial assistance for objectors at inquiries. We regret that no such provision is included in these rules."
  Friends of the Earth spent £120,000 on its Sizewell case from donations and fund-raising. It could afford to attend for five weeks of the two and quarter years for which the inquiry lasted. The Council for the Protection of Rural England had to raise £70,000 through public appeal. The Town and Country Planning Association could not afford to be legally represented, and said that it simply could not monitor the additional evidence presented during the inquiry.
  A study by Jennifer Armstrong, published by the Town and Country Planning Association, concluded:
  "Lack of funding for one halt of the argument is one of the chief reasons for the low level of confidence in this part of the decision-making process … An independent fund should be established, administered by trustees, to which voluntary bodies seeking to take part in the inquiry may apply for financial aid. This would exclude aid for legal representation… The size of the fund would depend on the scale, complexity, location etc. of the inquiry. The removal of legal representation would substantially reduce the amount of money needed to promote a far fairer inquiry. The sums of money for which aid might be available are easily verifiable and no organisational or administrative problems are anticipated. This is clearly one of the key recommendations in the establishing of a fairer inquiry system."
  The fifth report of the Select Committee on the Environment made much the same recommendation, but in their response the Government refused to consider the idea of funding third parties because it would
  "be more likely to make major inquiries run even longer."
  We return continually to the Government's proposition that an inquiry is effective only if objections are abbreviated and objectors stifled.
  At the forthcoming Hinkley Point inquiry, we shall see whether the CEGB shelters behind the "contrary to public interest" rule. The local authorities are already worried that the CEGB has been unwilling to discuss its application openly, and the fear is that the CEGB will use the public interest as a device to avoid proper examination of its reasons for selecting Hinkley Point as the site of another PWR station. We fear that the rules are meant to restrict objection. As the Select Committee on Energy said, Ministers should
  "assure the House and country that all participants at an inquiry may be able to put their views, irrespective of their financial or political muscle."

  475
  Funding bona fide objectors would enable them to put a briefer, better-researched and better-organised case.
  A public inquiry fulfils an important national role in policy-making. We have no Office of Technology Assessment, as they have in the United States. I notice that many Conservative Members have signed an early-day motion asking for such an office. There is no other forum for evaluating nuclear power generation. Weakening the rights of objectors is shortsighted and stifles genuine public interest and concern about a matter of the greatest national importance.
  2.13 am
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: There are better things to do at this time of the morning than dwell for too long on these inquiries procedures rules. But I shall speak briefly because of the importance of the rules to the proposal by the Central Electricity Generating Board to build a second PWR station at Hinkley Point in Somerset. The site is in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is closely involved in the issues, but the site is visible from my constituency and some of the workers are my constituents.
  We want a fair and thorough inquiry into the application. If it is approved, it will be a big construction project and the station will cost about £1·5 billion. It will be the third station to be built on the site, but when Hinkley Point A is decommissioned in a few years there will be two there. The station, if completed, will not only produce a lot of electricity; it will secure supplies in the south-west region. It will bring much money and many jobs into the area. On the other side of the coin, it will create considerable disruption. New roads will be needed and site workers will have to be housed. In passing, I should state that the same kind of disruption would occur if the Severn barrage was to be constructed.
  The appearance of the station is also important in the low-lying topography of the estuary. I believe that there is no reason why a large building, even an industrial building, should be ugly and I hope that the CEGB will choose architects who will produce something more sympathetic than Hinkley Point A and B. There would also be effects on the fishing industry in the estuary, on tourism and on wildlife. The inquiry would have to consider whether the geology of the site is appropriate. I am glad that the nuclear installations inspectorate will have reported on the suitability of the site by then.
  All those matters and others must be discussed. I am glad that the new rules will be in force by then. It must be in everyone's interests, including those of the objectors, to have an orderly timetabled inquiry with prior disclosure of documents.
  I also believe that it is sensible to assume that a planning inspector can read. At the Layfield inquiry into Sizewell, the CEGB's opening statement took 32 days to read out. That benefited only the lawyers employed in that inquiry.
  It must be right to try, where possible, to shorten the inquiries. Our constituents tell us that planning inquiries are already too long, too slow and too cumbersome. Shorter inquiries are cheaper. The CEGB may have plenty
  476
  of money, but objectors to Hinkley Point C and local authorities will welcome a shorter, and therefore cheaper, inquiry.
  Sir Jim Spicer: As a Member representing a Somerset constituency, does my hon. Friend agree that it seems rather strange that a local authority, Somerset county council, should already have £50,000 of ratepayers' money set on one side as well as a contingency of £500,000 to fund opposition to what we would all agree should be a shortened inquiry? Does he agree that, while the Select Committee on Energy has already said that the last thing anyone wants is a re-run of the Sizewell marathon, it appears that Somerset county council is looking not for a proper inquiry, but to drag the matter out because it is basically anti-nuclear in its approach?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend has made a reasonable point. That is a lot of money and the ratepayers in Somerset may have something to say about it in due course. The county council has allocated £500,000 of ratepayers' money to fighting the inquiry. However, its objections run much wider than its objections to a nuclear power station on the site. It appears to me to be questioning the very concept of nuclear energy and of the pressurised water reactor; that is precisely why the Sizewell inquiry sat for more than two years and cost many millions of pounds. We do not want a re-run of the Sizewell inquiry in Somerset. I am glad that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said that himself. But that is what could happen if the rules are not used to try to restrict and delineate the terms and scope of the inquiry.
  Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Gentleman has already conceded that the greater part of the time of the Sizewell inquiry was taken by the applicant, rather than the appellant. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the restriction should be not on the appellant, but on the applicant? That surely would be a way of shortening the inquiry.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Nothing in the rules prevents objectors from stating their case. They are required, for instance, to give written notice of the objections that they choose to raise. My own view is that the basic economic and safety case for the PWRs was established at Sizewell; but that is only my opinion, and it is not in any way binding on the inspector.
  I feel that the inquiry at Hinkley Point should try to confine itself to issues that are relevant to that site. We all concede that the world has moved on since the Sizewell inquiry. The price of fossil fuels has dropped further and faster than the inspector may have anticipated. But that has not necessarily undermined the economic case, because Hinkley C will be considerably cheaper than Sizewell. About £200 million-worth of design costs will not be incurred again.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: May I return to the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of Somerset county council? Is he not aware that he also criticises his own party members, quite a few of whom have voted in favour of Somerset's general policy in the matter—as, indeed, have many other local authorities in the Somerset area, including some under Conservative control, which have joined the consortium with Somerset county council to oppose the

  477
  inquiry in the most effective way possible? In so doing, I suspect that they are closer to the views of the people of Somerset than the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Councillors from a number of different parties to whom I have spoken are of the opinion—which I share—that it is the job of the county council to obtain the best possible deal for the county: to get the roads and bypasses built, and to make the station, if it is approved, as unobtrusive as possible. Where I part company with the Liberal group on the county council is on the issue of spending a great deal of money in trying to undermine the concept of a PWR. I regard that as having been satisfactorily addressed at the Sizewell inquiry. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that we want a thorough inquiry into all the relevant issues.
  I do not fall into the habit the Liberal party has of saying, "National and regional needs are one thing, but please, not here in Somerset." Let us be a little wider in our vision. I repeat, however, that it is not for me to determine the scope of the inquiry, and the rules that we are discussing do not lay down or restrict that scope either. They are modest changes, and should be welcomed by anyone who believes that a planning inquiry should be about planning, rather than an opportunity to trot out preconceived notions aside from the relevance to the site under consideration.
  2.24 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): Like the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), the Government also welcome this opportunity to debate the new inquiry rules —[Interruption.] We have been offering dates to the Opposition for the past two or three months and those offers have not been taken up.
  Mr. Frank Cook: That is not true.
  Mr. Spicer: That is perfectly true, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
  Mr. John Prescott: The Minister should be careful about what he says. The date was offered for one day and the Government withdrew. The Opposition were quite prepared to have a debate in the afternoon in proper time because this is an important issue. We would have preferred that rather than a debate at this time of night.
  Mr. Spicer: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a matter for the usual channels. However, my understanding is that several offers have been made to the Opposition and that those offers have been turned down. I do not want to make an issue out of this. I mention it only because Opposition Members mocked me when I said that the Government welcome the opportunity to debate this issue.
  The debate fulfils one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Energy's recent report on the rules.
  Perhaps I could begin by reminding the House of something that the hon. Member for Norwich, South ignored, no doubt inadvertently. It was a Committee of the House that first expressed concern about the length and cost of some public inquiries. The point was made, as the hon. Member for Norwich, South acknowledged, in the fifth report of the Select Committee on the Environment in Session 1985–86. That Committee was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood
  478
  Green (Sir H. Rossi). The House will recollect—this point was made by the hon. Member for Norwich, South — that more than six years passed between the application to build Sizewell B and the consent and that the public inquiry cost £4 million. I was intensely and genuinely interested in what the hon. Member for Norwich, South had to say with respect to his view that the length and cost of the Sizewell inquiry is likely to be exceptional. That was an interesting remark.
  In their response to the Environment Committee's report, the Government recognised the concern about the cost and length of time taken by public inquiries and made proposals for revising planning procedures. Our aim has been to make the procedures for public inquiries more effective and efficient without impairing the right of all the parties to have their views heard. There is no question, if I may use the words used by the hon. Member for Norwich, South, of shutting up objectors. Indeed, in so far as there will be more written material available before major inquiries, life will be made easier for objectors.
  The Government's proposals were included in a consultation document which was widely circulated and which contained a draft of new rules to govern inquiries under the town and country planning legislation. It is against that background that the new rules, which we are debating tonight, were prepared.
  The new rules include the setting up of firm timetables for the exchange of statements between the main participants before an inquiry. They will provide a reasonable balance between the need to avoid unnecessary delay, which I am sure is shared by most hon. Members, and the need for parties to have adequate time to prepare their case. Early exchange of information before the inquiry will help to identify the principal points on which the inquiry should properly concentrate.
  There are special new requirements for major inquiries, including the submission of outline statements before, and detailed statements after, one or more pre-inquiry meetings. Pre-inquiry meetings have often taken place, as at Sizewell, but there is now to be formal provision for them in the rules, although, as I have said, the principle involved is not new.
  Mr. Ashdown: I am interested to hear that the Minister is seeking to make matters easier for those who are preparing their cases for the inquiry. Does he realise that the Government's complete failure to publish the terms of reference for the Hinkley C inquiry is making it impossible for those who wish to construct a case, particularly Somerset county council and the consortium of local councils which are opposed to it? Will the Government publish the terms of reference to enable them to do what the Minister says he wants them to do?
  Mr. Spicer: The terms of reference will be published.
  Mr. Ashdown: When?
  Mr. Spicer: I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman an answer to that question. The terms of reference will be published.
  Mr. Ashdown: When?
  Mr. Spicer: I have just said that I am not in a position to answer that question. The inspector will also have discretionary powers to require that a summary of a statement of evidence shall be prepared, and that only that

  479
  summary shall be read out at the inquiry, although cross-examination will normally be permitted on the contents of the full statement; and that must be right. There is no good reason why time should be taken up unnecessarily by reading out before the inspector material which can be read by all the parties beforehand.
  It is such a change that one—
  Mr. Prescott: That is what the CEGB did.
  Mr. Spicer: The hon. Member for Norwich, South said that the way in which the CEGB presented its case was a costly waste of time. However, we now have a method of making the inquiry more cost effective without anybody being harmed by it. It seems that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is agreeing with that.
  It became evident towards the end of last year—this deals with the point raised by the hon. Member for Norwich, South—that a major public inquiry would be necessary into the Central Electricity Generating Board's application to construct a pressurised water reactor power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset. It was clearly right—there is nothing sinister or untoward about this—that the Government's proposals to make such inquiries more efficient should apply to that major inquiry. We therefore pressed ahead with revising the relevant rules in time for this inquiry. As it was right to make a change in the rules, it was appropriate that they should have been brought forward in time for the inquiry.
  As to planning inquiries, I can tell the House that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, will shortly be making new rules governing inquiries held under the town and country planning legislation.
  Mr. John Garrett: As to Hinkley Point, will the Minister reply to the question that I asked him: if he is so keen to move matters along and to avoid a protracted inquiry, will he undertake to issue the inspector's handbook, which contains useful definitions of what is or is not in the public interest? If a definition of the public interest were to be published for objectors, clearly many fruitless objections could be obviated.
  Mr. Spicer: The short answer to that question is yes, and I shall deal with it in more detail in a moment.
  The first of the two recommendations of the Energy Committee was that certain extracts from the Department of the Environment's planning inspectors' handbook should be made publicly available. My Department supplied those extracts to the Committee in response to its request, at short notice, for written evidence. The advice of the Department of the Environment was that its handbook was written and issued for official use only, but that the Committee should be given in confidence extracts relevant to its inquiry.
  I understand that the handbook was in fact placed in the Libraries of both Houses some years ago. It is unfortunate that that was not drawn to the attention of the Energy Select Committee.
  Having said that, we do believe that those passages of the handbook referring to how inspectors should deal with disruptive behaviour on the rare occasions that that takes
  480
  place at inquiries are best not given wide publicity because they could assist anyone wishing to disrupt an inquiry. I hope that the Select Committee and the House will agree with that specific point. Disruptive behaviour at an inquiry threatens people's statutory rights and it must be right that we are tightening the inspectors' powers in that respect.
  However, I agree with the Select Committee and the hon. Member for Norwich, South that there is a strong case for giving wider publicity to the passages in the handbook which deal with repetition, irrelevance and evidence contrary to the public interest. In any event, the handbook will be revised to take account of the new rules, including those now under debate, and we shall listen carefully to what is said by hon. Members.
  The Select Committee's other main recommendation, which, I accept, is controversial, concerns financial assistance for objectors at public inquiries. That point, too, was raised by the hon. Member for Norwich, South. The Government's position on that is well established and was discussed at length in our response to the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on the Environment. We continue to be against the public funding of objectors for at least three reasons.
  First, most objectors appear at inquiries to defend their own interests. That is perfectly proper, but there is no reason why that should be financed from public or other funds.
  Secondly, the task of deciding which objectors should receive funding and which should not could be—Labour Members laugh, but I would like to see them doing this—invidous and highly controversial. If the decision were taken before the inquiry, either by the Government or by the inspector, there could be allegations that we had predetermined what evidence was likely to be helpful and relevant.
  Finally, it has to be accepted that the local planning authority and other publicly-funded bodies already appear at inquiries to represent the general public.
  I had meant to intervene shortly at this stage. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and with the agreement of the House, I shall spend a few moments at the end answering the particular points raised.
  The new rules reflect the widespread concern, shared by many of those involved in major public inquiries, about the length and cost of such proceedings. The rules are designed to make the inquiry process as efficient and effective as possible, without in any way impairing the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings or the ability of participants to make representations which are relevant to the decision.
  Hon. Members may not accept that, and they may have their reasons for doing so, but that is the Government's firm position. I commend the new rules to the House and ask the House to reject the motion.
  2.37 am
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Only this week, on other subjects in the House, the Secretary of State for Energy has been putting the consumer first and emphasising how Government plans will do that. Yet the Minister's attempt to defend the rules go against that objective. The Minister's attempt to say at one and the same time that the rules limit and yet do not limit objectors borders on the ludicrous.
  The manner in which the rules have been introduced at all stages shows that the Government have no intention of

  481
  putting the individual consumer first. The very fact that we are having this debate in the early hours of the morning is a sign of that. When the Select Committee called for a full debate on the regulations, it did not envisage one at 3 am following a heavy work load. The Government have failed to explain at any stage why the rules have been introduced in the way that they have, in what can only be described as an underhand manner.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Sneaking them in.
  Mr. Taylor: Indeed. The Energy Select Committee's first report stated that
  "it is not difficult to surmise"
  why the rules were tabled two days before the House rose for the Christmas recess. That was precisely and directly related to the Hinkley C proposals. The Government do not attempt to deny that. When I tried to obtain a copy of the new rules three days after they were presented to the House, I was informed that they were not even available at the Vote Office. They had not left the Department. In the end, a special car was sent over from the Department of Energy to give me a copy. That gives us an accurate idea of what the Department is about.
  It is regrettable that the Government, who preach the accountability of industry to its customers, fail to respond to the massive nationwide concern about the development of civil nuclear power. The report "British Social Attitudes 1987" showed that only 10 per cent. of the public wanted more nuclear power stations. The Minister feels that he cannot accept the views of the British people on this issue, but he must at least respond to the nation's desire to have the matter properly debated and to be given proper assurance on the safety of nuclear power.
  Instead, the Minister tries to implement the new rules, which, in the words of the Select Committee,
  "tighten procedure in a way which enhances the position of the CEGB and Area Boards … the Government … has paid particular attention to the arguments from what might be described as the establishment side."
  If the Government want to win the arguments fair and square, they should give people a fair chance to debate them.
  Sir Jim Spicer: I seek one clarification. Is the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party, saying that he is in favour of open-ended inquiries such as the Sizewell inquiry, or does he believe that some time limit should be set so that we do away with all the objections that are designed purely to waste time, because those making them do not want nuclear power stations anyway?
  Mr. Taylor: Thank goodness that time limits are not being imposed. We are seeking open-minded inquiries; we do not believe that they are to be found in the Minister's proposals. Much of the debate so far has concerned the efficiency with which inquiries can be conducted—
  Mr. Frank Cook: I am a little concerned that the hon. Gentleman has not rejected what was implied by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer)—that time was wasted at Sizewell by the appellants rather than the applicants. If time was indeed wasted, was it wasted by those who objected to the proposals, or by those who spun out the time by writing, re-writing, presenting and representing and failing to come up with a safety case in the end?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right. Sir Frank Layfield, in the report on the Sizewell B inquiry, said:
  "There was an expectation that the Inquiry would consider a fully developed safety case from the CEGB. The nature and scope of the Board's case as presented was not clear … The Board's evidence was elaborated and details added, but the safety case remained insufficient complete for a site licence to be issued by March 1985."
  I suggest that that report does not refer to time-wasting by various lobby organisations. It suggests that the lack of detail produced by the CEGB, which presented its case in outline, was the essential problem. A great deal of time was wasted because the CEGB failed to present its case properly at the beginning of the inquiry, which is the point that the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) made. Given the inquiry's concerns about the lack of detail on safety issues, I am sure the House will agree that to attempt to curtail further debate is an encouragement for planners to cut back more on detail and give less time to matters of safety. If Conservative Members do not believe that these are legitimate concerns for inquiries, they are out of tune with general public feeling.
  Mr. Ashdown: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of the Layfield report, which the Minister carefully prayed in aid, is it not the case that, because of the Government's restrictions, certain specific recommendations by the Layfield report about what should be considered when the next PWR comes under consideration will be excluded from the inquiry? I refer in particular to the requirements laid down in paragraphs 108.4 and 91.28 of the report. Other considerations that should be considered are now to be excluded. The Government are deliberately excluding some of the things that Layfield recommended should be included.
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall elaborate the points that he raised.
  The proposals seem to allow the applicants to delay their submission until the objectors have spoken, subject to the inspector's discretion. In other words, they need not come in at all until right at the end of the inquiry. Surely that is nonsense. How can objectors possibly be expected to make the best of their case if they have not heard the applicants' argument in advance of that taking place? That is not an acceptable process that the House should be asked to adopt.
  The Secretary of State referred to the future of the Hinkley C inquiry. He stated that he did not want
  "a tedious, repetitious inquiry in which people use the procedure to prevent a decision from being made."
  However tedious and repetitious the Secretary of State may find such an inquiry, the people of Somerset will want broad terms of reference and easy access to the debate to allow them to have their say about future proposals for their community.
  Mr. Ashdown: And Dorset.
  Mr. Taylor: And Dorset, as my hon. Friend said.
  It is not just a case of where one happens to choose a site for a power station. That is the least of the issues concerned with the siting of a PWR.
  As my hon. Friend asked, will the Government pay attention to the recommendations made during the Sizewell inquiry? In his report, Sir Frank Layfield made it clear that the inquiry was seen as a single inquiry affecting one type of power generation in one area. It is vital that the arguments are looked into again to search for alternatives, if that is deemed to be more suitable.

  483
  It is suggested in the report that, if further progress is made in combined heat and power generation, for example, it should be considered. Another point that was made during the inquiry was that if there were a future inquiry
  "The CEGB has made it plain that the possibility of such a sequence"—
  that is, PWRs—
  "would not remove the need for a proper comparison of alternative means of generation."
  That is precisely contrary to what Conservative Members have argued.
  Like many of my colleagues, I shall watch the proceedings of the Hinkley Point inquiry with interest to see whether the recommendations have been noted or whether Sir Frank Layfield simply wasted his breath in making his suggestions. I hope that it will be possible for objectors to debate alternative forms of generation, and that they will not be ruled out of order for being repetitious or even perhaps disruptive of the general flow of debate on putting in a PWR.
  Many people fear that the general tenor and implication of the new rules is a great increase in the level of secrecy. A good illustration of that—even following the Minister's comments—is the Department of the Environment's planning inspectorate's handbook. The new rules still propose that substantial parts of it remain confidential. I welcome in part what the Minister has said on that matter.
  Objectors must be able to know why their evidence is deemed to be contrary to the public interest, irrelevant or repetitious. To keep the book confidential would strengthen the argument of those who say that the Government are siding with the establishment, as has been said, or worse, as the Select Committee has said, that
  "contrary to the public interest"
  will come to be equated with
  "contrary to the Government's interests".
  It is in the interests of all hon. Members and all who believe in democracy that that should not be the case. The Minister said that such aspects should get some kind of publicity, but he does not go far down that line. He suggests some extracts. He does not even make any absolutely definite commitment.
  Objectors have not won a single case in the last 20 public inquiries. They hardly need things any more weighted against them than they already are. There is no great evidence that objectors are making such use of the freedoms that are given to them that they are getting far in persuading anybody. I do not know why the Minister is so afraid of them. Frankly, the Minister's comment that what is considered as disruptive should remain secret is absurd. Should the police not reveal what they would describe as grievous bodily harm? People must be able to find out, if they are interested, what they are allowed to do and what are the boundaries beyond which they are not allowed to step. That must be available to the public.
  There are other examples of the secrecy surrounding the issue from the CEGB at Hinkley. The objectors to Hinkley C, in an attempt to assess its economic viability, have asked the CEGB to release a statement of the projected costs of the proposed power station. Yet so far the CEGB has refused to release those figures. That can only hinder the objectors in their attempt to draw up their case. Indeed it may well lead them to make cases that, in the Minister's
  484
  words, are irrelevant or repetitious because they do not have the facts to make their case properly. Such secrecy cannot be in the public interests.
  A letter from the CEGB states:
  "On the matter of capital costs for new coal-fired plant, a decision on whether or not these will be included in our inquiry document for Hinkley Point 'C' will be influenced, among other things, by the Rule 5 Statement."
  In other words the CEGB may or may not give the information.
  There can be no doubt that these new rules are aimed at the small objectors and have been created to hinder the small objectors. That is the only respect in which they can save time on the inquiries.
  The Secretary of State can call a pre-inquiry meeting within 28 days and a full inquiry within eight weeks of the pre-inquiry meeting giving short notice to any of those wishing to lodge objections.
  The Department of Energy believes that it would provide greater flexibility to arrange an inquiry sooner. I do not know what that means. Would it perhaps have provided the Government with less flexibility to debate this issue sooner? Is that why they have delayed?
  The new rule 6(4) will state that every objector issuing a document must give a copy to every person concerned. At a large inquiry there may be as many as 100 objectors. If the objection covers 100 pages, that could amount to more than 10,000 pages. How is a small objector expected to bear the costs of that?
  The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) said that shorter inquiries are cheaper inquiries. Under these rules the inquiries will be anything but cheap to the smaller objectors who actually want to make their case. It will also mean that the inquiries are less thorough, and that is a greater concern. The hon. Gentleman said that it would help the smaller objector, as a shorter inquiry would be a cheaper inquiry. The appropriate answer would be to ensure that those smaller objectors are helped to produce those documents.
  A straightforward, simple answer would be for the Government to take on board the cost of giving copies of the various submissions to all those involved in the inquiries. Objectors will not have very long to make those submissions, so it is unlikely that they will be very long. The Government could take that point on board. It might actually help the hon. Member for Dorset, South to make his point.
  I remain deeply suspicious of the Government's motives. I remain suspicious of the underhand methods that they have used in bringing forward these proposals, the secrecy surrounding the CEGB and the rush to implement this new rule when other Departments, such as the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport, have held back. Why is the Department of Energy in such a hurry? Is the intention simply to rush through the inquiry and commence construction of Hinkley C before privatisation and before we have to meet the question whether private companies will want to build the power station at all?
  We should be watching closely for what I can describe only as insidious change by insidious methods. I find it ironic that the Government claim to speak for the individual and for the consumer. I am tempted to ask how they can do that when they will not even give people the adequate opportunity to present their case so that the Government can listen to what they have to say.
  2.54 pm
  Mr. Frank Cook: As time is limited, I shall not cover all the ground that I had intended to cover—and I could speak at considerable length. However, I must allow myself to be tempted by some of the Minister's comments.
  The Minister referred to the need to contain and minimise disruptive behaviour in relation to planning inquiries. It is rich for the Minister to be addressing affairs related to the nuclear industry and talking about disruptive behaviour. I advise the Minister to talk to hill farmers in Wales or Cumbria about their lambs and to the Governments of the 15 Third world countries that have received huge consignments of contaminated milk powder from the Common Market as a result of Chernobyl.
  The Minister said that he had offered a debate on this issue but that the Opposition had turned it down. I remind him that week after week I have appealed to the Leader of the House during business questions for such a debate.
  The Government tried furtively to sneak these rules on to the Order Paper when hon. Members were dashing home to nibble at their Christmas pudding and find a sprig of mistletoe. During the second week of January I tabled an all-party early-day motion that drew attention to the restrictions which have been placed on objectors but which Conservative Members say do not exist. The new rules will affect planning inquiries into the 10 proposed power stations. The majority of the inquiries will affect those people who vote for the Tories. They will be affected by the new power stations and the overhead power lines.
  I draw attention to the scientific advisory panel's final report on the New York state power lines project. Its title is "Biological effects of power line fields." I referred to the report in early-day motion 498. I intend to quote selectively from the report, which says:
  "magnetic fields stimulate the rate of cancer cell growth … children with leukemia and brain cancer are more likely to live in homes where there are elevated 60-Hz magnetic field levels than are children who do not have cancer … for the cancer cells, but not the normal cells, magnetic or combined magnetic and electric fields caused increased cell proliferation, increased numbers of surface transferring receptors, increased resistance to natural-killer-cell activities and increased expression of tumor-cell antigens … All studies demonstrated significant alterations of behaviour … Several areas of potential concern for public health have been identified, but more research must be done before final conclusions can be drawn."
  In the light of that evidence, it is astonishing that the Government can so blindly try to impose such restrictions.
  I have received a letter dated 4 March 1988 from a borough council concerning overhead power lines. The chief planning officer wrote:
  "I refer to your recent enquiry concerning Overhead Power lines. I have checked through the main sources of planning information and found very little guidance or advice on this particular subject."
  Apart from restrictions on the right of objectors to make representations to planning inquiries, very little guidance will be made available by the planning authorities.
  The letter continues:
  "There is no guidance on residential development either existing or proposed in relation to Overhead lines … Whilst there has been concern voiced about the effects of electro magnetic fields there is no substantial evidence which the Local Planning Authority could utilise to deal with such proposals any differently or possibly refuse planning permission."
  In other words, the information which the New York state brought out in its final report is not made available
  486
  to our planning officers. I find that astonishing, especially in the light of another two pieces of correspondence that I consider relevant to our discussions tonight. One is dated 18 July 1982. We have heard a lot about Sizewell and about Sir Frank Layfield—and I am not surprised. This is even more interesting because the letter is signed by Sir Frank Layfield and is addressed to the then Secretary of State for Energy, who hon. Members today will recognise in his present position of Chancellor of the Exchequer. The letter was before the Sizewell inquiry.
  Sir Frank Layfield advised the Secretary of State:
  "the most frequent request made to me was for the provision of public funds to objectors and others who wished to appear at the Inquiry … these requests reflected strongly and widely held views which in many instances were based on thoughtful and well-considered arguments.
  Many of those present at the meeting asked me to pass on their arguments to you and this I now seek to do. In doing so, I realise that requests of a similar kind have been drawn to the attention of Ministers on a number of previous occasions … because of the extent, character and importance of the representations and to the extent of considerable feeling they reflect, I ask that the provision of financial assistance be reconsidered."
  The basis of the appeal made to the Secretary of State by Sir Frank Layfield is that
  "the likelihood is the Inquiry will be the sole opportunity which the public will have to take part in a critical examination of the national issues involved. It was argued that, if Sizewell B is permitted, all future Inquiries into P W.R. Stations will be concerned, wholly or mainly, with siting and local environmental aspects only."
  That was the representation that a responsible man, Sir Frank Layfield, who since then has rightly been held up by the Government as a figure of esteem, made to the then Secretary of State for Energy.
  What was the reply? The Secretary of State wrote:
  "I recognise the sincerity and care with which the case for such aid has been put and I am grateful to you for setting out the arguments so fully and so fairly."
  The Secretary of State is a fair man. His letter continued:
  "I have read your letter and its enclosures very carefully and reconsidered all the arguments … It is argued that this will be the only opportunity to examine these issues directly in relation to the PWR."
  Then he damned it all by stating:
  "Any future application for a nuclear power station will be judged on its own merits. Like Sizewell, future inquiries under Section 34 of the Electricity Act 1957 must conform both to the provisions of that section and the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1981 made last December. These rules require from the Secretary of State a written statement of the points which he thinks relevant to his consideration of a power station application. This is for the guidance of the Inspector but it is not binding on him."
  However, we now find the Government furtively trying to sneak in amended rules applying to planning inquiries purely for power stations and for overhead power lines. It is all right for the Minister to protest that the Government are going to bring in revised planning rules for other areas. Why could they not do so simultaneously? Why could the Minister not give us a date? If he says that it is the Opposition who are ill prepared for this debate, why does he not have the answers to such questions tonight? He will say that it is because it is so early in the morning, but as we have been waiting for the debate for so long, surely he has had all the more time to prepare the case. It is nonsense.
  The Secretary of State went on to say that the nuclear installations inspectorate's report to the Sizewell inquiry would be

  487
  "a valuable independent aid to all parties wishing to probe and discuss the safety aspects of the project."
  That was before the inquiry. Do I need to remind the Minister and other hon. Members that the NII was unable to present any kind of safety case because the CEGB had been unwilling or unable to submit the basis upon which that safety case would be assessed?
  It is important that all the arguments are placed on record. The coalition of local authorities that are opposed to Hinkley Point have made eight arguments. The first is:
  "The CEGB possesses considerable resources and expertise and thus easily out-resources all other objectors. The CEGB should accordingly be full and frank both in their dialogue with objectors and in readily making information available. So far the CEGB has been unwilling to engage in a full exchange of information."
  I hope that the Minister will address the CEGB about that later today.
  The second is:
  "The new Rules require non-local authority objectors to serve copies of their statements of case on other parties".
  The cost of providing such copies should fall on the applicant rather than the appellant. After all, those costs fall on the taxpayer in one way or another.
  The third is:
  "The Rules … enable the Secretary of State to give 28 days' notice of the start of an inquiry. (42 days under the existing Rules.) This period is patently insufficient in the case of major inquiries."
  The Minister should ensure that that period is adjusted.
  The fourth is:
  "Responsible non-local authority objectors should receive appropriate funding to ensure their objections are presented with the benefit of professional advice and representation, as recommended by Sir Frank Layfield in relation to the Sizewell B public inquiry."
  The fifth is:
  "The Inspector's Handbook should be available to all interested parties."
  That echoes what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said, and I am grateful that the Minister has given an undertaking about that.
  The sixth is:
  "The CEGB must not be allowed to shelter behind the 'contrary to public interest' rule."
  Mr. Michael Spicer indicated assent.
  Mr. Cook: I am grateful that the Minister agrees. That argument also echoes what my hon. Friend said.
  The seventh is:
  "The forthcoming 'Code of Practice', dealing with major inquiries, which may be relevant in the context of the Hinkley Point inquiry, should be made available as soon as possible." Thus, objectors will then be able to make pre-reference to that code.
  Finally, the coalition states:
  "The Secretary of State should ensure that a full scrutiny of the issues of site selection, economics, environmental planning and local safety issues takes place at the Hinkley Point Inquiry.".
  I am challenging the Minister to prove that my early-day motion 497, which was tabled in the second week of January, was an accurate prediction. I would be pleased to hear that.
  3.7 am
  Mr. Jack Thompson: The problems of the Hinkley Point site stem from the Sizewell inquiry. At that time the Government would not accept that the inquiry
  488
  into the PWR and the inquiry into the power station at Sizewell were separate. If PWRs had been the subject of a Royal Commission or a debate in the House distinct from the issue of Sizewell we would not be faced with our present problems.
  Public confidence is vital for anything to do with planning proposals or changes to planning proposals. In my area—beyond my constituency—public confidence in planning inquiries has been seriously damaged by the Sizewell inquiry and the Hinkley Point proposals. It may seem strange that the north of England is concerned about those two stations, but two authorities in my areas helped to present cases. The Northumberland county council made a significant investment in a presentation at Sizewell. I was the leader of the council who asked the county to make that investment. Wansbeck district council also contributed towards the cost of making a presentation at Sizewell. It looks as though those authorities will be making similar presentations at the Hinkley Point inquiry.
  The people in my area are extremely interested in such matters. Indeed, a local association was formed about five years ago because it was discovered that the CEGB planned to build a nuclear power station close to my constituency. Druridge bay is on the CEGB's hit list of sites for a nuclear power station. The Druridge bay association is very enthusiastic and raises its funds by the normal methods used by charities—including encouraging me to run three miles along the beach last year. I am not capable of doing that again; having spent so much time in this place I am not in condition.
  The suggested changes preclude individuals from objecting. Paragraph 11(f) says:
  "in relation to applications under section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act 1909, owners and lessees of land situate within three hundred yards of the land"
  may appear. That is a restriction; why not three miles or 30 miles? I assure the Minister that people who live far more than 30 miles away are interested in the site in my area. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) came far more than 30 miles to support me and my colleagues once.
  Mr. Frank Cook: I would do it again.
  Mr. Thompson: I am most grateful.
  The important concept is that the public should have the right to make representations, and the suggested changes give too much power to the Secretary of State to eliminate or restrict representations by individuals and allow the inspector to eliminate, thin out or water down people's representions. That is a diminution of democracy—another little bit that has been taken away.
  I am sure that my constituents and those in the area will express their concern in whatever way is possible. We have not yet had from the CEGB a specific proposal to build a power station at Druridge bay. The CEGB, with a great deal of secrecy, has been on site. It has brought machinery to do borings on the site at 7 o'clock in the morning. That is the sort of activity in which the CEGB involves itself. It is now drafting detailed plans for the development of the site but it has said, "We are not going ahead with it yet." My advice to the people of my area is to start saving up. It is clear from the Minister's comments that we shall not get any help. We shall have to raise the funds by holding jumble sales and sponsored runs on the beach and by whatever methods we possibly can.

  489
  I assure the Minister that when the time comes to fight for Druridge the money will be there: it will come out of the pockets of those who are interested in that area. We shall find the cash to fight the CEGB—or anybody else—because we must remember that there are likely to be changes in the generating industry by then. The fight will be on. We shall do it by the penny, by the sixpence—by whatever means are necessary, to fight the campaign.
  3.12 am
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am grateful for the opportunity to put my views and those of my constituents before the House now that we have finally reached the stage of the debate—3.12 am—at which the spirit of nuclear glasnost has descended upon us and we can have a discussion on the rules, which were originally sneaked in like a thief in the night, the day before we adjourned for Christmas. My constituents and I are very grateful to the usual channels for having arranged this debate at such a convenient time.
  I can say without a doubt that my constituents in Cardiff, West — through the usual Bristol channels—have a major interest in the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station which will be the testbed for the new rules. It will be the test of their fairness to the kind of objectors who will wish to present a case at a public inquiry about a nuclear power station.
  What kind of people want to present their case to such an inquiry? The example of the Sizewell inquiry has been held before us by the Minister and others as a horror show in which objectors made light of proper procedures and disrupted proceedings causing them to be long drawn-out and disorderly. There was far too extensive a lead-in by the CEGB, and far too untidy a safety case was presented. Therefore, there is no reason why the Hinkley Point C inquiry should be similar to the Sizewell inquiry. There is every reason to ensure, however, that objectors have the right to present their case at the Hinkley Point C inquiry, as they did at the Sizewell inquiry.
  It is significant that the Sizewell inquiry took place before the Chernobyl disaster. The impact on people's concerns about safety, the long-term effects of radiation and their health is thus all the greater. I do not think that the Minister has taken account of that factor.
  Secondly, there are far more objectors to Hinkley Point C than there were to the Sizewell proposal. The number of objectors to the Sizewell proposal was about 8,000, and I understand that there are about 12,000 to the Hinkley Point C proposal. How can there be more restrictive rules when there are 50 per cent. more objectors? The increase is obviously strongly linked to the Chernobyl incident. As some hon. Members have said, that has had a major impact in areas of Wales, apart from my constituency. It has been revealed by the Government's experts that in some areas caesium levels will prevent the grazing of sheep for a generation. That is the position in one part of north Wales because of the Pd nature of the soil.
  If that can be expected as a result of an accident that took place about 1,500 miles away, constituents of mine who live no more than 25 miles from the proposed Hinkley Point C will demand to have their objections heard properly. They will demand also that the material that they want to introduce to the inquiry shall not be restricted, bearing in mind that they will be amateurs competing with professionals. They will want their views to be made known to the inquiry, and they should have every right
  490
  under our system to ensure that their voices are heard. They may not have the skills—they will certainly not have the money—to prepare their case in the same way as the CEGB, but they will wish to ensure that the Government take note of their views. The applicant, the CEGB, will have to take the same approach.
  The third difference from the Sizewell inquiry stems from the announcement that was made on Monday during the debate on the proposed privatisation of the electricity supply industry. The Secretary of State stressed that he expected that a more entrepreneurial approach would apply in the electricity industry as a result of the competition that will develop in the generation of electricity. He argued that it will be an entrepreneurial private sector organisation as soon as the necessary legislation passes through the House. He told us that it will cease to be a public utility. This will happen in a minimum of two years. Of course, it could take much longer than that.
  If the proposed legislation is enacted, the body that will be operating a power station at Hinkley Point C will be expected to follow a more entrepreneurial line than a public utility. That was not the position at Sizewell. The animal that will be operating a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C, if it is successful in seeing its way through a public inquiry and an investigation into safety, will be different from the one at Sizewell that was known to be a public utility.
  The three factors that I have mentioned require that objectors' rights should not be restricted at the Hinkley Point C inquiry. The amateur objectors—and there will be many—must not find themselves crushed under the feet of the Goliaths, the CEGB and the other large organisations that have enormous resources, a large team of professional staff and all the facts at their finger tips. These large organisations will find it only too easy under the new rules to disqualify evidence and to blind people with science at a time when objectors will take the view that a nuclear power station of the sort that is proposed at Hinkley Point, in that location, with populations in the Cardiff and Bristol areas only about 30 miles from the site, will be an unwise choice and unsafe, even if it is operated by a public utility, let alone a private sector organisation.
  The proposed use of the new rules for the first time at Hinkley Point C has to be seen in the context of the unholy triangle of moves that the Government have initiated for the nuclear power programme. They are bringing in new rules for public inquiries which will restrict the rights of objectors to present their case to the inspector. At the same time they are preserving the nuclear industry from the climate of competition that they are introducing in the privatisation of the electricity supply industry. Everybody else will have to compete, but the nuclear industry will not. It will have a reserved share. That is the second part of the unholy triangle.
  The third part is the levy which will be imposed on the electricity industry on 1 April. There will be a 9 per cent. increase in prices in England and Wales and a 2 per cent. increase in Scotland. There will be a further 6 per cent. increase next year. In England and Wales that will mean that there will be a 15 per cent. levy on consumers, which the industry did not ask for, to fund the most capital-intensive part of the industry—the nuclear part. It will put money into the pocket of the CEGB which will later go to the successor body, Big G, as it is commonly known in the generating industry. It will go to the 70 per cent. part

  491
  of the CEGB's generating function which will have a duty laid on it by the Government because the Prime Minister has almost a tryst with the nuclear industry. She is Gretchen to Lord Marshall's Dr. Faust in trying to ensure that, whatever happens to the price of oil or the cost of energy, we will have a major nuclear power programme.
  There may be a lot of private generators coming into the industry. It does not matter whether the price is competitive; we will have a nuclear power programme. The Prime Minister has sold her soul to the nuclear power industry. Come what may, the normal rules of free market Conservatism will not apply. I am amazed that some of the free marketeers lined up on the Conservative Benches do not seem to mind that they are throwing away Conservative free market principles when it comes to the nuclear power industry. We have the unholy triangle, of which a key part is to ensure that the rules of public inquiries are rigged in favour of the nuclear power programme, as well as the increase in prices for which the industry did not ask but which will be imposed on it so that it will have funds. As the Americans would say, they will take our money in order to build nuclear power stations that we do not want.
  3.22 am
  Mr. Bob Cryer: As some hon. Members know, I chair the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has reported on the rules. Because some of the 12,000 objectors who have been mentioned might be seeking information. and since the Joint Committee's report is not well known, it should be recorded in Hansard that this is the 16th report of the Joint Committee, House of Commons paper 49-xx.
  We reported on the rules on the basis that they are made by the Lord Chancellor's Department, but there is no one from the Lord Chancellor's Department here to answer points. The definition of England and Wales is provided only by the fact that the rules are made by the Lord Chancellor alone, although on the face of the rules there is no indication that they apply purely to England and Wales.
  We also made the point in the report, in the third paragraph, that
  "The Rules provide procedures for public inquiries in connection with certain electricity works. Rule 10(3) requires the Secretary of State to give at least 28 days' notice of an inquiry to every person entitled to appear, but empowers him to reduce the notice period by agreement with the promoter of the works and the local authority."
  Concern was expressed that an acquiescent local authority and the applicant could come to a collusive arrangement whereby the notice would be reduced.
  Our report continued:
  "The Committee asked the Department why the Secretary of State was not required to consult other parties entitled to appear at the inquiry before holding it at short notice. The Department replied in their first memorandum that this provision was precedented in Rules for similar or comparable inquiries made in 1974 and 1981, and in their further memorandum that the Department of Energy would 'wherever possible … take account of the views of such parties in exercising this power', but that not all other parties would necessarily be known to the Secretary of State before the inquiry began. The Committee could see no reason why the Secretary of State should not be required to consult such other parties as had notified him of an intention or a wish to appear at the inquiry; but they acknowledge that, since this
  492
  provision appeared in the 1974 and 1981 Rules, it cannot be regarded as an unusual or unexpected use of the Department's rule-making power, and that the Department have given an assurance which mitigates the concern expressed by the Committee."
  Mr. Michael Spicer: The fact that I allowed the hon. Gentleman to speak means that I shall not have time to reply to the debate, but on this important point that he is making on behalf of the Joint Committee, the easiest thing would be for me to write to him.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the Minister.
  The memorandum provided by the Lord Chancellor's Department, not by the Secretary of State for Energy, says:
  "The ability to reduce the period within which written notice of an inquiry should be given from 42 days to 28 days provides greater flexibility to arrange an inquiry sooner, particularly in respect of overhead lines proposals where few parties may be involved. For major inquiries, however, it has always been envisaged that much more than 28 days' notice will continue to be given."
  That assurance has now been read into the record. It was given to the Joint Committee, which expressed its misgivings. I should emphasise that there is a majority of Government Members on that Committee, but it reported unanimously its concern about the reduction in rights, and I hope that the fact that it is recorded in Hansard will enable potential objectors to obtain wider information about the nature and content of the rules.
  3.26 am
  Mr. John Garrett: In view of the Minister's failure to answer the serious questions asked about secrecy, citizens' rights to protest about nuclear power development, the definition of the public interest and the serious risk that, at the Hinkley Point inquiry, the CEGB will try to hide behind the definition of the public interest to stifle debate and objection, I invite my hon. Friends to support the prayer.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 84.

  Division No. 210]

  [3.27 am

  AYES

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Nellist, Dave

  Battle, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Clay, Bob

  Prescott, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cryer, Bob

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Cummings, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Dixon, Don

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Henderson, Doug

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. Alun Michael and

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Mr. Frank Haynes.

  NOES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Bright, Graham

  Amos, Alan

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arnold. Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burns, Simon

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Burt, Alistair

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Butler, Chris

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cran, James

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bowis, John

  Day, Stephen

  493

  Devlin, Tim

  Maclean, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Mans, Keith

  Dover, Den

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fallon, Michael

  Miller, Hal

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Mills, Iain

  Forman, Nigel

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Moss, Malcolm

  French, Douglas

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Neubert, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Paice, James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Redwood, John

  Harris, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Ryder, Richard

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

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Irvine, Michael

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Jack, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Janman, Tim

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Knowles, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lord, Michael

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

  Question accordinly negatived.

  A1(M) (Safety)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]
  3.38 am
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: It has been a long night—or should I say morning—but I appreciate the opportunity to raise a case which, both in itself and in its wider implications, causes me great concern. I hope that, by the end of the debate, my feelings will find sufficient echo with the Minister to persuade him to act, If so, it will have all been worthwhile.
  In August 1985, a young constituent of mine, Emma Bowring, boarded a National Express coach at Durham bus station for the journey to London. Although she had qualified as a nurse in Durham the year before, she had been forced out of the area by the scarcity of jobs. So, each month, after a short visit to her family and friends in Durham, she would get on to her coach to return to her work in Kent. A significant part of her leisure was spent in trying to keep up her links with home, and she was familiar to the point of tedium with the coach journey. Doubtless she was also aware—as is anyone who travels to the north-east—of the diabolical traffic levels on the A1 road, especially north of Ferrybridge. It is always groaning with heavy vehicles negotiating the two-lane carriageway. In only a few places is the A1 up to motorway standards.
  Something else that Miss Bowring might have noticed on her monthly journeys was the swarms of passenger-carrying coaches that our trunk roads seem to attract so freely. As a regular passenger, she could not have missed the experience of her coach charging at 80 mph plus, past somebody doing perhaps a couple of miles an hour above the speed limit. We have all seen it happen. Just in case the Minister has not seen it happen, I have here a set of photographs taken only last month by Today newspaper, each of which shows a coach exceeding the speed limit on the motorway.
  I should like to quote from Today newspaper which says:
  "The perils of high-speed coaches have become a daily fact of life on Britain's motorways as drivers battle to keep to timetables. In recent years these have led to a spate of fatal crashes."
  The article goes on to say:
  "Using a Porsche sports car—widely accepted in the motor industry as having the most accurate speedometer—the speeds of passing vehicles were monitored. Within minutes, as the Porsche kept to 70 mph, the first offender roared past. The single-decker owned by the Berks/Bucks Bus Company was travelling at between 75 mph and 80 mph as it carried passengers into London. Shortly after, the British Airways coach, driving even faster, powered past…During a similar check on the M1 between Leeds and Manchester, almost all the long-distance coaches were driving to the maximum speed limit. At one stage a coach operated by Fastway, part of the Wakefield-based West Riding Automobile Company, was seen travelling at 85 mph on the outside edge of the fast lane, spraying dust and dirt on to cars behind it."
  The newspaper's evidence is consistently backed up by the results of more scientific studies, including those of the Minister's Department.
  It is no use blaming coach drivers' self-indulgence for the problem. The real danger appears to arise from under-generous scheduling by companies anxious to make the most use of their vehicles and to present the most

  495
  competitive journey times, however nominal. The five hour 15 minute scheduled journey from Newcastle to London preserves a legal average speed of about 60 miles an hour. However, it fails to take account of the time needed for intermediate stops, roadworks and the congested approaches to London. It can mean drivers rushing to make up time to meet advertised connections or to prevent inroads into their rest time before they must start on their return journey. Keeping up with the timetable can mean speeds of well over 80 mph.
  Miss Bowring's journey on 3 August did not last long. Shortly after leaving Durham, just north of the Bradbury interchange on the A1, her coach swerved to miss a sheep which had been allowed to wander on to the carriageway. The coach overturned. The passengers were thrown across the vehicle and a number of them who were trapped inside were dragged along the road on a bed of broken glass and oil. Emma Bowring was killed and her 13-year-old sister, travelling with her, suffered serious spinal injuries. She was in hospital for two years and still needs regular medical attention. The disaster could have been worse than that of King's Cross and it was only a miracle that it was not.
  It was said at the inquest that the driver, who was 64, lost control, swerving his vehicle through a 180 degree turn. Tachograph records showed that the bus had been travelling at speeds in excess of 80 mph shortly before the accident. The double-decker vehicle contained 48 passengers, 42 of whom were on the top deck.
  Since Miss Bowring's death, her parents have been engaged in an exhausting battle for some sort of recompense. Money is important—no one can pretend that it is not — to ensure the future of their maimed young daughter. Even more than that, there is a wish for the bus company to pay some sort of attention to them and the wider circle of victims after the disaster for which it was responsible. So far, the company has consciously failed to do that. The company, United Motor Services, can legally refuse to offer anything in respect of Emma, and I am sure that hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that that is what it has done. Appalled by the meanness and irresponsibility of United Motor Services, the girl's parents came to see me recently and started off the process that has led to this debate. The girl's father wrote to me and said:
  "The bereaved families, in addition to the problems they have to cope with, are forced to face the harrowing experience of carrying their argument into the glare of publicity to get any sort of result. Our experience gives us no other hope that the Company will reveal its concern or its conscience."
  United Motor Services looks to me, and to everyone else whom I have asked, as being outstandingly arrogant and uncaring. It is quite happy to take people's money but when the debt is the other way around it is not interested.
  From what Mr. Draper, the girl's father, tells me, United Motor Services has not contacted him to apologise yet. Apparently, for United Motor Services, under our law, it is cheaper for Emma Bowring to die than for her to be injured, and surely that cannot be just.
  From the outset I have been conscious that Miss Bowring's case is a matter for the courts and not for the Minister. The mammoth task of tackling the compensation laws is not yet one for which I feel properly equipped. As I looked deeper into the messy issue of coach safety I became more certain that too many people were going through the circus of injuries, bereavements and
  496
  compensation fights. The rate of death and injury is still too high, despite recent improvements, and there are proven safety measures that could surely reduce it, given the will of the Government and the strength of regulation.
  I am aware of the measures that the Government have adopted in certain regards, and some are very encouraging. Speed governors are an important improvement, even if they are rather overdue, and I welcome the new regulations. I ask the Minister to monitor coach schedules and speeds in the three years until installation is universal to counter the dangerous practices to which I referred earlier.
  Other measures will be less useful. I am particularly concerned about the narrow scope of the new seat belt regulations, which as the Minister will know apply only to the few exposed seats on a coach and will not apply retrospectively. As the coach fleet that is already in service is quite new and will not need replacing for many years, very few vehicles will have seat belts fitted in the near future. I feel that the question of whether seat belts should be fitted to all seats deserves closer examination.
  As the Minister will know, compulsory seat belt wearing in the front seats of cars has led to an appreciable drop in the casualty rate. No doubt the same will happen when rear seat occupants are brought under the scope of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Bill. The principles involved in passenger coaches are not exactly the same, but the results should be fairly similar. If anything, the seats of a coach carry more people than the rear seats of a car, although they are comparable.
  In a collision, seat belts prevent people being thrown around inside the vehicle or being thrown outside it, which is the cause of the most serious injuries. Seat belts would save coach passengers from a host of minor and extremely common injuries, such as when someone's head is knocked against the seat in front.
  To be worth while, seat belts would have to be compulsory. That might lead to some aggravation at first, but passengers would surely get used to them, particularly as there is little need for movement on a coach.
  Last year the Consumers Association had a meeting with the Minister and pressed
  "that fitted seatbelts should be mandatory on all coach seats—they are technically necessary, low cost, available and wanted by consumers.
  The outcome was disappointing … the Minister's argument was that compulsory seatbelts would not be effective.
  Rather than waiting for the ECE Regulation we would like to see the UK setting the pace on this, and encouraging Europe to join in."
  I ask the Minister what chance there is of a satisfactory ECE regulation in the near future. I question his judgment of cost-effectiveness, because surely anything that will save hundreds of deaths and injuries for an outlay of about £7 per seat is automatically cost-effective.
  The other proposal that would cut down on the future numbers of Bowring cases is to reform the speed limits. Britain has arguably the most crowded roads in Europe. If I were a regular coach user, I would be frightened by the fact that Europe's most crowded roads also have Europe's highest coach speed limits. Seventy mph is a reasonable speed for cars, but for a six-wheeled 20-tonne, 15-ft tall monster with 60 people and their luggage on board, it is a disaster. Other countries seem to understand that. Nowhere else does the motorway coach limit come closer

  497
  than 62 mph. Even Britain recognises that heavy goods vehicles should not exceed 60 mph or enter the third lane on motorways. With all the double-decker coaches nowadays, the only difference between them that matters is that heavy goods vehicles carry far fewer people.
  Indications are that impact strength in a collision at 60 mph is 44 per cent. less than in the same collision at 70 mph, and that a speed limit of 60 mph would reduce the gravity of injuiries and the number of accidents.
  To ban coaches from the third lane of three-lane motorways is the final major measure that I consider would improve standards. It complements a lower speed limit well. Indeed, it is probably wrong to have one without the other. Speed limits without lane restrictions would mean that coaches hampered cars in the fastest lane and lane restrictions without speed limits could mean that coaches were travelling too fast for the traffic in the two lanes to which they had access. Removing coaches from the third lane would keep them out of the fastest traffic and oblige them to slow down. It would also reduce the need for lane changes and overtaking, the most dangerous parts of motorway driving.
  No doubt the Minister will be thankful to hear that I am nearing the end of the things that I think that his Department should be doing. As I do so, I would just like to touch on a few other matters—briefly, I promise.
  The first is driver training. I am not happy that the public service vehicle test does all that it can to help drivers cope with motorway conditions. Nor am I satisfied with the frequency and rigour of the medical and other checks carried out during a driver's career. Will the Minister give me some assurances on that in his reply?
  I am also concerned that a situation can arise—this refers specifically to the Bowring case — when a local authority is never able to guarantee that its fencing will prevent animals from wandering on to a high-speed road. Should not councils keep records of inspection? When confronted with the fatal gap, through which Miss Bowring's sheep passed, the authority blamed land subsidence at some date in the past for the fact that it was 5 ins wider than it should have been, despite clear evidence of the regular passage of animals through it. Miss Bowring's father is also of the opinion that there must be prosecutions against landowners whose sheep or other animals frequently stray on to motorways, and I certainly agree with that.
  Loading of the double-deckers is another factor. Although I have been unable to discover much about the importance or otherwise of coach loading, perhaps the Minister can help me. To have 42 out of the total load of 48 people on the top deck does not seem to be the safest arrangement that can be obtained. Surely a top-heavy bus must be unstable. Instructions on the safest principles of passenger loading should be given to staff and be displayed. Perhaps that would help to reduce overturning or cartwheeling.
  Lastly, I accept that double-deckers are here to stay, but is it altogether too optimistic to ask for an end to or a restriction of new production? I ask more in hope than expectation.
  This, then, amounts to a programme for reform in coach safety. It is curious that our overloaded roads are constantly packed with coachloads of people whose dearest wish is, reportedly, to be, able to afford the price of a rail ticket, and yet the trains run half empty. I can think of no other country outside the Third world of
  498
  America where buses are a serious mode of long distance volume public transport. It seems unfair that the railway should bear its infrastructure costs, but the coaches pay only the £100 road fund, and the Government pay the rest.
  We live in hope of an increase in British Rail's PSO grant, but we must accept that coaches are the here and now and they need to be safer. We must also acknowledge that coaches, traditionally the transport of the poor, have often been the Cinderalla of safety regulations and that, with increased business deregulation and competition and commercial developments in the industry, are sometimes in danger of outpacing safety developments.
  I strongly believe that good public services are crucial to a civilised way of life, especially in a country as crowded as Britain. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be a belief shared by many of the Minister's colleagues. King's Cross showed what can happen when carelessness or hostility is allowed to weaken necessary public services. The Government must learn that there are some areas, although perhaps fewer than we thought in 1979, into which commercialism cannot intrude. I am genuinely worried that they may learn their lesson the hard way, after repeated lapses of safety standards, followed by a series of calamities.
  I am sure that the Minister has come across cases like Emma Bowring's. I am sure that he, like me, wants to come across as few of them as possible in future. Accordingly, I appeal to him to think about the measures I have mentioned and to respond generously to them. He must be an old hand at these late-night debates, and I, as one of the newest hands al them, thank him for his consideration and patience, even when he thought I would never finish.
  3.57 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Stale for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) has done the House and country a service by raising a road casualty reduction issue — even at this time of day. I should welcome more debates on the subject.
  Between 16 and 18 people have died on the roads in the past 24 hours, 12 of them in built-up areas. Taking 1984, 1985 and 1986 together, 18 people died in long-distance coaches on motorways and on A roads. In 1984, five passengers died in public service vehicles on those roads; in 1985, 12 died; and in 1986, only one. The number of fatalities obviously fluctuates, but it is low. However, any unnecessary deaths should be avoided whenever possible, even deaths that can be described as accidents. I remind the House that the coroner's verdict was that the tragic death of Miss Emma Bowring was acccidental. Any death, whether accidental or due to an obvious cause, is to be regretted. That is why the Secretary of State has set out a target of cutting road casualties in the United Kingdom by a third by the year 2000.
  I should welcome much more interest in drink-driving, which is the largest single cause of deaths on our roads, and in motor cycle safety. The motor cycling world thinks that I have a bee in my bonnet about motor bikes, but 700 people die on them each year and 52,000 are injured.
  Compared with other forms of road passenger transport, coach travel remains by far the safest. Given the choice between driving myself up the A1(M) to Durham or going by coach, I should be far safer travelling by coach.

  499
  The hon. Member for City of Durham raised the issue of compensation. I do not think that he wants me to go into too much detail on that now, but there are no plans to change the existing basis for liability for road accident injuries, which is based on the principles of negligence. The civil justice review, set up in 1985, is examining ways of reducing cost, delays and the complexity of litigation. The review is expected to report to the Lord Chancellor shortly. As the hon. Gentleman said, that will not affect the claim in the case that he mentioned, but it is information that people will want to have.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the standard of training of public service vehicle drivers. We constantly monitor the tests, but there are no plans to revise them at present. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport has endorsed the Bus and Coach Council's code on driving standards and restraint on coach speeds.
  The Department of Transport's survey, conducted in July and August last year, showed that 9 per cent. of buses and coaches exceeded the 70 mph limit on stretches of roads where it was easy for them to do so. That is a substantial reduction on the 1983 figures, when nearly a third of coaches exceeded the maximum speed limit. Even 9 per cent. exceeding the speed limit is not satisfactory, but it is a remarkable improvement, and it is better than for other vehicles on motorways.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the introduction of speed limiters. They are coming in. The House has had the relevant information. They will physically prevent coaches exceeding 70 mph.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be appropriate to reduce the motorway speed limit for coaches from 70 mph to 60 mph, and whether we should consider banning coaches from the third lane. We have the safest roads in the European Community, because we base our decisions and regulations on monitoring and seeing whether there will be benefit. People may say that I am being too hard-hearted in rigidly sticking to what produces the best benefit. But the reason the death rates on our roads are significantly better than the West Germans', who have 50 per cent. more deaths for the same population, or the French who have twice as many deaths for the same population, is that we do not just work on what the Minister might see as common sense. It is subject mainly to the work of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, to which I pay public tribute.
  The problem with restricting coaches, apart from seeing what benefit there would be, is that they would be confined to bunching with heavy goods vehicles, which are heavier than coaches and have thicker skins—if I may put it that way—than coaches, I suspect that we would not end up with significant benefit. I hope that people will realise that the various requirements that we have been putting on coaches, in addition to speed limits that are coming, will also have the effect of increasing the safety of coaches. From 1 October, we shall have seat belts fitted to all exposed forward coach seats. I am looking at the possible extension of the requirements to exposed seats on existing coaches.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be appropriate to have seat belts on all seats. I feel strongly about that issue. The evidence is that passengers in exposed seats are at most risk. I refer to the tragedy of the coaches involved in the crash on the M4 at Heston a few
  500
  months back. Passengers in exposed seats suffered the greatest injury and died. Coaches met head-on at speed, because of the inexplicably dangerous behaviour of a lorry driver. Nearly all passengers were either not significantly hurt or survived. That shows the integral strength of coaches when one is not sitting in an exposed seat.
  Anti-lock brakes will be required on coaches from 1 April 1990. They will also help drivers to maintain stability on braking suddenly or in adverse conditions. There will be improvements to coach roof strength. Ordinary coaches will become safer in roll-over accidents. A stronger roof built to a new international standard will he required on new coaches from 1 April 1990.
  On fire safety, we have recently tightened up the requirements on emergency exits from the top deck of double-deck coaches. The European standard for flammability of upholstery materials, now agreed, will be implemented as soon as possible.
  There is no reason to ban double-deckers from motorways. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about whether it is sensible to have 42 out of 48 passengers on the top deck. I shall make inquiries and write to the hon. Gentleman. The vehicles which are banned from motorways are those considered to be of particular hazard to other traffic such as slow-moving agricultural vehicles. Double deckers do not constitute a particular hazard.
  The hon. Member for City of Durham raised some other points to which I shall reply in more detail. I want to emphasise that we want to avoid all unnecessary crashes and collisions. According to our information, at present 75 per cent. of the death and injury on our roads is unnecessary. We are continuing research to find out what more could be avoided.
  Last year, 5,382 people died on our roads. Of that number, 248 died on the motorways. Motorways carry 14 per cent. of all traffic and have only 2 per cent. of the injury accidents. None of that is any consolation to any family caught up in the casualty toll, especially to the family of Miss Emma Bowring. However, it is worth recognising that motorways are the safest roads and that coaches are the safest vehicles on those roads.
  I share with the hon. Gentleman the intention of making coach travel on and off the motorways as safe as it reasonably can be. I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the greatest returns will come by dealing with drink-driving and by dealing with motor cycles so that we can preserve what is good about motor cycling and cut out what is bad about it—although there has been remarkable distortion in the motor cycle press—and if we pay more attention to safety in built-up areas, as 40 per cent. of our vehicle traffic is in built-up areas and 80 per cent. of injuries occur in built-up areas.
  We should take a balanced approach that deals with every issue that arises. The hon. Gentleman has raised a particular issue tonight. If we take a broad approach to the other issues that are killing a large number of people, we shall be able to deliver the Secretary of State's target. That is not to make the Secretary of State happy, but to make sure that police officers will knock on the doors of fewer homes to tell people that their son or daughter, their husband or wife or one of their parents will not be coming home.
  It is also worth recognising that we must involve young people in road casualty reduction from an early age. I should like to pay a public tribute to class 9 of the Wharton primary school in Salford where I was this

  501
  morning where children between the ages of eight and a half and 10 were looking at road casualty reductions, some of which applied to collisions on motorways.
  If we can all take our responsibilities seriously, whether it is the people maintaining the fences which led to the sheep coming onto the A1(M) or whether it is people's own
  502
  road use behaviour, we shall be serving the people of this country and helping to make the roads as safe as they reasonably can be.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Four o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mr. T. D. Phung
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to provide a substantive reply to the representations made on 17 March 1987 by the hon. Member for Woolwich in the case of Mr. T. D. Phung.

  Mr. Renton
  I wrote to the hon. Member yesterday.

  Mr. Truong Nguyen Thanh.
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his inquiries into the case of Mr. Truong Nguyen Thanh, originally raised with him by the hon. Member for Woolwich on 1 July 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  As I told the hon. Member in my written answer on 2 December 1987 at column 588, further inquiries were needed before this case could be resolved. I much regret that there has been some delay in initiating these. A reply is, however, now awaited from Mr. Truong. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as the case has been fully considered.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act his Department has received; what was his estimate of this number; whether he is reconsidering the subject access fee charged by his Department as a result; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  During the period 11 November 1987 to 1 March the Home Office received 16 requests for subject access.

  It was not judged possible to make any firm advance estimate of likely take-up, but there was an indication, on the basis of experience in other European countries, that requests might be in the range of 0·1 to 1·0 per cent. per annum of records held, that is between 5,000 and 50,000 requests a year to be addressed to the Home Office.

  There are no plans to reconsider the subject access fees charged by the Department.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he will not hold discussions with the Data Protection Registrar to produce a code of practice covering national security purposes as is possible under the terms of part V of the Data Protection Act.

  Mr. Hurd
  I can see no advantage in a code of practice in this area.

  La Belle Discotheque
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Metropolitan police on their discussions with the West Berlin police regarding the statement by the acting head of the United States police in West Berlin, on 14 April 1986, as to the state of alerts in relation to the bombing of the La Belle discotheque: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to a similar question from the hon. Member on 7 March, at column 4.

  Child Care
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses he has received from the voluntary sector to his consultative document on the proposed national unit for disclosure of police information to voluntary bodies concerning those wishing to work with children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received 11 responses from the voluntary sector (including eight from bodies representing a number of voluntary organisations).

  Police Cells (Escapees)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the escape of five category A and two remand prisoners from South West London magistrates court cells on 6 March.

  Mr. Hurd
  The security of prisoners held in police and magistrates courts cells within the Metropolitan police district is the responsibility of the Commissioner. I understand from the Commissioner that on Sunday 6 March, 12 remand prisoners were being accommodated in court cells at South Western magistrates court, where they were the responsibility of one sergeant and three constables. One prisoner was being returned with an escort from the shower room when several prisoners attacked the police officers and succeeded in overpowering them. Seven of the 12 prisoners then escaped from the premises. The escape was discovered at approximately 10 pm when the night duty police officers arrived to relieve their colleagues. The prisoners who escaped included two who were jointly charged with murder, one who was on remand for possession of firearms, three who were on remand in relation to drug offences and one who was on remand for robbery. No category A prisoner was among those who escaped.

  The Commissioner tells me that the incident is now being investigated by members of the Metropolitan Police Complaints Investigation Bureau and that all divisional chief superintendents have been instructed urgently to review security in police and magistrates courts cells within their divisional territories. The cells at the South Western district magistrates court will not be used for remand prisoners, pending a full review of the security arrangements.

  I understand that three men, including the two men who escaped having previously been charged with murder, have now been recaptured.

  RUC (Chief Constable)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 218, what inquiries he made of persons in (a) Scarborough and (b) Northern Ireland before announcing that the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir John Hermon, was in Northern Ireland throughout 19 May 1986; on what evidence his statement to the House was based; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  No inquiries were made of any persons in Scarborough. In Northern Ireland an inquiry was addressed to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I was informed that Sir John Hermon held a meeting in his office on the morning of 19 May, that he attended a medal presentation ceremony in the afternoon, and that in the evening he had a dinner engagement, all these engagements being in Northern Ireland.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is being done to increase the involvement of the public in crime prevention and to provide information on the steps that can be taken to reduce crime.

  Mr. John Patten
  Following the recent announcement of the "Safer Cities" programme my right hon. Friend today launched a major publicity campaign aimed at encouraging the public to work with the police to reduce crime. The campaign will cost about £3 million in its first phase, and is designed to run for three years. A free handbook is being made available on request which will give practical advice on a wide range of preventive measures. A copy of the handbook has been sent to all hon. and right hon. Members and placed in the Library.

  Prisoners' Grievance Procedures (Review)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons' review of prisoners' grievance procedures will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The report of a thematic review of prisoners' grievance procedures, conducted by Sir James Hennessy before the expiry of his term and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, is published today. I am grateful to Sir James Hennessy and to the inspectorate for the work which went into this review and for a report which I hope will stimulate discussion of this important subject.

  Sir James Hennessy's principal conclusion is that prisoners' grievance procedures need to be fair, efficient and effective and to inspire confidence among prisoners, staff and the wider community; that the existing procedures do not in all respects satisfy those requirements; and that they need to be overhauled.

  £'000

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Barnet

  260

  192

  1,091

  1,662

  400

  880

  1,109

  Brent

  342

  298

  340

  46

  12

  631

  467

  198
  Among the specific recommendations in the report are proposals for simplifying the procedures so that, as far as possible, each stage for examining a request or grievance should be exhausted before the next is embarked upon. The report envisages that governors, boards of visitors and the prison department would continue to play a part in the resolution of prisoners' grievances, which however should be distinguished according to whether they are complaints or requests; but it also proposes the establishment of a new prison ombudsman and the discontinuation of prisoners' access to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Other recommendations include a statutory code of prisoners' rights and duties as a long-term aim; the removal of the restrictions on the ventilation of prisoners' complaints; the withdrawal of the disciplinary offences of making a false and malicious allegation and of repeatedly making groundless complaints; improved information for prisoners about the procedures for making a complaint; and the introduction of time limits for replying to complaints and of a requirement for reasons to be given when complaints are rejected.

  Before reaching decisions on the recommendations in this report I want to be able to take into account comments from interested individuals and organisations, both inside and outside the prison service. These should reach the Department by 9 June and should be sent to the Head of P3 Division, Home Office Prison Department, Cleland House, Page Street, London SW1P 4LN.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Under-fives
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he envisages any reduction of educational provision for children under five years of age, following the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  Education for under-fives is provided at the discretion of local education authorities, but the inner London councils will be required to set out their proposed provision for this age group in development plans to be published early next year. Any proposals for significant reductions in current provision would be subject to statutory procedures under the Education Act 1980.

  Voluntary-aided and Special Agreement Schools
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what the capital spending allocation for voluntary-aided and special agreement schools was in the London boroughs of Barnet, Brent, Ealing, Enfield, Haringey, Hillingdon and Harrow in each of the years 1982–83 to 1988–89; and how much in each case was allocated to Roman Catholic voluntary-aided schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  Allocation in these years for each of these London boroughs is as follows:
  199

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Ealing

  185

  350

  340

  341

  331

  762

  971

  Enfield

  81

  314

  375

  620

  197

  93

  383

  Haringey

  147

  58

  60

  425

  323

  75

  50

  Hillingdon

  94

  131

  175

  67

  40

  230

  350

  Harrow

  21

  22

  10

  20

  1

  25

  25

  The allocations shown here are those announced before the start of the financial year in question and do not include subsequent revisions.

  It is not possible to show separately how much has been allocated to Roman Catholic voluntary-aided schools.

  Nottinghamshire Education Committee
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received a request for a meeting from the Nottinghamshire education committee with regard to its capital allocation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has received no such request.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether any of the proposed city technology colleges will be supported by funds from the tobacco industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The companies which have announced their intention to sponsor a city technology college include Hanson plc, which has interests in the tobacco industry among a number of others.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Lavatories
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, how many(a) water closets for (i) men and (ii) women and (b) urinals there are in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested, for the Commons area of the Palace of Westminster, is as follows:

  Toilet facility

  Number of locations

  Urinals1 and water closets for men

  38

  Water closets for women

  15

  1 Urinals alone are provided in 2 locations.

  Select Committees (Visits)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the cost of(a) home and (b) overseas visits by each Select Committee since 1979; how many members were involved in each visit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  All the information requested for Sessions 1985–86 and 1986–87 is contained in the Sessional Select Committee Returns for those years; costs of home and overseas visits in sessions 1979–80 to 1984–85 are set out in the Sessional Returns, but the number of Members involved in each visit in those years could be discovered 200
  only at disproportionate cost; information about the anticipated cost of overseas travel by Committees in the current session was given in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 29 February at columns 642–4; the other information requested for this Session is not yet available, but will be included in the Sessional Return for this session.

ENERGY

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's policy with regard to the provision of urban sites suitable for combined heat and power stations.

  Mr. Parkinson
  It is for the promoters of urban combined heat and power schemes to obtain suitable sites for CHP stations and to secure the necessary planning consent.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's policy with regard to the encouragement of the further development of combined heat and power district heating in Britain.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My Department has provided substantial funding towards studies to evaluate the feasibility of combined heat and power-district heating. It is now for the private sector to take its further development forward.

  Uranium
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what uranium not covered by either bilaterial or multilateral safeguard arrangements has been imported for civil use into the United Kingdom since 1979; and if he will name the countries of origin of such uranium.

  Mr. Parkinson
  None. All civil nuclear material in the United Kingdom is subject to our safeguards agreements with Euratom and the IAEA.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what specific provisions exist in each of the current safeguards arrangements covering uranium to ensure that uranium imported into(a) the United Kingdom, and (b) the European Economic Community remains within the safeguardable nuclear cycle; and what is the practice of (a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) Euratom with regard to weight-for-weight direct substitution of safeguarded uranium within the agreed safeguards arrangements.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 26 February 1988]: All uranium imported into the United Kingdom for civil use is subject to Euratom safeguards and the terms of the United Kingdom-Euratom-IAEA safeguards agreement. In some cases it is subject to special safeguarding obligations agreed between the supplying country and the Community.
  201
  Euratom accepts exchanges of safeguards obligations between nuclear material on the basis of strict equivalence in quantity and quality.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if there are any contractual arrangements currently in force that permit the import or retention of spent nuclear fuel and attendant radioactive wastes to remain in the United Kingdom which are not covered by a return to sender clause.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Since 1976, BNFL's contracts for the reprocessing of overseas spent fuel have contained options for the return of wastes. The Government intend that these options should be exercised, and that the wastes should be returned. BNFL has a number of reprocessing contracts with overseas customers which were signed before 1976. Those contracts do not contain return of waste options, but wastes from them will represent no more than 10 per cent. of total waste arisings in the United Kingdom by 2000. No facilities in addition to those needed for the disposal of United Kingdom wastes should be required.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Gaza Strip
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current budget for housing construction and sewage systems within the Gaza strip of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency; what were the equivalent figures for each of the last five years; and what were the contributions to these budgeted figures from(a) the United Kingdom, (b) each of the other four permanent members of the Security Council, (c) Saudi Arabia, (d) Kuwait and (e) Iraq.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The UNRWA has not been involved in the construction of housing or sewerage systems in Gaza for many years. The agency has undertaken a modest programme of essential maintenance of shelters for special hardship families and a limited amount of surface drain construction in the eight Gaza camps. Expenditure on these programmes for the period 1983–88 is as follows:

  Shelter maintenance US dollars

  Surface drains US dollars

  1983

  44,000

  175,000

  1984

  104,000

  72,000

  1985

  72,000

  33,000

  1986

  111,000

  13,000

  1987

  129,000

  72,000

  1988 (Projected)

  135,000

  94,000

  These programmes are funded from the core budget. The UNRWA has not received earmarked contributions for this type of expenditure and cannot therefore provide a breakdown by donor country.

  United Nations Children's Fund
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of Her Majesty's Government's total multilateral aid budget was contributed to the United Nations children's fund in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is as follows:
  202

  Percentage of gross public expenditure on multilateral aid contributed to UNICEF

  Year

  Per cent.

  1978

  3·48

  1979

  2·87

  1980

  1·89

  1981

  2·12

  1982

  1·45

  1983

  1·26

  1984

  1·13

  1985

  1·70

  1986

  1·63

  The 1987 percentage is not yet available.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was Her Majesty's Government's contribution to the United Nations children's fund (general resources and special appeals) in each year since 1978 at current and outturn prices.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 21 October 1987 at columns 745–6.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's percentage share of total contributions to the general resource fund of the United Nations children's fund in the latest available year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Our share of total contributions to the general resources fund of the United Nations Children's Fund was 4·24 per cent. in 1986, the latest available year. The figure is taken from UNICEF's report "Contributions from Governments and Other Sources to General Resources and for Specific Purposes in 1986" a copy of which was placed in the Library in October 1987.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is available as to the total value to United Kingdom companies of contracts awarded to supply goods and services to the United Nations children's fund for each year since 1982.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The following are the latest UNICEF figures available:

  $US

  1982

  11,658,700

  1983

  10,392,900

  1984

  9,205,900

  1985

  11,136,100

  1986

  13,901,900

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of Her Majesty's Government's contributions to multilateral aid agencies was made(a) by automatic subscription and (b) by voluntary contribution, in each since 1978.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information in the table covers contributions from the aid programme to United Nations development agencies, international financial institutions, the European Community and Commonwealth aid programmes defined as follows:
  203

  i. Agencies where automatic subscription payments follow from agreed administrative budgets (for example the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation and most aid paid from the European Community budget);

  ii. Agencies where subscription or contribution payments follow negotiated increases in capital or soft fund resources (for example the multilateral development banks, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the European Development Funds and the European Community's aid programme towards the Mediterranean states);

  iii. Agencies to which we contribute on a purely voluntary basis, year by year, (for example the United Nations Children's Fund, the United Nations Development Programme and the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation).

  Percentage of total multilateral contributions (as defined above)

  Year

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  1978

  16

  54

  30

  1979

  15

  57

  28

  1980

  22

  61

  17

  1981

  27

  58

  14

  1982

  23

  64

  13

  1983

  19

  71

  10

  1984

  27

  63

  10

  1985

  29

  56

  15

  1986

  23

  62

  l5

  Figures for 1987 are not yet available.

  Note: Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Police Computers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what prosecutions(a) are currently taking place, (b) are currently being considered and (c) have been completed in the last year which involve allegations of abuse of the police national computer or any other police computer; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  No separate records are kept by the Crown Prosecution Service of prosecutions involving allegations of abuse of police computers, and accordingly it is not possible to give an accurate answer to the hon. Member's question.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General how many subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act the Lord Chancellor's Department has received; what was his estimate of this number; whether he is reconsidering the subject access fee charged by the Department as a result; and whether he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has received 700 subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1984, all but one of which came from members of staff. No estimate had been made of the likely number of requests. No fee is currently being charged by the Department and no change is being considered.

  "My Country Right or Wrong"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his decision to apply for the lifting 204
  of the interim injunction against the transmission of the first episode of the BBC programme "My Country Right or Wrong".

  The Attorney-General
  When the Government had reason to believe that the Radio 4 series "My Country Right or Wrong" would include interviews with members and former members of the security and intelligence services, the Government asked the BBC to give details of what would be broadcast from those interviews. The BBC refused to provide that information and so the Government sought and obtained an interlocutory injunction in order to uphold the duty of confidentiality owed by such persons. When in the course of the court proceedings the BBC provided a transcript of the first episode, the Government were able to consider what was to be broadcast from those interviews and concluded that it was no longer necessary for the broadcast of that episode to be restrained by the injunction. The Government were not able to agree to the lifting of the injunction as a whole because the BBC has still refused to disclose what other material from those interviews it is proposed to include in future broadcasts.

WALES

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act his Department has received; what was his estimate of this number; whether he is reconsidering the subject access fee charged by his Department as a result; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department has received one request for subject access, under the terms of the Data Protection Act, and did not attempt to estimate the number of requests which might be received. At present there are no plans to reconsider the level of subject access fees.

TRANSPORT

  RAF Boulmer
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether civilian air traffic control will continue to be carried out at RAF Boulmer; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The responsibility for the provision of air traffic control services rests jointly with the Civil Aviation Authority and the Ministry of Defence. I understand from the authority that the civil element of the joint air traffic control unit at RAF Boulmer is to close on 1 October 1988, and the civil air traffic control tasks undertaken by the unit will be transferred to other centres.

  Aircraft Safety
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received from the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise; and what reply he is sending.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise wrote to my right hon. Friend on 29 February about air safety. I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the reply.

  Plutonium (Transport)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if any studies have been conducted by his Department into the environmental contamination implications of an aeroplane carrying plutonium canisters to or from Dounreay nuclear power development establishment crashing into the sea between Caithness and the Orkneys.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The evidence submitted by British Nuclear Fuels to the European demonstration reprocessing plant (EDRP) inquiry at Dounreay showed that in the event of an air crash in the sea there would be no release of radioactivity.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many voyages take place each month of ships transporting plutonium from or to the Dounreay nuclear power development establishment via the Minches to or from British Nuclear Fuels plc's Sellafield site.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  These movements are in full compliance with national regulations based on the recommendations of the International Maritime Organisation, which do not depend for their effectiveness on a particular route, and do not require individual authorisation. I understand that since the start of this traffic in June 1981 there have been 21 movements of plutonium nitrate from Dounreay to Sellafield, the

  (a) Expenditure on maintenance1 of national roads 1979–80 to 1987–88

  (£ million cash)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  31987–88

  England

  Eastern

  8

  14

  17

  25

  18

  24

  25

  37

  34

  East Midlands

  15

  11

  21

  30

  27

  34

  31

  36

  32

  London

  8

  8

  8

  7

  6

  9

  8

  13

  15

  Northern

  7

  3

  6

  7

  4

  5

  6

  9

  7

  North West

  9

  15

  21

  32

  33

  34

  29

  35

  45

  South East

  7

  7

  18

  20

  23

  31

  34

  40

  54

  South West

  10

  13

  15

  20

  16

  21

  17

  24

  22

  West Midlands

  11

  23

  31

  27

  28

  27

  15

  32

  28

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  7

  10

  20

  25

  24

  27

  17

  27

  45

  Total for England

  82

  104

  157

  193

  179

  212

  182

  2253

  282

  Scotland

  15

  18

  30

  27

  34

  29

  31

  35

  39

  Wales

  11

  10

  20

  17

  19

  22

  38

  35

  33

  Northern Ireland4

  36

  38

  43

  40

  48

  50

  56

  55

  56

  Total for United Kingdom

  144

  170

  250

  277

  280

  313

  307

  378

  410

  1 Maintenance covers structural, routine and winter maintenance of the carriageway (excluding bridges), both capital and current. (A different capital/current distinction applies to local roads expenditure).

  2 Provisional outturn.

  3 Estimated outturns.

  4 All roads in Northern Ireland.

  (b)Expenditure on maintenance1 of local roads 1979–80 to 1987–88

  (£ million cash)

  21979–80

  21980–81

  21981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  31987–88

  England

  Eastern

  —

  —

  —

  91

  96

  100

  109

  115

  130

  East Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  72

  72

  76

  79

  82

  88

  London

  —

  —

  —

  130

  140

  154

  150

  145

  155

  206
  discharged flasks being returned to Dounreay by the same route. Certain categories of waste are also transported from Sellafield to Dounreay by sea.

  Second Severn Crossing
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the second Severn crossing.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The consultants for the project—W. S. Atkins and Partners and G. Maunsell and Partners — are making good progress. A public exhibition has been held at nine different centres on both sides of the estuary and consultations are now under way with affected parties. These consultations will continue during the coming months. The consultants are proceeding with the further technical investigations needed. We hope to be in a position to finalise the proposals in 18–24 months.

  Road Improvements
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what programmes are being initiated to improve road quality standards throughout the United Kingdom; and if he will provide a table listing expenditure figures for all regions from 1979 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 March 1988, c. 105–7]: The following tables should have been included.
  207

  21979–80

  21980–81

  21981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  31987–88

  Northern

  —

  —

  —

  50

  54

  57

  65

  63

  71

  North West

  —

  —

  —

  110

  124

  119

  115

  138

  171

  South East

  —

  —

  —

  89

  106

  116

  127

  132

  133

  South West

  —

  —

  —

  96

  93

  98

  109

  114

  127

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  90

  92

  94

  106

  104

  108

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  103

  105

  106

  115

  110

  138

  Total for England

  567

  665

  692

  831

  882

  920

  975

  1,003

  1,121

  Scotland

  104

  120

  130

  141

  149

  149

  151

  4156

  173

  Wales

  48

  52

  72

  69

  74

  74

  75

  83

  590

  Total for Great Britain

  719

  837

  894

  1,041

  1,105

  1,143

  1,201

  1,242

  1,384

  1 Maintenance covers current expenditure and consists of structural, routine and winter maintenance of the carriageway (including bridges in England). (A different capital/current distinction applies to national roads).

  2 Figures by English region are not readily available for these years.

  3 Budget figures for England and Scotland.

  4 Provisional outturn.

  5 Estimated outturn.

PRIME MINISTER

  Middle East (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will list all planned official visits by Ministers to(a) the state of Israel and (b) member countries of the League of Arab States during the current year.

  The Prime Minister
  A number of visits are under consideration, but details have yet to be finalised.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Nationalised Industries
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much is the total amount spent on the nationalised industries since 1958 by way of purchase, subsidy, written-off loans and any other similar costs, and interest; and what has been the average rate of return on capital invested over that period.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Nationalised industries have not always been distinguished from other public corporations in available statistical sources. Over the period 1958 to 1987 inclusive, £71 billion in today's price was spent on purchase (£4 billion), grant subsidies (£44 billion) and written-off loans (£23 billion) for those public corporations which have at some point been defined as nationalised industries. The average real rate of return, after subsidies, on capital employed in all public corporations over the period 1958 to 1986 inclusive was approximately one half of 1 per cent. per annum.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates will be the deficit in manufactured trade in 1988; and what percentage change this represents on the 1987 figure.

  Mr. Major
  My right hon. Friend will be making a new forecast at Budget time.

  Productivity
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the rise in productivity in(a) nationalised and (b) private industry since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to table 4.7 of the White Paper, "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91" (Cm. 288-I).

  Cigarettes
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cigarettes were released for home consumption during the six months following the last Budget and the previous two periods of six months; what estimates he has made on the effect on cigarette sales if he had raised cigarette tax in line with inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Clearances of cigarettes for home consumption

  billion

  Number

  April to September 1986

  37

  October 1986 to March 1987

  58

  April 1987 to September 1987

  41

  Clearances of cigarettes for home consumption are subject to significant variations—especially on account of forestalling of Budget or manufacturers' price increases. Clearances do not necessarily therefore reflect consumption during that period.

  It is estimated that cigarette consumption would have been about 1 per cent. lower in 1987–88 if the duty had been revalorised in the 1987 Budget (no duty increase).

  Economic and Finance Council
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Economic and Finance Council meeting on 7 March.

  Mr. Brooke
  The European Community's Ecofin Council met in Brussels: I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council established the draft Community budget for 1988 and reached agreement on a provisional draft

  209
  intergovernmental agreement. The Italian delegation made it clear that in the forthcoming discussions on the new own resources decision it will continue to argue that the GNP-based financing of the United Kingdom's abatement should be brought to account against the new fourth own resource (thus in effect increasing the proportion of the budget which would be financed in accordance with VAT shares) rather than (as proposed by the Commission) within the VAT ceiling.

  The draft budget proposals for expenditure remain as set out in my written answer on 24 February, at columns 194–6. The budget total remains at 44·7 billion ecu (£31·0 billion) for commitment appropriations and 43·4 billion ecu (£30·1 billion) for payment appropriations. Provision for the United Kingdom's abatement is 2·387 billion ecu (£1·656 billion).

  The provisional and indicative amount which member states would contribute under the intergovernmental agreement has been reduced slightly, from some 7·7 billion ecu to some 7·647 billion ecu (£5·304 billion), with a United Kingdom contribution of 1·263 billion ecu (0·876 billion). This extra financing would be partially offset by smaller VAT payments, leaving total extra financing, compared with the maximum amount available under the existing own resources ceiling, of about 5·4 billion ecu (£3·7 billion) after allowing for a surplus of 0·5 billion ecu (£0·3 billion) carried forward from 1987. As before, all sterling equivalent figures are calculated at the rate of 1·4417 ecu to the pound used by the Commission in its latest budget proposals.

  Over lunch the Council considered preparations for the forthcoming discussions on budget discipline with the European Parliament, which were foreshadowed in paragraphs Al4 and 15 of the consolidated conclusions of the Brussels European Council (SN 461/1/88).

  The Council heard a presentation by the president of the European Court of Auditors of the court's report for 1986. I emphasised the importance which the United Kingdom attaches to obtaining better value for money from Community expenditure. I welcomed the increasing attention which the court is giving to fraud in the Community and I also encouraged the Commission to bring forward cost-effective proposals for combating fraud. The Council approved a resolution recommending that the European Parliament should grant the Commission a discharge on implementation of the 1986 budget.

  Increase in income after tax (£ per week) compared with indexation in 1988–89 for married man with two children

  Multiple of average earnings1

  ½

  ¾

  1

  1½

  2

  5

  10

  Increase derived from:

  (i) 1p cut in basic rate

  0·46

  1·07

  1·69

  2·91

  3·60

  3·60

  3·60

  (ii) 5 per cent. increase in income tax thresholds

  0·99

  0·99

  0·99

  0·99

  3·90

  10·69

  10·69

  (iii) Increase in child benefit

  (a)£3·40 per week2

  6·80

  6·80

  6·80

  6·80

  6·80

  6·80

  6·80

  (b)£2·15 per week3

  4·30

  4·30

  4·30

  4·30

  4·30

  4·30

  4·30

  (iv) reduced rate band of 25 per cent. on first £3,400 of taxable income

  0·93

  1·31

  1·31

  1·31

  1·31

  1·31

  1·31

  (v) reduced rate band of 20 per cent. on first £850 of taxable income

  1·14

  1·14

  1·14

  1·14

  1·14

  1·14

  1·14

  210
  The Council reviewed the economic situation in the Community and agreed that there was no need to change the policy guidelines set out in the 1987–88 annual economic report adopted last December.

  Family Earnings
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table setting out for a two-child family on(a) half average earnings, (b) three quarters average earnings, (c) average earnings, (d) one and a half average earnings, (e) twice average earnings, (f) five times average earnings and (g) 10 times average earnings, the increase in net income derived from (i) a 1p cut in the standard rate of income tax in 1988–89, (ii) an increase in personal allowances, over and above indexation, incurring the same cost as (i), (iii) an increase in child benefit incurring the same cost as (i), both assuming and not assuming similar increases in the supplementary benefit children's rates, (iv) the introduction of a reduced rate tax band of 25 per cent. at the same cost as (i) showing what band of income the reduced rate would cover, and (v) the introduction of a reduced rate tax band of 20 per cent. at the same cost as (i), showing what band of income the reduced rate would cover.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 February 1988]: The effects of the proposed changes on a one earner, two child, family are shown in the table. The table contains information based on direct revenue or expenditure cost in a full year at 1988–89 levels of income, based on projections from the 1984–85 survey of personal incomes in line with forecasts in the Autumn Statement. On this basis, each of the measures would cost £1·4 billion in a full year—that is the full year figure underlying the first year cost of a 1p cut in the basic rate of income tax, £1·25 billion, shown in the Autumn Statement. The income tax changes are compared with the 1987–88 tax regime indexed to 1988–89 according to the statutory provisions. The income tax calculations assume that all personal allowances and higher rate thresholds would increase by the same percentage and disregard any changes in social security income-related benefits to which the family may be entitled. It has also been assumed that the only tax relief or allowance available to the married couple is the married man's allowance and that the wife has no earnings.
  211
  1 Average earnings assumed to be £244·7 per week, an increase of 6·5 per cent. on 1987–88 in line with the assumptions used by the Government Actuary for reviewing national insurance contributions (paragraph 3.02 of the Autumn Statement 1987).

  2Assuming no change in income support rates.

  3.Assuming a corresponding change in income support.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much in real terms the average annual tax payments of a man with no allowances and reliefs other than the married man's tax allowance earning (i) £5,000, (ii) £10,000, (iii) £15,000 and (iv) £20,000 has increased or decreased since 1978–79.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 February 1988]: The information is given in the table. The calculations have been made by comparing the tax liabilities under the 1987–88 income tax regime with those under the 1978–79 regime indexed to 1987–88 according to the statutory formula.

  Reduction in income tax liability under 1987–88 tax regime

  Annual earnings

  As percentage of liability under 1978–79 indexed tax regime

  £

  £

  per cent.

  5,000

  139·00

  30

  10,000

  439·00

  21

  15,000

  739·00

  20

  20,000

  1,045·65

  19

  It is assumed that the taxpayer has no income other than earned income and no allowances or reliefs other than the married man's allowance.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why notices of coding for the tax year 1988–89 are being sent out in advance of the new rates of tax being known.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 February 1988]: Notices of coding for the tax year 1988–89 have been issued where, because of changes in taxpayers' circumstances, the taxpayers' codes for the year commencing on 6 April 1988 differ from the code for the current year 1987–88. Apart from prefix F codes, changes to rates of tax do not normally cause any revision to be made to a taxpayer's code. They merely affect the amount of tax to be deducted by the employer in applying that code.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost in the 1988–89 financial year of introducing a reduced rate tax band of(a) 25 per cent. and (b) 20 per cent. on the first £1,500 of taxable income; and what would be the effect on the net income of (i) a single person, (ii) a couple where the wife is not working and (iii) a couple where the wife is working and paying tax.
  212
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 3 March 1988]: The full-year cost at forecast 1988–89 income levels of introducing a reduced rate of income tax of (a) 25 per cent. and (b) 20 per cent. on the first £1,500 of taxable income would be £690 million and about £2·5 billion respectively. The estimates are based on a projection of the 1984–85 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional.

  The net gain to a basic rate taxpayer is given in the table. For the purposes of the calculations the 1987–88 income tax regime has been indexed to 1988–89 in accordance with the statutory provisions.

  Married man

  Single

  Wife not working

  Wife with earnings liable at basic rate

  £·p

  £·p

  £·p

  (i) reduced rate 25 per cent. on the first £1,500

  0·58

  0·58

  1·15

  (ii) reduced rate 20 per cent. on the first £1,500

  2·02

  2·02

  4·04

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which of the last 10 years changes in the dollar/ European currency unit exchange rate have had a European Community budget effect of more than 400 million European currency units; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: The Commission has estimated that, in 1988 prices, a 5 per cent. movement in the dollar/ecu exchange rate has an effect of some 400 million ecu on the European Community budget.

  The frequency of changes of this magnitude is sensitive to the precise periods compared. On the basis of annual averages, however, the year-on-year change in the dollar/ ecu exchange rate has exceeded 5 per cent. in most years since 1978, the exceptions being 1980 and 1985. In three years the dollar depreciated by more than 5 per cent., whereas in four years the dollar appreciated by more than 5 per cent.

DEFENCE

  Ammunition (Scorriton Down)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why live ammunition was stored at Scorriton Down in the Dartmoor national park; what precautions were taken to protect it; how much was stored there; when the theft was discovered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Scorriton Down lies in an area used extensively for military training during the second world war. The range was closed in 1947 and clearance work lasted until 1949, at which time the land was returned to the owners. Since the equipment used to locate the munitions at that time was not as effective as its more modern counterparts, some items remained undetected until the discovery last year of some live ammunition. The Royal Engineers were then called upon to conduct what has proved to be a lengthy clearance operation.

  During the course of this clearance operation foolhardy members of the public have, quite contrary to common sense, and at considerable risk to themselves and others, deliberately dug up and removed four items of old

  Ministry of Defence United Kingdom based civilian staff

  1 January 1988

  1 January 1980

  1 January 1979

  Number of staff

  Percentage of total

  Number of staff

  Percentage of total

  Number of staff

  Percentage of total

  Total

  144,782·5

  100·0

  220,213·0

  100·0

  225,478·0

  100·0

  England

  118,786·5

  82·0

  183,850·0

  83·5

  188,472·0

  83·6

  South-East

  61,369·5

  42–4

  95,519–0

  43·4

  98,488·0

  43·7

  London

  19,268·5

  13·3

  29,763·0

  13·5

  n/a

  —

  Other

  42,101·0

  29·1

  65,756·0

  29·9

  n/a

  —

  East Anglia

  2,579·5

  1·8

  2,796·5

  1·3

  2,950·0

  1·3

  South West

  30,026·0

  20·7

  50,930·0

  23·1

  52,126·0

  23·1

  West Midlands

  8,903·5

  6·1

  11,032·0

  5·0

  11,171·0

  5·0

  East Midlands

  3,966·5

  2·7

  7,820·0

  3·6

  7,959·0

  3·5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5,893·0

  4·1

  7,834·0

  3·6

  7,749·0

  3·4

  North West

  2,895·0

  2·0

  3,789·5

  1·7

  3,891·0

  1·7

  North

  3,153·5

  2·2

  4,128·0

  1·9

  4,138·0

  1·8

  Wales

  5,759·5

  4·0

  7,363·5

  3·3

  7,659·0

  3·4

  Scotland

  12,268·0

  8·5

  19,467·5

  8·8

  19,610·0

  8·7

  Northern Ireland

  2,618·0

  1·8

  3,231·0

  1–5

  3,305·0

  1·5

  Overseas-at sea

  5,350·5

  3·7

  6,301·0

  2·9

  6,432·0

  2·9

  For the purposes of consistency and comparability the figures exclude personnel employed at Royal Ordnance Factories, which changed to independent Companies Act status on 2 January 1985.

  Some 10,800 of the reduction in numbers in the southwest between January 1980 and January 1988 was due to the transfer of Royal Dockyard Devonport staff to commercial management on 6 April 1987, and some 5,700 of the reduction in Scotland between the same dates was due to the similar transfer of Royal Dockyard Rosyth staff.
  214
  munitions. These stolen items have since been recovered and destroyed, along with all other munitions found on the site to date.

  In the light of this incident the Army is reviewing its operating procedures. Pending the outcome of this review, clearance work on Scorriton Down has ceased and the police have been informed of this. I shall write further to my hon. Friend once the review of procedures is complete.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of staff within his Department are located within each region outside London; what percentage this constitutes of staff within his Department; and what were the comparable figures in absolute and percentage terms in 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not possible to distinguish Ministry of Defence employees employed in London from those in the rest of the south-east prior to 1980. The following table gives the number of full-time equivalent civilian staff, excluding casual staff, employed on 1 January for 1979, 1980 and 1988 in each economic planning region of England, separating London from the rest of the south-east in 1980 and 1988, in Scotland, Wales and Ireland, and overseas and at sea.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the location and status of all buildings within his Department located in London and the annual cost of rents, rates and maintenance of each.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer to his question to the Secretary of State for the Environment on 2 March 1988, at column 584. In the case of the Ministry of Defence, the Department occupies accommodation in 39 properties on the Civil Estate in the Greater London area, ranging from its main HQ building in Whitehall through sites, for example at Stanmore and Chessington, to the archives at Hayes and stationery store at Wandsworth.
  215
  There are 98 sites on the Defence Estate in the Greater London area, excluding married quarters, residences and recreation grounds, ranging from service careers information offices to airfields as at RAF Northolt and Army garrisons as at Woolwich.

  Gurkhas (Gold Recovery)
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to seek the recovery of gold taken from former British Gurkha soldiers in Calcutta in 1987 by the Indian customs service.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are in active discussion with the relevant authorities in India on ways of recovering the gold and on the question of documentation which would enable British Gurkhas to take gold through India en route for Nepal without risk of further such incidents. In the meantime we are seeking to ensure that those Gurkhas who were affected do not suffer hardship as a result of the temporary loss of their gold.

  British Forces (Germany)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each year since 1979 (i) the total cost of British forces based in Germany, (ii) the amount chargeable to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and (iii) the amount paid by that Government; what is the current outstanding amount owing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The estimated costs of British Forces Germany, excluding equipment, are as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  948

  1980–81

  1,140

  1981–82

  1,086

  1982–83

  1,234

  1983–84

  1,277

  1984–85

  1,345

  1985–86

  1,436

  1986–87

  1,463

  1987–88

  1,595

  All figures are at Estimates prices and exchange rates for the years stated. Since 1980–81 the Federal Republic of Germany has made no direct financial contribution to the cost of BFG, but it provides various buildings, lands and services free of charge, or at reduced rates.

  Aldermaston (Weapons Development)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any work has been carried out at Aldermaston on new weapons, details of which have not yet been reported to Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. Member on 21 January, at column 774.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what specific arrangements are made to safeguard the public against the effects of incidents involving British nuclear submarines which could lead to the release of radioactive material when any visit is undertaken to the port of Cardiff;

  (2) what steps are taken to ensure the safety of the general public when incidents occur which could involve
  216
  the release of radioactive material from British nuclear submarines (a) at any time, (b) during entry or leaving port and (c) while in port.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Safety schemes, detailing procedures and protective measures to be implemented in the unlikely event of an accidental release of radioactive material from a submarine are drawn up to cover the areas of all naval bases and other berths used by such vessels in the United Kingdom. These are produced in consultation with the appropriate local authorities, emergency services and other civilian agencies with a direct involvement, all of whom hold copies. The combined Barry and Cardiff special safety scheme covers the arrangements for Cardiff.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many incidents involving British nuclear submarines have resulted in the release of radioactive material since 1978; and whether any of these occurred in Cardiff or in the Bristol channel;

  (2) how many incidents involving nuclear submarines and their reactors have occurred since 1978; and how many fell into each of the categories of mechanical problems, operator error or electrical faults;

  (3) how many incidents involving the reactors which power Britain's nuclear submarines occurred between 1962 and 1978 in Cardiff or within 10 miles of Cardiff;

  (4) how many incidents involving the release of radioactive materials from British nuclear submarines occurred in Cardiff or the Bristol channel, between 1962 and 1978.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not our general policy to discuss matters affecting the operation of Her Majesty's submarines. However, maintenance, operating and safety standards are exacting, and, as a consequence, there has never been an incident involving such submarines where there was any radiological hazard to service men, base personnel or members of the public.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many port visits in the United Kingdom have been made(a) by British nuclear submarines and (b) other nations' nuclear submarines in each year since 1962; and how many of these have been to Cardiff in each year.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Visits of United Kingdom nuclear powered submarines to non-naval ports since 1970, when records have been kept, are as follows:

  Port

  Visits (total)

  Hull (to 1981)

  8

  Barry (to 1978)

  4

  Liverpool

  29

  Southampton

  5

  Cardiff

  14

  The visits to Cardiff have taken place as follows: 1970; 1971; 1972; 1975; 1976; 1977; 1981; 1983 (2 visits); 1985; 1986 (2 visits); 1988 (2 visits).

  In 1986 there were 17 visits of non-United Kingdom nuclear powered submarines to United Kingdom naval bases and in 1987 there were 12. There were no such visits in these years to non-naval ports, including Cardiff.

  The other figures are unobtainable except at disproporationate cost.

  "Giants of the Glens"
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the
  217
  transcript of the Channel Four television programme, "Giants of the Glens", broadcast on 13 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. The Channel Four television programme, "Giants of the Glens", concerned hydroelectric power in the north of Scotland and is thus a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Heavy Water
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what projects have been carried out, or are planned, to produce heavy water in Scotland for military purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Mr. Kurt Waldheim
  Mr. Rhodes James
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the nature of the report naming the then Lieutenant Waldheim as a wanted German Army intelligence officer; and if he will consider releasing it.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  As I announced on 29 February, at columns 420–21, a comprehensive review of the results of the Ministry of Defence's earlier investigation into the fate of captured British service men and the involvement, if any, of the then Lieutenant Waldheim has been set in hand. However, I am anxious that the review should be able to proceed without diversion of effort into questions of the release of individual documents. It would conflict with the proper conduct and progress of the current review to release documents piecemeal in advance of the final report. It is important that the review team should not be pressed for comments of detail on matters which are being comprehensively addressed in the course of the review and which will be covered in its report.

  With regard to the document naming Lieutenant Waldheim, to which my hon. Friend refers, I wish to correct the mistaken suggestion that this is a wanted list, in view of speculation that has arisen since it was referred to by the International Commission of Historians (ICH).

  This document was mentioned by the commission in the following terms:
  "The Commission also made enquiries regarding a CIA file of 26 April 1945 which according to report contained certain information on Lieutenant Waldheim. Although we were refused access to that file which even now is still a classified document the extract that we were given to look at and that we were assured was the only one relating to Waldheim contained only a personal description of Waldheim. That description is part of a list of a great number of Wehrmacht officers in the Ic Branch".

  I can confirm that the document to which the Commission refers was simply a record of a routine interrogation report dated 26 April 1945 on the details of individuals who happened to be known to a German officer. It was not a wanted list as has been alleged in some newspapers. In this interrogation report one of the names mentioned is that of the then Lieutenant Waldheim. The relevant verbatim extract from this document is as follows:
  "236 Ob.lt. WALDHEIM
  Subordinate officer to WARNSTORFF in SALONIKA.
  Height: ca 1·82
  Hair: Light
  Eyes: Light
  Age: ca 28"

  The interrogation report contains no other reference to the then Lieutenant Waldheim.
  218
  We will consider the possibility of releasing particular documents when the review team's findings are published.

  ALARM Project
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make statement about progress on the ALARM project.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Following British Aerospace's decision to adopt a new motor for the air-launched anti-radar missile — ALARM — negotiations were concluded last November between the company and my Department for the continuation of the project. I am glad to be able to say that the company is now satisfied with its work on proving the new motor. As a consequence, under the terms of last November's agreement, a revised contract came into effect on 29 February 1988 providing for the project to continue, with responsibility for success placed on the company under tight fixed price conditions.

  NATO (Merchant Shipping Needs)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether NATO has yet launched its proposed study into the Alliance's ability to meet its needs for merchant shipping in times of emergency or war; and when he expects the study to be completed.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have been asked to reply.

  NATO is proposing to invite tenders from consultants to carry out the study under the organisation's international competitive tendering procedure. I under-stand the aim is to complete the study by September 1989.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iran-Iraq War
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress to date in implementing the mandatory United Nations Security Council resolution requiring a cease-fire in the war between Iran and Iraq; what is the latest estimate available to him of the number of deaths in this conflict, including civilian deaths; and how many are believed to have died as a result of the use of chemical weapons officially banned by international agreements.

  Mr. Mellor
  Despite the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General, Security Council resolution 598 remains unimplemented after seven months. The Security Council is therefore actively working on enforcement measures to be applied to the recalcitrant party.

  It is estimated that approximately 150,000 Iraqi and 500,000 Iranian troops have been killed so far, together with a total of some 200,000 civilians. The number of deaths directly attributable to the use of chemical weapons is not known.

  Hostages
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what current steps he is taking, through diplomatic contacts, to bring about the release of Mr. Terry Waite and other British hostages still imprisoned by Arab terrorists; and whether he is pursuing diplomatic initiatives through the United Nations Security Council.
  219
  Mr. Mellor
  Her Majesty's embassy in Beirut is very active in trying to obtain information about the disappearance and whereabouts of all British hostages held in the Lebanon. We have repeatedly called upon Governments or organisations with influence over the hostage-takers to use their influence to secure the release of all those held. We are also in regular contact with other Governments, including members of the United Nations Security Council, who might be able to help.

  Middle East (Christian Worship)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give details of the arrangements made by Her Majesty's ambassador in Saudi Arabia, and by the British interests section in the embassy of the protecting power in Libya, for British subjects who wish to attend Christian worship at Easter, in the light of the ban on holding public Christian services in those countries.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Saudi Arabian Government confirmed recently that Christians are permitted to worship individually according to their conscience. Her Majesty's ambassador in Riyadh has not made any special arrangements for British nationals to attend Christian worship at Easter.

  British nationals in Tripoli may attend the weekly religious services at either the Anglican, Roman Catholic or Non-Conformist Union church, and there is also a Roman Catholic church in Benghazi. The Anglican chaplain in Tripoli makes fortnightly visits to the 500-strong British community in Marsa A1 Brega and he also regularly visits the Anglican community in Benghazi.

  Middle East (British Citizens)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number of British citizens currently in(a) Libya and (b) Syria; and what were the equivalent figures before Her Majesty's Government broke off diplomatic relations with those states.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are estimated to be about 3,250 British citizens currently in Libya and 300 in Syria. The corresponding figures before we broke off relations with those states were 8,250 and 300.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Milian
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Pakistan regarding their treatment of their Ahmadi community.

  Mr. Eggar
  We regularly make known to the Pakistan Government the extent of concern expressed in this country over the situation of the Ahmadi community in Pakistan.

EMPLOYMENT

  RPI (Error)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will issue a corrected series of the retail prices index for all items and for all items less 220
  housing costs for each month from February 1986 until October 1987 inclusive, to take account of the error in the retail prices index.

  Mr. Lee
  No. It has always been the practice not to revise the retail prices index once it has been published, as doing so would create serious problems for some users. This practice was endorsed by the Retail Prices Advisory Committee in its latest report (Cmnd. 9848, July 1986) and I see no reason to change it.

  Extra payments have been made to pensioners in recompense for their small losses at the time of pensions uprating and to ensure that the Exchequer has not benefited from the consequent social security under payment.

  Professional and Executive Recruitment
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what professional advice he has received about options for transferring Professional and Executive Recruitment out of the public sector.

  Mr. Fowler
  I announced on 2 December the appointment of Lloyds merchant bank to advise me on the options for transferring PER out of the public sector.

  There is extensive private sector provision in the activities which PER provides on a fee-charging basis. It is the Government's view that activities of a clearly commercial nature are better conducted in the private sector.

  I have now received Lloyds' advice, which recommends that PER should be transferred out of the public sector through a sale by tender. This recognises, I believe, that the current PER operation is essentially a commercial recruitment business and that it will have the opportunity both to realise its full commercial potential and to develop better in the private sector.

  The Government intend therefore to proceed with privatisation. I have asked Lloyds merchant bank to conduct the necessary preparatory work over the next couple of months, with a view to offering PER for sale, through a private tender process open to all interested parties, at the earliest opportunity.

  I am keen that PER's staff should have every chance to benefit from the wider opportunities that privatisation will open up for PER. I shall therefore offer all PER's established staff the option of accepting voluntary secondment arrangements. When PER transfers to the private sector, staff who have opted for these arrangements will remain in the business as civil servants on secondment for a limited period on favourable terms. Staff who do not opt for voluntary secondment will be redeployed within the Department of Employment group prior to privatisation.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current estimates and projections of the population of working age of(a) men aged 16 to 64 years and (b) women aged 16 to 59 years, by standard region including Greater London for 1979, 1983, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  [pursuant to his rely, 23 February 1988, c. 86]: I regret to say that an error has been discovered in some of the information which was supplied to my Department

  221
  for use in my earlier reply. The figures affected are the estimates of the population of working age in Greater London. The correct figures are:

  Greater London

  Thousands

  Men aged 16 to 64 years

  1979

  2,183

  1983

  2,185

  1986

  2,203

  Women aged 16 to 59 years

  1979

  2,040

  1983

  2,026

  1986

  2,052

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

SCOTLAND

  Firearms Certificate
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue guidance to chief constables to the effect that no alterations to firearms certificate should be made as a matter of general policy until such time as the Firearms Bill has been enacted and the compensation measures contained therein have been agreed by Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No. Under the Firearms Act 1968, the chief constable has a duty to satisfy himself that an applicant for the issue or renewal of a firearm certificate has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which application is made, and can be permitted to have it in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace. A person aggrieved by the refusal of a chief constable to grant or renew a certificate may appeal to the sheriff.

  Family Planning Services
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future level of provision of family planning services in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is for individual health boards to determine, within the resources available to them, the most appropriate pattern of provision of family planning services in their respective areas.

  Abortions
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many abortions were carried out in the Strathclyde region for each of the last five years, broken down by(a) age of women and (b) period of gestation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is given in the table.

  Abortions in Strathclyde region 1982–86

  Age

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  0–16

  78

  88

  100

  88

  99

  16–19

  797

  759

  925

  903

  922

  20–24

  823

  892

  1,004

  1,036

  1,078

  25–29

  493

  504

  579

  568

  660

  30–34

  370

  352

  384

  359

  409

  222

  Age

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  35–39

  303

  277

  283

  274

  262

  40–44

  140

  111

  104

  97

  101

  45+

  13

  19

  10

  11

  10

  Total

  3,017

  3,002

  3,389

  3,336

  3,541

  Period of gestation—weeks

  0–10

  1,281

  1,338

  1,504

  1,541

  1,559

  10–13

  1,367

  1,288

  1,462

  1,431

  1,601

  14–17

  280

  272

  344

  312

  318

  18–19

  47

  67

  53

  33

  39

  20–24

  41

  36

  24

  17

  23

  25+

  1

  1

  2

  2

  1

  Total

  3,017

  3,002

  3,389

  3,336

  3,541

  Amniocentesis Tests
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of amniocentesis tests undertaken in Scotland, for the most recent years for which the information is available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I regret that the information requested is not held centrally.

  Spent Fuel Reprocessing
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there will be any requirement on the Scottish power industry to renegotiate after privatisation the contracts with British Nuclear Fuels plc for spent fuel reprocessing.

  Mr. Lang
  No.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what requirements will be laid upon the Scottish electricity companies to participate in United Kingdom Nirex Ltd. under privatisation plans.

  Mr. Lang
  Details have yet to be considered, but present expectations are that the SSEB's shareholding in United Kingdom Nirex Ltd. will pass to the successor operator of SSEB nuclear power stations.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the present underwriting arrangements in respect of a major incident at a nuclear power plant in his preparation of plans for privatising the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Lang
  Arrangements under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 will continue after privatisation.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what valuation will be put on(a) unreprocessed spent nuclear fuel, (b) uranium arisings, (c) plutonium arisings, and (d) nuclear waste arisings from South of Scotland Electricity Board nuclear fuel reprocessed at Sellafield, under privatisation;

  (2) what valuation will be put on low and intermediate level nuclear wastes at South of Scotland Electricity Board plants under privatisation.

  Mr. Lang
  It is too early to say what the valuation of these materials will be at the time of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Hip Replacement Operations
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average waiting time for a hip replacement operation using private beds in National Health Service hospitals in each health board area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 8 March 1988]: The information requested is given in the table. Figures are for 1985 (which is the latest year for which information is available) and for the four health board areas in which hip replacements are carried out on private patients in National Health Service hospitals.

  Private patients

  Health board

  Number of cases

  Mean wait (in days)

  Borders

  1

  12

  Forth Valley

  1

  27

  Lothian

  10

  56

  Tayside

  3

  88

  Scotland

  15

  57

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which departments of Glasgow Royal infirmary are currently issuing letters to general practitioners stating that patients cannot be given out-patient appointments due to lack of medical staff; how many of these letters have so far been issued; and if he will make a statement on the effects of these shortages on patient care.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 March 1988]: In my reply of 24 February, I explained to the hon. Member the temporary difficulties being faced by the ophthalmology department at the Glasgow Royal infirmary. During this period about 180 letters were sent to general practitioners. As I indicated in my earlier reply the Greater Glasgow health board had taken steps to overcome the difficulties at the Department. I regret the inconvenience caused to the patients concerned.

  Operations
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if, for 24 February, he will give the total number of operations postponed in Scottish hospitals, the number in each health board and the number in each specialty in each health board;

  (2) if he will give the total number of operations performed in Scottish hospitals on 24 February, the number in each health board and the number in each specialty in each health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 March 1988]: Health boards report that 792 operations were performed in Scottish hospitals on 24 February and that 818 were postponed because of industrial action on that day. (The latter figure differs from that given in reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) on 1 March because Argyll and Clyde health board's return erroneously included 80 operations which were in fact lost on other days; the remaining small difference is due to health boards revising their preliminary estimates.) Operations were postponed in seven out of the 15 health boards. Details are given in the tables.
  224

  Health Boards where operations were postponed on 24 February because of industrial action

  Operations performed

  Operations postponed

  Argyll and Clyde

  General surgery

  3

  60

  Orthopaedic

  2

  5

  Ear, nose and throat

  —

  19

  Ophthalmology

  1

  4

  Gynaecology

  2

  17

  8

  105

  Ayrshire and Arran

  General surgery

  14

  —

  Orthopaedic

  5

  5

  Ear, nose and throat

  3

  4

  Ophthalmology

  6

  —

  Urology

  9

  —

  Gynaecology

  12

  —

  Obstetric

  7

  —

  56

  9

  Grampian

  General surgery

  7

  19

  Orthopaedic

  6

  9

  Ear, nose and throat

  10

  —

  Ophthalmology

  1

  1

  Urology

  15

  1

  Plastic

  —

  4

  Dental

  —

  8

  Paediatric

  9

  27

  Gynaecology

  2

  11

  Endoscopy

  —

  18

  Thoracic

  3

  —

  Radiological studies

  20

  30

  73

  128

  Greater Glasgow

  General surgery

  19

  47

  Orthopaedic

  9

  25

  Ear, nose and throat

  2

  23

  Ophthalmology

  2

  19

  Urology

  2

  36

  Plastic/Oral

  —

  20

  Dental

  4

  9

  Gynaecology

  10

  37

  Neurosurgery

  1

  3

  Cardiac

  13

  6

  Gastroenterology

  —

  3

  Vascular

  4

  —

  Endoscopy

  2

  —

  Laser surgery

  6

  —

  Thyroid

  1

  —

  75

  228

  Lanarkshire

  General surgery

  4

  51

  Orthopaedic

  4

  17

  Ear, nose and throat

  —

  10

  Ophthalmology

  4

  —

  Urology

  —

  27

  Gynaecology

  2

  37

  Endoscopy

  —

  4

  ECT

  1

  —

  15

  146

  Lothian

  General surgery

  43

  57

  Orthopaedic

  13

  27

  Ear, nose and throat

  17

  34

  Ophthalmology

  2

  14

  Urology

  —

  3

  Oral surgery

  1

  1

  225

  Operations performed

  Operations postponed

  Plastic

  1

  14

  Paediatrics

  —

  8

  Gynaecology

  26

  22

  Neurosurgery

  3

  2

  Cardiothoracic

  10

  —

  Cardiac

  3

  —

  Endoscopy

  3

  —

  Day bed

  —

  9

  Main theatre

  17

  —

  Burns

  1

  —

  Accident and emergency

  7

  —

  147

  191

  Tayside

  General surgery

  28

  —

  Orthopaedic

  19

  4

  Ear, nose and throat

  16

  —

  Ophthalmology

  3

  —

  Urology

  11

  —

  Plastic

  5

  4

  Dental

  14

  —

  Gynaecology/Obstetrics

  41

  —

  Trauma

  4

  —

  Neurosurgery

  3

  3

  144

  11

  Health boards where no operations were postponed on 24 February because of industrial action

  Operations

  Borders Health Board

  Emergency Surgery

  11

  Dumfries and Galloway

  General surgery

  23

  Orthopaedic

  6

  ENT

  4

  Maternity

  1

  Emergency

  2

  36

  Fife

  General surgery

  22

  Orthopaedic

  13

  ENT

  11

  Ophthalmology

  4

  Urology

  4

  Oral surgery

  5

  Gynaecology

  9

  68

  Forth Valley

  General surgery

  19

  Orthopaedic

  6

  ENT

  5

  Ophthalmology

  9

  Urology

  11

  Gynaecology

  9

  Endoscopy

  10

  Broncoscopy

  5

  Emergency

  2

  76

  Highland

  General surgery

  23

  Orthopaedic

  9

  Ophthalmology

  6

  Gynaecology

  15

  Endoscopy

  9

  Angiogram

  5

  226

  Operations

  Emergency

  7

  74

  Orkney

  No operations were performed on 24 February as it was not an operating day

  Shetland

  General surgery

  7

  Western Isles

  General surgery

  12

  1 24 February was not an operating day.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the effect on industry in the north-west of the proposed uniform business rate.

  Mr. Howard
  Had the unified business rate been implemented in 1987–88 it could have saved businesses in the north-west £180 80 million, 18 per cent. of their present rate bills. These savings would be in addition to the further benefits which the 1990 revaluation is expected to bring to the region. Overall these changes should provide a major boost to the economy of the north-west. The future index-linking of rate increases to no more than the rate of inflation will ensure that this is a continuing benefit. These benefits for businesses would not be at the expense of community charge payers. The new grant arrangements we propose, together with the distribution of the national non-domestic rate income, would have allowed all authorities to provide a standard level of service at the same level of community charge, £178 in 1987–88.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many members of staff within his Department are located within each region outside London; what percentage this constitutes of staff within his Department; and what were the comparable figures, in absolute and percentage terms in 1979.

  Mr. Ridley
  The following tables show the numbers of staff in my Department located within each of the Department of the Environment and Property Service Agency regional areas' outside the London regional area at 1 February 1988, together with the percentages which those numbers represent of my total staff:

  Region

  Number

  Per cent.

  Department of the Environment

  East

  912

  2·8

  East Midlands

  104

  0·3

  North

  112

  0·3

  North West

  245

  0·8

  South East

  21

  0·1

  South West

  664

  2·1

  West Midlands

  127

  0·4

  Yorks and Humberside

  126

  0·4

  227

  Region

  Number r

  Per cent.

  Properly Services Agency

  East

  2,874

  8·9

  Midlands

  1,453

  4·5

  North East

  1,639

  5·1

  North West (including some staff in Northern Ireland)

  1,385

  4·3

  South

  1,656

  5·1

  South East

  2,401

  7·4

  South West

  2,572

  8·0

  In addition there were 1,981 (6.1 per cent.) staff in Scotland, 1,227 (3–8 per cent.) in Wales and 504 (1.6 per cent.) abroad.

  Figures for 1979 were:

  Region

  Number

  Per cent.

  Department of the Environment

  East

  1,381

  2·7

  East Midlands

  235

  0·5

  North

  383

  0·5

  North West

  353

  0·7

  South East

  1,288

  2·5

  South West

  948

  1·8

  West Midlands

  292

  0·6

  Yorks and Humberside

  247

  0·5

  Property Services Agency

  East

  2,432

  4·7

  Midlands

  2,725

  5·3

  North East

  2,790

  5·4

  North West (including some staff in Northern Ireland)

  2,551

  4·9

  South

  2,933

  5·7

  South East

  4,401

  8·5

  South West

  4,643

  9·0

  There were 3,253 (6·3 per cent.) staff in Scotland, 1,995 (3·7 per cent.) in Wales and 802 (1·6 per cent.) abroad.

  1 The joint Department of the Environment/Department of Transport regions and the PSA regions cover different areas.

  These figures cannot be compared directly with those for 1988 as there have been major organisational changes since 1979 including privatisation and hiving-off of functions.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the number of council homes sold in the East and West Lindsey district council areas; and how many applications to buy are currently being processed.

  Mrs. Roe
  The numbers of sales from April 1979 to September 1987 reported by each English local authority appear in the table placed in the Library on 2 March 1988 in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). East Lindsey has reported a further 45 sales in the quarter ended December 1987. East Lindsey is currently processing 222 applications for the right to buy and West Lindsey 131.

  Inner City Regeneration
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what his Department has spent since 1979 on grants to private sector companies to aid inner city regeneration.

  Mr. Trippier
  Expenditure by my Department on grants to private sector companies to aid inner city regeneration totals approximately £150 million since 1979.
  228

  Inner Area Programme
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation procedures his Department recommends prior to inner area programme proposals being approved by local authorities.

  Mr. Trippier
  The ministerial guidelines for the urban programme suggest that the local private sector and local voluntary sector should be consulted on the scope and content of inner area programmes (IAPs). The IAP strategy statement should give an account of the consultation. The form of consultation procedures is a matter for the local authority's discretion.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairmen of water authorities in England and Wales; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Pursuant to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 11 February to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) at column 298, I have also met the chairman of the Water Authorities Association and two of his fellow chairmen on 24 February to discuss a range of issues relating to the privatisation of the water authorities.

  Housing Defects Legislation
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to introduce legislation to amend the rules in the housing defects legislation, which determine whether eligible owners receive reinstatement grant or repurchase; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have been consulting local authority associations, home owners groups and other interested bodies on the suggestion that "test d" of section 538(1) of the Housing Act 1985 be dropped. That test requires an authority to repurchase if the direct cost of that is any less than the alternative cost of housing defects grant.

  In the light of consultees' responses, which generally supported the change, 1 have decided that "test d" should be removed from section 538(1) and we will shortly be laying an appropriate order before Parliament to achieve that. The order must be affirmed by resolution of both Houses, but I hope that it will be possible to have it in operation by June. This change will not affect the Act's other "value for money" test which will continue to require an authority to satisfy itself that reinstatement is justified, having regard to the likely freehold value of the property after repair.

  Removal of "test d" will give local authorities and home owners some welcome additional flexibility. As things stand, owners have to have their homes repurchased, even where they and the authority would prefer repair, whenever the cost of repair would exceed that of repurchase, even when the margin is very narrow. This change will allow repair where there is agreement this makes sense and is in accordance with the Act's other value-for-money test ("c").

  Section 538(4) of the Act provides that such an order does not affect an application for assistance made before the order comes into force. However it is open to owners,

  229
  if they choose, to withdraw their existing applications and then submit fresh ones, if they wish to take advantage of this change. Owners who are interested in this may therefore wish to discuss the position with their local authority.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the annual European regional development fund infrastructure grant available for national programmes and integrated development operations applications in the north-west region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  In co-operation with the local authorities and other public bodies, the Government will be submitting to the European Commission applications for the north-west region. These are being prepared in the expectation that ERDF aid of up to £60 million annually will be available for such programmes in that region. On this basis the Merseyside integrated development operation, the Manchester-Salford-Trafford integrated development operation and the Mersey basin II national programmes will be seeking an average annual ERDF grant of £25 million, £20 million and £15 million respectively. In addition, authorities may continue to submit separately applications for infrastucture projects which are not included in the programmes.

  These figures compare favourably with total ERDF grants of £51·6 million committed to the region in 1987, of which £19·8 million was for local authorities. Decisions on actual grant awards are, of course, made by the European Commission.

  Local Authorities (Receipts)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the information he has collected on the accumulated capital receipts held by local authorities at the end of 1986–87.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department has now received accumulated capital receipts returns for 1986–87 from 97 per cent. of English local authorities. On the basis of these it is estimated that at the end of 1986–87 local authorities in England held accumulated receipts giving rise to spending permission in later years of £9·4 billion. Some of these receipts were notional, such as leasing disposals. The cash from much of the remainder had been used for such purposes as repaying debt and financing capitalised housing repairs. After allowing for such factors, only £5·3 billion out of the £9·4 billion spending permission could be converted to cash.

  I have today placed in the Library, a table showing for each local authority which has provided a return (a) the accumulated receipts giving rise to spending permission and (b) the amount which could be converted into cash.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many views and proposals on the role and composition of bodies appointed by him or by departments subject to his direction and control have been received from the Government of the Irish Republic under 230
  article 6 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement; how many recommendations for appointments have been put forward; how many offers or approaches have been made; and how many such offers have been accepted.

  Mr. Tom King
  There have been several discussions through the Intergovernmental Conference about the role of a number of public bodies in Northern Ireland. The Irish side has to date suggested 39 people who might be considered for public appointments in Northern Ireland; these names include 19 people who were already on the central appointments unit's list; 12 people suggested by the Irish currently hold a total of 20 public appointments.

  Property Compensation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the sum of £50 is arrived at as an offer of compensation based on site value in an area scheduled for redevelopment, for a property yielding £16 per week rental income; and if he will re-examine the level of compensation currently offered in respect of some properties in Agnes street, Carrickfergus.

  Mr. Needham
  The redevelopment area referred to was vested under the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 and the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.

  The housing order directs that when assessing compensation on the acquisition of a house, classified as unfit for human habitation and incapable of being rendered fit at reasonable expense, then the value to be ascertained is the site value on the assumption that all buildings are removed and available for redevelopment within the building byelaws in force at the date of vesting. In these circumstances, the structure on the site and the rental income generated from that structure are not relevant.

  The £50 offer of compensation represented an assessment of the value of a small site in Carrickfergus at 3 July 1986 (the operative date of the vesting order).

  A claimant in any case is under no obligation to accept when he believes the compensation offered is unrealistic. Recourse may be made to the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce amending legislation to ensure that owners of properties denied access to home improvement grants for a prolonged period because of pending proposals for redevelopment by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive will receive fair compensation for property acquired through voluntary negotiation or after a vesting order.

  Mr. Needham
  Compensation for property acquired by the Housing Executive is governed by current values in an open market determined on the basis of either the value of the houses or of the sites cleared of all buildings as appropriate under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. Consideration is being given to amending legislation which would abolish the site value rule in article 91(1) of the 1981 order.

  NI 2000
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will undertake to place before Parliament the progress reports that he will receive from the chairman of NI 2000.

  Mr. Viggers
  No, not as a matter of course.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act his Department has received; what was his estimate of this number; whether he is reconsidering the subject access fee charged by his Department as a result; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments have received a total of 20 subject access requests. The estimate for the first year was 3,800 requests. Subject access fees have not been reconsidered.

  ACE Funding
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to the proposals put forward by the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on new procedures to deal with the withdrawal of ACE funding from organisations on grounds of security; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  I have considered carefully the proposals put forward by the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions but I am satisfied that for security reasons it would not be possible to adopt them.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to adopting new procedures, which will include the right of reply, when decisions are being made on the possible withdrawal of ACE funding from organisations on grounds of security; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  I am satisfied that the current arrangements are appropriate in these cases and have no plans to change them. Where funding is withdrawn the organisation concerned is advised that the action taken is in accordance with the Government's stated policy. Representations can be made to the Government by aggrieved bodies and these are considered in light of the circumstances in each case.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether free school meals will be available to the children of those receiving family income supplement on 11 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  As family income supplement ends on Sunday 10 April 1988 and family credit will be introduced from Monday 11 April 1988, free school meals will not be available to these children on 11 April 1988. To ensure, however, that families do not lose out at this time a transitional payment of family credit, which includes an amount for school meals, will be made on 12 April 1988.232
  This will be in addition to a second payment, covering the period from 12 April to 18 April, which will be paid on Tuesday 19 April 1988.

  RUC (Chief Constable)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the official engagements for 19 May 1986 of Sir John Hermon, Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Mr. Tom King
  The Chief Constable's arrangements are matters for him.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir John Hermon, was in touch by telephone at any time on 19 May 1986 with Mr. James Anderton, chief constable of Manchester, or any of the other senior police officers meeting at the Royal hotel, Scarborough, on that date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have no knowledge of such matters.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will answer the question from the hon. Member for Upper Bann which was tabled for answer on 18 February relating to the composition and membership of public bodies in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  Today.

  Libya (Exports)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to seek to end exports from the United Kingdom to Libya, in view of the recent arms discoveries in Northern Ireland believed to have originated in Libya.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have been asked to reply.

  No. We do not operate economic sanctions against Libya, and British firms remain free to use their own judgment on whether to trade with Libya. We do not, however, actively promote trade with Libya. Nor is there any question of the Government issuing licences for defence exports to Libya or of resuming diplomatic relations whilst Libyan involvement in terrorist activity and support for the IRA continues.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assistance has been given by the Government of France in establishing the quantity of illegal arms shipped to Irish Republican terrorists.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have been asked to reply.

  There has been full co-operation between the French Government and ourselves on all aspects of the Eksund case. As the matter is now the subject of French judicial proceedings, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will indicate the type and calibre of firearms most commonly used by the Irish Republican
  233
  Army in attacks on the security forces and the type and calibres of the firearms most commonly used to assassinate members of the security forces when off duty.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 7 March 1988, at columns 73–74.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to how many persons resident in Northern Ireland have obtained a Great Britain driving licence by submitting an accommodation address in England, Scotland or Wales at which they can be contacted in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not available.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if Northern Ireland residents who have had a Northern Ireland driving licence revoked can obtain a driving licence in Great Britain without disclosing details regarding the loss of a Northern Ireland driving licence.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  A Northern Ireland licence holder could not obtain a full British driving licence in these circumstances.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement outlining the staffing arrangements for the social fund, indicating the numbers and grades or titles of officers at each social security office, with an outline of their respective roles.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 8 March 1988]: The arrangements are currently being finalised but broadly speaking, staff engaged on single payments work will be allocated to social fund work from April 1988. Work to determine the mix of grades and the distribution of these staff to each social security office is under way. Job descriptions have been agreed with the departmental trade union side but further discussions are needed on the specific grades and numbers.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will describe the procedures for appealing or requesting a review of a decision by a social fund officer; what provisions have now been made for such procedures; and what requirements, rights or other factors must be considered in reviewing a decision by a social fund officer.

  Revolvers/Pistols

  Light Machine Guns

  Rifles

  Others

  Stolen

  Recovered

  Stolen

  Recovered

  Stolen

  Recovered

  Stolen

  Recovered

  Army

  1983

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UDR

  1983

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  9

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  40

  27

  4

  3

  135

  135

  4

  —

  234
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 8 March 1988]: The procedure for making applications for review of determinations by social fund officers is set out in the Social Fund (Application for Review) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1988 (SR1988 No. 20) which comes into operation on I 1 April 1988. Briefly, the application must be made in writing within 28 days of the decision having been issued and the reason for the application must be stated.

  Applications for review will be considered within the social security office by the social fund officer who made the original decision and by a senior officer. If the applicant remains dissatisfied the decision will be reviewed by a social fund inspector who will operate independently from the social security office.

  In reviewing a decision a social fund officer must have full regard to all the circumstances which existed at the time of the original decision together with any new evidence or relevant change of circumstances.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many serving members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been charged with murder or manslaughter since 1969;

  (2) how many serving members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been convicted of murder or manslaughter since 1969, giving the name and date in each case.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answers 29 February 1988]: Statistics prior to 1977 are not readily available. Since 1977 four serving members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been charged with murder and two with manslaughter. One officer has been convicted of manslaughter. It is not the practice to disclose details of individual cases.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many firearms and of what types have been(a) stolen and (b) recovered from (i) the Regular Army, (ii) the Ulster Defence Regiment, (iii) the Royal Ulster Constabulary and (iv) the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 26 February 1988]: The information is as follows:
  235

  Revolvers/Pistols

  Light Machine Guns

  Rifles

  Others

  Stolen

  Recovered

  Stolen

  Recovered

  Stolen

  Recovered

  Stolen

  Recovered

  RVC

  1983

  9

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  6

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  5

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  9

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1987

  6

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RUCR

  1983

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Recoveries indicated in 1983 refers only to those weapons stolen in 1983 and not before.

  2. Recoveries indicated from 1984–87 are in respect of recovery of weapons stolen in the years 1983–1987.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list in the Official Report, the percentage increases in average pay levels, in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms for (a) doctors, (b) nurses and midwives, (c) ancillary staff, (d) administrative and clerical staff and (e) professions allied to medicine, over the periods (1) 1974 to the latest year for which figures are available, (2) 1979 to the latest year and (3) 1980 to the latest year;

  Percentages

  Period

  Staff group

  Nurses and Midwives

  Doctors and Dentists

  Professions allied to medicine

  Ancillary staff

  Administrative and clerical

  1974 to 1987

  Cumulative average settlement

  272·6

  317·8

  n/a

  240·0

  250·2

  Cumulative change in retail price index

  266·1

  266·1

  n/a

  266·1

  266·1

  Real terms increase

  1·8

  14·1

  n/a

  (7·1)

  (4·3)

  1979 to 1987

  Cumulative average settlement

  126·3

  113·7

  134·2

  81·7

  63·0

  Cumulative change in retail price index

  75·3

  75·3

  75·3

  75·3

  75·3

  Real terms increase

  29·1

  21·9

  33·6

  3·7

  (7·0)

  1980 to 1987

  Cumulative average settlement

  64·0

  62·6

  69·9

  45·4

  43·0

  Cumulative change in retail price index

  49·9

  49·9

  49·9

  49·9

  49·9

  Real terms increase

  9·4

  8·5

  13·3

  (3·0)

  (4·6)

  Notes:

  1. The period covered is from 1 August of each base year to 31 July 1987.

  2. The cumulative change in the retail prices index is that from July of the base year to July 1987.

  3. The real terms increase is the cumulative average settlement deflated by the increase in the retail prices index over the period.

  4. Figures in brackets indicate real terms reductions.

  n/a =not available.

  Dental Services (Disciplinary Cases)
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the numbers of disciplinary cases concerning dental services in the years 1982 to 1986 in relation to(a) the number resolved without an oral hearing, (b) the number resolved with an oral hearing, (c) the number, after an oral hearing, where the contractor
  236
  (2) what have been the percentage increases in National Health Service staff pay levels for the following groups (a) doctors and dentists, (b) nurses, midwives and health visitors, (c) professions allied to medicine, (d) administrative and clerical staff, and (e) ancillary staff, since (i) 1979–80, and (ii) 1980–81, up to the latest year for which figures are available; and what have been the increases in the retail price index over the same periods.

  Mr. Newton
  Comparable information about average pay levels over the periods requested is not available. The table gives details of increases in rates of pay. The extent by which basic rates are enhanced by additional earnings varies between staff groups and is substantial in the case of ancillary staff.

  was found to be in breach of his terms of service and (d) the number where a withholding resulted, together with the average size of the withholding.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information about the investigation of complaints concerning the family practitioners is not available centrally in the form requested.
  237
  In the years 1982–86, the following cases were completed in respect of the dental practitioner services:

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Disciplinary action—Cases investigated

  303

  323

  421

  651

  599

  Breach found

  114

  118

  196

  343

  298

  It is not possible, from centrally held information, to calculate an average level of withholding concerning all cases. During the period in question the following range of withholdings was applied:

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Decision to withhold remuneration

  91

  80

  145

  255

  Amount withheld— Less than £100

  40

  28

  40

  69

  £100–£249

  14

  13

  31

  26

  £250 and over

  37

  39

  74

  160

  In 1986 the form of presentation changed. The figures are:

  Number

  Under £500

  124

  £500—£999

  49

  £l,000—£1,999

  39

  £2,000 and over

  8

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how nurses' pay has altered in real terms(a) between 1974 and 1979, (b) between 1979 and 1984 and (c) since the pay review body was set up in 1984.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Pay-round Yearn (1 August-31 July)

  Percentage movement in real terms pay1

  1974–75—1978–79

  -21

  1979–80—1983–84

  +15

  1983–84—1986–87

  +16

  1 Percentage movements in real terms pay reflect the percentage cash increase/decrease for the pay round year deflated by the increase in the retail prices index throughout the pay round year.

  National Health Service Pay
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) on what basis his Department has not in the past eight years fully funded pay awards in the National Health Service:

  (2) what proportion of pay awards to nurses have been met through extra central Government funding for each of the last five years; and what studies have been made and what steps taken by his Department over that period to ensure that the difference between each pay award and the Government allocation for that purpose could be made up without detriment to levels of patient care.

  Mr. Newton
  Prior to 1982–83 health authorities were funded on a system of volume planning and funds were provided by the Government to meet increases in expenditure. Since then authorities have operated under the cash planning system and are expected to meet all expenditure within the total resources available to them.238
  Nevertheless in three of the last four years we have provided additional funds to help authorities meet the cost of review body awards.

  Neither initial allocations nor (except in 1984–85) additional funding was earmarked specifically for the pay of individual staff groups such as nurses. The following proportions are a notional assessment based on the nurses' percentage share of the cost of review body awards and relate to the period since the inception of the nurses review body.

  Proportion of cost of nurses' pay award in:

  Initial allocation

  Additional funding

  Total

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1984–85

  39·5

  46·5

  86·1

  1985–86

  80·4

  —

  80·4

  1986–87

  77·1

  17·7

  94·9

  1987–88

  39·4

  54·1

  93·5

  Totals do not sum due to rounding.

  Although no specific studies of the type described have been undertaken, health authorities are aware of the need to plan flexibly to meet any pay and price pressures that arise and of the additional revenue available to them as a result of savings released by their cost improvement programmes.

  Trent RHA
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the costs to public funds of the administration of Trent regional health authority in each year since 1982.

  Mr. Newton
  Following is the information derived from the annual accounts of the health authorities comprising the Trent region.

  It would be misleading to interpret a regional health authority's data in isolation from that of the districts it manages. Regions are managed in an integrated way and, therefore, to provide a more accurate picture, regional health authority and district health authority figures should be combined.

  Expenditure on headquarters administration

  Trent regional health authority

  District health authorities

  Region total

  £000

  £000

  £000

  1982–83

  5,327

  26,355

  31,682

  1983–84

  7,773

  23,646

  31,419

  1984–85

  8,358

  24,484

  32,842

  1985–86

  8,884

  21,786

  30,670

  1986–87

  10,683

  22,847

  33,530

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure on headquarters administration includes all current expenditure on the pay and pay related costs of staff of all disciplines (including general managers) employed at headquarters levels and their office costs and overheads. It excludes the cost of clerical and secretarial support staff employed in departments at hospital and unit levels: such costs are regarded as operational.

  2. Prior to 1 April 1985 many of the district health authorities had an associated family practitioner committee (FPC) and those authorities' expenditure for the years before that date includes elements relating to FPCs' administrative expenses which are not separately identifiable.

  Hip Replacement Operations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate for each district health authority within Greater London(a) the current length of time an individual would be expected to wait for a hip replacement operation and (b) the number of individuals currently waiting for a hip replacement operation who have been on the waiting list for (i) up to one year, (ii) between one and two years, (iii) between two and three years, (iv) between three and four years and (v) over four years.

  Mr. Newton
  None of the information requested is available centrally. Information on in-patient waiting lists is collected by specialty of treatment and not by intended method of treatment-operation. A one in 10 sample of hospital discharge records provide data about the waiting experience of patients who have been treated, but at district level the sample is too small to provide reliable estimates for hip replacement operations.

  Regional information for 1985—the latest year for which data are held centrally—is given in the table.

  Estimated median interval in weeks between the time a patient was placed on the waiting list and the date of admission to NHS hospitals for total hip replacement and other arthroplasty of hip, Thames regions, 1985

  Region

  Time

  North West Thames

  13

  North East Thames

  18

  South East Thames

  23

  South West Thames

  26

  Median Waiting Time (in weeks) of waiting list cases treated, by specialty and region, NHS hospitals, England 1985

  Specialty

  Northern

  Yorkshire

  Trent

  East Anglian

  North West Thames

  North East Thames

  South East Thames

  South West Thames

  All Non-Psychiatric Specialties

  7

  8

  8

  8

  5

  6

  7

  8

  General Medicine

  2

  2

  3

  3

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Neurology

  2

  3

  5

  5

  1

  3

  2

  2

  Rheumatology

  3

  4

  2

  4

  1

  2

  1

  1

  General Surgery

  5

  6

  5

  5

  4

  5

  5

  5

  Ear, Nose and Throat

  14

  13

  15

  12

  11

  11

  11

  12

  Traumatic and Orthopaedic

  10

  9

  15

  14

  9

  13

  15

  12

  Ophthalmology

  11

  14

  13

  11

  13

  9

  11

  12

  Urology

  6

  7

  7

  9

  6

  7

  8

  8

  Plastic Surgery

  12

  12

  9

  13

  6

  9

  12

  12

  Thoracic Surgery

  6

  3

  7

  2

  1

  1

  5

  1

  Oral Surgery

  15

  19

  15

  19

  12

  15

  12

  12

  Gynaecology

  6

  6

  7

  6

  3

  5

  5

  7

  Median Waiting Time (in weeks) of waiting list cases treated, by specialty and region, NHS hospitals, England 1985

  Specialty

  Wessex

  Oxford

  South Western

  West Midlands

  Mersey

  North Western

  SHA's

  England

  All Non-Psychiatric Specialties

  9

  8

  8

  8

  5

  7

  5

  7

  General Medicine

  1

  1

  2

  2

  0

  3

  3

  2

  Neurology

  7

  5

  2

  5

  5

  3

  3

  3

  Rheumatology

  2

  11

  2

  4

  3

  2

  1

  3

  General Surgery

  6

  5

  6

  6

  5

  5

  3

  5

  Ear, Nose and Throat

  15

  11

  13

  11

  9

  15

  15

  12

  Traumatic and Orthopaedic

  17

  12

  15

  12

  8

  11

  6

  12

  Ophthalmology

  14

  18

  13

  20

  9

  11

  11

  13

  Urology

  10

  8

  7

  10

  8

  6

  4

  8

  Plastic Surgery

  13

  14

  10

  14

  9

  14

  21

  12

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much National Health Service waiting lists have changed between 1979 and 1987 in(a) the North West Thames regional health authority and (b) the North West Hertfordshire district health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  The in-patient waiting list for North West Thames regional health authority has decreased by 9·3 per cent. from 48,503 to 44,007 between 31 March 1979 and 31 March 1987. The in-patient waiting list for North West Hertfordshire district health authority has also decreased over the same period, from 2,743 to 1,544, a fall of 43·7 per cent.

  Dr. Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the average waiting time for each specialty by regional health authority and the average for England, Wales and Scotland, respectively.

  Mr. Newton
  The table shows the median interval between the date an in-patient was placed on the waiting list and the date of admission (estimated centrally using a 10 per cent. sample of anortymised hospital records) for those specialties where most of the sample numbers were large enough to give reliable estimates at regional level.
  241

  Specialty

  Wessex

  Oxford

  South Western

  West Midlands

  Mersey

  North Western

  SHA's

  England

  Thoracic Surgery

  3

  1

  4

  6

  2

  1

  5

  3

  Oral Surgery

  15

  22

  20

  13

  8

  13

  0

  15

  Gynaecology

  6

  7

  6

  6

  6

  6

  —

  6

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the hospital waiting list figures for England and by English health regions for September 1987.

  Mr. Newton
  The September waiting list figures are being compiled now and will be published as soon as possible.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the hospital waiting list figures by specialty for the Nottingham district health authority and the Trent region, for the latest available date.

  Mr. Newton
  The latest available information about NHS waiting lists is contained in the summary booklet, "Hospital in-patient waiting list—England at 31 March 1987," a copy of which is in the Library.

  NHS Administrators
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many administrators were employed in the National Health Service at district health authority level in 1978–79 and 1986–87;

  (2) how many administrators were employed in the National Health Service at regional health authority level in 1978–79 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Newton
  It is not possible readily to distinguish, from staff engaged on administrative and clerical work in the National Health Service, those solely engaged as administrators. The table provides figures for administrative and clerical staff in the respective years:

  Administrative and Clerical Staff in Post at Regional Health Authority Level and at District Health Authority Level in England at 30 September.

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Regional Health Authority Level

  District Health Authority Level

  1978

  7,500

  84,900

  1986

  7,800

  95,500

  Source: DHSS Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower

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

  2 1978 figures include staff at area health authority level whose functions were devolved to district health authorities as a result of the 1982 reorganisation.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what evidence he has of improved practice in the general population following the AIDS advertising campaign.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 22 February at column 34.

  Community Nurses
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps fully to integrate community nurses into the primary health care team.

  Mr. Newton
  It is for health authorities to determine the organisation and management structure of community nursing services. However, we have long encouraged the development of primary health care teams, in which community nurses are an integral part, and gave fresh endorsement to the team approach in a guidance circular (HC(87)29/HC(FP)(87)10) issued to health authorities and family practitioner committees in November.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the drugs Ampligen and Imuthiol (DTC) to become available for the treatment of AIDS patients in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  I am not able to say whether these products are likely to become licensed for use in this country. So far no application for a product licence or Clinical trial has been received. It should be noted, however, that medical practitioners have the right to import and prescribe medicines for their individual patients even if the product is not licensed for use in this country.

  Consultants (Private Practice)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many National Health Service consultants supplement their income through private practice in the Northern regional health authority area.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not available. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of Northern regional health authority for information on the types of contract held by the consultants in its employment.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the additional resources that are being made available to the South East Thames regional health authority and the South East Kent health authority in order to finance training and other costs already incurred and likely to occur in connection with ensuring that emergencies and casualties that may arise during the construction and future operation of the Channel tunnel are adequately provided for.

  Mr. Newton
  In the main the Department does not identify funds for specific purposes. Resource allocations to regions are aimed at securing progress, over time, towards targets which take account of, amongst other things, change in the size and composition of the population served, the relative health care needs of the region and patient flows between regions.

  The allocation of resources to districts is a matter for regions. It is for regions and districts to determine, within

  243
  a national framework of health care priorities, and in the light of local needs and circumstances, how all their resources can best be used.

  Foetuses and Foetal Material
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many nursing homes have his approval to supply foetuses or foetal material to institutions and organisations; and if he will list the purposes for which the foetuses or foetal material are required;

  (2) what forms of final disposal of foetuses or foetal material are used by institutions and organisations supplied by nursing homes; and what systems or checks his Department has for ensuring that disposal is done in an approved manner;

  (3) how many National Health Service hospitals supply foetuses or foetal material to institutions and organisations; and if he will list the purposes for which the foetuses or foetal material is used;

  (4) what forms of final disposal of foetuses or foetal material are used by institutions and organisations supplied by National Health Service hospitals; and what systems or checks his Department has for ensuring that disposal is done in an approved manner;

  (5) what fees are charged by National Health Service hospitals or private nursing homes to institutions and organisations for the supply of foetal material and foetuses; and whether such fees are subject to the approval and monitoring of his Department;

  (6) what arrangements are in operation for obtaining the consent of parents before the disposal of foetuses or foetal material to institutions and organisations by National Health Service hospitals and private nursing homes; and what steps his Department takes to ensure that such arrangements are followed.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department approves the arrangements for the supply of foetal material by nursing homes approved under the Abortion Act 1967. Arrangements for the supply of material by NHS hospitals are the responsibility of individual health authorities.

  The use and disposal of human foetal material in this country is controlled in accordance with the code of practice recommended in the report of the advisory group on the use of foetuses and foetal material for research (Peel report 1972). The code of practice stipulates amongst other things that a precondition of research should be that there is no objection on the part of the parent and that there is no monetary exchange for foetuses or foetal material. In the private sector the Department satisfies itself that these requirements will be met before approval is granted.

  Private sector places currently approved to supply foetal material are as follows:
  244

  Approved place and material supplied to

  Purpose

  Calthorpe Nursing Home

  Birmingham Children's Hospital

  Research on chorionic villus sampling

  East Birmingham Hospital

  Birmingham Maternity Hospital

  Park View Clinic

  Foetal Tissue Bank, Royal Marsden Hospital

  Various projects on virology, immunology, oncology, biochemistry and molecular biology

  Robert Nursing Home

  Birmingham University Medical School

  The study of genetics, umbilical vessels, comparative histology, cancer and foetal development

  The final disposal of material is a matter for the receiving organisations themselves.

  Medical Consultants
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to review the basis on which medical consultants are employed by the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 18 January 1988 at column 565.

  Welfare of Children
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much has been spent by social services departments under section 1 of the Child Care Act 1980.

  Mr. Newton
  The figures are given in the table.

  Net current expenditure under Section 1 of the Child Care Act 1980—England

  Year

  Cash (£ million)

  1982–83

  3·358

  1983–84

  4·184

  1984–85

  7·255

  1985–86

  6·561

  1986–871

  8·262

  1 Provisional.

  Special Hospital Patients
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire of 16 February,Official Report, columns 555–56, he will list in the Official Report the length of time each of the patients listed has been waiting for transfer, in numbers of months.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is as follows:
  245

  Hospital

  Number of patients awaiting a vacancy in an identified hospital

  Length of wait in months (as at 4 January 1988)1

  Number of patients awaiting a vacancy in local authority accommodation

  Length of wait in months (as at 4 January 1988)2

  Broadmoor

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  3

  4

  —

  —

  1

  7

  —

  —

  1

  9

  —

  —

  1

  10

  —

  —

  1

  12

  —

  —

  Moss Side

  3

  2

  1

  4

  1

  3

  —

  —

  Park Lane

  3

  1

  1

  2

  1

  4

  1

  3

  1

  10

  1

  6

  —

  —

  1

  9

  Rampton

  3

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  1

  3

  2

  4

  —

  —

  1

  6

  —

  —

  3

  6

  —

  —

  3

  7

  —

  —

  1

  9

  —

  —

  1

  10

  —

  —

  1

  12

  —

  —

  1

  20

  —

  —

  1 In the case of patients subject to restrictions under the Mental Health Act, the length of wait is calculated from the date on which the Home Secretary's consent to transfer was obtained. For unrestricted patients, the calculation is from the date on which a placement was agreed between the special hospital and the receiving hospital.

  2 The length of wait is calculated from the date on which the Mental Health Review Tribunal ordered the patient's discharge.

  General Practitioners
  Dr. Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many general practitioners there are per 10,000 of the population in(a) Greater London and (b) the rest of England.

  Mr. Newton
  At 1 October 1986 the numbers of general medical practitioners per 10,000 population in Greater London and the rest of England were 5·5 and 5·1 respectively.

  Dr. Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the cost of training a family doctor.

  Mr. Newton
  About £110,000 comprising £40,000 for university costs of undergraduate medical education—as defined in my reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 23 November 1987 at column 81—and a further £70,000 for the direct salary costs of doctors during their pre-registration year and three years vocational training for general practice. Since training is basically on-the-job there is an offsetting but unquantifiable value of the service contribution made by these doctors.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimated loss of revenue over the last three years for which figures were available arising from employers collecting national insurance contributions but failing to transfer the same to the Department; and whether he has any plans to tighten existing procedures in this respect.

  Mr. Scott
  Reliable estimates of these losses are not available. We have no plans to change the procedures 246
  outlined in my reply to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 2 February at column 576. However, these are kept under constant review.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how frequently hypothermia is cited as a cause of death; and to what extent the incidence of hypothermia is changing.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on Tuesday 8 March 1988.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to alter the working of the arrangements for severe weather payments so far in the current winter.

  Mr. Scott
  There are no plans to amend the current scheme for exceptionally cold weather payments before it ends in April. The Social Security Bill currently before Parliament provides for payments in respect of cold weather to be made after this winter from the social fund. The details of the new scheme will be decided later this year.

  Internal Examinations
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has issued guidelines to hospitals to ensure that no internal examinations are conducted upon women under anaesthetic without their written consent; and if he will publish the guidelines.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department's guidelines provide that an explanation of the nature and effect of an operation or
  247
  investigation procedure under anaesthetic must be given to a patient and the patient's written consent obtained. Separate consent should be obtained if patients are to be involved in teaching of medical or other students. The guidelines were issued as circulars HM(73)8 as amended by HC(77)18, and DS30/71. Copies of the circulars are available in the Library.

  Meningococcal Septicaemia
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many deaths over the last 10 years have been attributed to having meningococcal septicaemia.

  Mrs. Currie
  Before 1979, meningococcal septicaemia (ICD (8)1 036·1 Meningococcaemia without mention of meningitis) included Waterhouse-Friderichsen syndrome. Since 1979, meningococcaemia (ICD (9)1 036·2) and Waterhouse-Friderichsen syndrome, meningococcal (ICD (9)1 036·3) have been coded separately. The table therefore, shows both of these latter conditions from 1979.

  Year

  ICD(8)1036·1

  ICD(9)1036·2

  ICD(9)1036·3

  1978

  52

  —

  —

  1979

  —

  53

  12

  1980

  —

  33

  8

  1981

  —

  40

  15

  1982

  —

  34

  15

  1983

  —

  40

  10

  1984

  —

  47

  6

  1985

  —

  46

  14

  1986

  —

  75

  20

  19872

  —

  71

  6

  1 International Classification of Diseases 8th and 9th revisions.

  2 Provisional—

  The 1987 figure for the number of notifications of acute and meningococcal meningitis is provisional as it is based on the notifications reported to OPCS each week. It does not include all late or corrected notifications, and is therefore liable to a small change at a later date.

  The annual statistics should be compared with caution as

  (i) The 9th revision of the ICD was introduced on 1 January 1979.

  (ii) A change in coding was introduced on 1 January 1984.

  (iii) Figures for 1986 and 1987 exclude deaths in the first 28 days of life.

  Out-patient Appointments
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has as to the proportion of out-patient appointments that are not kept.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not held centrally.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what information he has about the comparative cost of providing family planning advice and services through(a) local health authorities and (b) general practitioners;

  (2) if he will make a study of the comparative cost of providing family planning services through (a) general practitioners and (b) family planning clinics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We are aware of local studies which have questioned the cost-effectiveness of transferring family planning services from clinics to general practitioners but 248
  information collected centrally does not enable a study of comparative costs of the two complementary services to be made. It remains Government policy that people should be able to choose their source of family planning advice, and we have no present plans to commission such a study.

  Amniocentesis Tests
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is his estimate of the numbers of amniocentesis tests which were undertaken in England in the most recent year for which the information is available; and what information he has as to how many of these tests were followed by(a) an abortion, (b) a normal birth, (c) the birth of a disabled child and (d) a miscarriage;

  (2) if he will list the routine statistics which are collected centrally by his Department concerning (a) amniocentesis techniques of foetal diagnosis, and (b) chorionic villus sampling techniques; and whether he has any plans for extending the statistical information gained by his Department in these areas.

  Mrs. Currie
  While information is routinely collected centrally on the number of amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling operations performed in NHS hospitals on in-patients and day-cases, these procedures are normally carried out as out-patient procedures and no central data are available, although they may be held locally.

  There are at present no plans to extend the collection of routine statistics to cover details of out-patient procedures.

  Abortion notifications provide details of abortions conducted on the grounds of foetal abnormality but do not indicate what tests or other evidence have been used to make the diagnosis.

  It is not possible to link individual cases from the two sets of information. Nor is it possible to link details of the operation with information relating to the subsequent birth of a child nor to a miscarriage unless this occurs within the same consultant episode

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the proportion of women who are offered an amniocentesis test and take up such an offer.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, if he will list those health authorities in England in which foetal diagnosis by amniocentesis and related techniques are available; and if he will indicate for each such area what age thresholds are applied for women with no apparent genetic risk for limiting the availability of amniocentesis.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested on foetal diagnosis by amniocentesis and related techniques can be produced only at a disproportionate cost. No information is held centrally on age thresholds for limiting amniocentesis to women with no apparent genetic risk.

  Benefit Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average length of time appellants wait before attending an appeals tribunal for(a) mobility allowance and (b) attendance allowance.
  249
  Mr. Portillo
  Social security appeal tribunals hear lay questions on mobility allowance and attendance allowance; medical appeal tribunals hear medical questions on mobility allowance and the Attendance Allowance Board reviews medical questions for attendance allowance. The national administrative statistics for social security appeal tribunals show that in Great Britain for the quarter ending 30 June 1987 (the latest available figures), the average time taken between the lodgement and hearing of an appeal is 19·1 weeks for mobility allowance and 30·5 weeks for attendance allowance. I regret that equivalent estimates are not available for medical appeal tribunal hearings or reviews by the Attendance Allowance Board.

  Drug Tariff Products
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on what basis dispensers of drugs tariff medicines and products are reimbursed; and if he will make it his policy to claw back all discounts which effectively reduce the true cost of the drug tariff items to dispensers below the tariff reimbursement price, rather than introducing an averaging system.

  Mr. Newton
  Pharmacists are reimbursed monthly for the cost of the medicines and other products they dispense on the basis of either a price listed in the drug tariff or the manufacturer's list price. Apart from the payment for some medicines and other products on which no discount is available, a percentage is deducted from the monthly total of these prices in order to take account of the discounts which pharmacists can obtain. The level of discount obtained is established by periodic inquiries, agreed between the Department and the representatives of the profession, and reflected in a graduated discount scale published in the drug tariff. The same principle applies to payments made to dispensing doctors.

  Reimbursement on the basis of actual prices paid, rather than through an averaging system, would remove the incentive to purchase as economically as is consistent with good dispensing practice and we have no plans for such a change.

  Dental Charges
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many civil servants have been employed administering dental charges in each of the last four years.

  Mrs. Currie
  About 10 civil servants in the Department are regularly engaged in duties in connection with dental charges, including preparations of forecasts, estimates, legislation and guidance, and dealing with correspondence. None is wholly or mainly engaged in such duties.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether any evidence is available to his Department regarding a possible link between recent cases of meningitis and imported Greek yoghurt carrying the meningitis bacterium; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what tests have been conducted on imported Greek sheep's yoghurt to establish whether it contains meningitis-carrying bacteria; and if he will make a statement.
  250
  Mrs. Currie
  There is no evidence of a connection between meningococcal meningitis and the consumption of any particular foodstuff. Recent cases of meningitis have been mainly meningococcal meningitis, which is caused by a different organism from that which causes listeria meningitis. A recent case of listeria meningitis was associated with a cheese made in this country.

  All imported food is subject to routine sampling by port health authorities. We have no evidence to associate imported Greek sheep's milk yoghurt with illness caused by the listeria organism, which is in any case unlikely to occur in an acidic product such as yoghurt.

  Social Security Reform
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportions of those working families who are eligible for family credit are(a) tenants paying rent, (b) mortgagors, (c) outright owner-occupiers and (d) non-householders; and if he will illustrate the effect on net weekly spending power of introducing the reformed structure of income-related benefits for the following categories (i) a married couple with one earner and two children aged 13 and 16 years and (ii) a married couple with one earner and three children aged three, eight and 11 years, assuming, where appropriate, that the families (A) pay average local authority rent and rates, (B) have a £13,000 outstanding mortgage and pay appropriate weekly mortgage interest, (C) own their own home outright and pay average local authority rates and (D) are non-householders and pay no rent, mortgage interest, or rates, in each example showing both current and post-reform net weekly spending power, and any change between the two, for earnings ranging from £70 to £200 in £10 steps.

  Mr. Portillo
  The tenure composition of the family credit eligible population is as shown:

  Family credit eligible population tenure

  Per cent.

  Rent paying tenants

  50

  Mortgagors

  38

  Outright owners

  8

  Non-Householders

  4

  Total

  100

  The information on net weekly spending power is provided in the tables. Overall two thirds of family credit recipients are expected to gain or be unaffected.

  Table 1 Married couple, one earner—2 children aged 13 and 16 Average local authority rent and rates 1988–89 Net weekly spending power £

  Gross earnings

  Pre-reform

  Post-reform

  Increase (+)/Decrease (-)

  70

  96·55

  97·65

  +1·10

  80

  97·98

  98·00

  +0·02

  90

  97·93

  98·39

  +0·46

  100

  97·88

  99·86

  +1·98

  110

  94·98

  101·18

  +6·20

  120

  94·08

  103·10

  +9·02

  130

  95·66

  105·02

  +9·36

  140

  94·91

  106·94

  +12·03

  150

  96·11

  108·86

  +12·75

  160

  102·51

  110·78

  +8·27

  251

  Gross earnings

  Pre-reform

  Post-reform

  Increase (+)/Decrease (-)

  170

  108·91

  112·70

  +3·79

  180

  115·31

  115·31

  —

  190

  121·71

  121·71

  —

  200

  128·11

  128·11

  —

  Table 2 Married couple, one earner—2 children aged 13 and 16 £13,000 mortgage, average local authority rates Net weekly spending power £

  Gross Earnings

  Pre-reform

  Post-reform

  Increase ( + )/Decrease ( - )

  70

  —

  —

  —

  80

  —

  —

  —

  90

  —

  —

  —

  100

  86·67

  100·11

  +13·44

  110

  85·42

  101·43

  +16·01

  120

  86·17

  103·35

  +17·18

  130

  90·92

  105·27

  +14·35

  140

  96·02

  107·19

  +11·17

  150

  96·36

  109·11

  +12·75

  160

  102·76

  111·03

  +8·27

  170

  109·16

  112·95

  +3·79

  180

  115·56

  115·56

  —

  190

  121·96

  121·96

  —

  200

  128·36

  128·36

  —

  Note:

  Below £100 gross weekly earnings a borrower would be unlikely to get a £13,000 mortgage.

  Table 3 Married couple, one earner—2 children aged 13 and 16 outright owner, average local authority rates Net weekly spending power £

  Gross Earnings

  Pre-reform

  Post-reform

  Increase ( + )/Decrease ( - )

  70

  100·46

  113·99

  +13·53

  80

  103·14

  115·92

  +12·78

  90

  104·34

  117·51

  +13·17

  100

  105·54

  118·98

  +13·44

  110

  104·29

  120·30

  +16·01

  120

  105·04

  122·22

  +17·18

  130

  104·69

  124·14

  +19·45

  140

  109·79

  126·06

  +16·27

  150

  115·23

  127·98

  +12·75

  160

  121·63

  129·90

  +8·27

  170

  128·03

  131·82

  +3·79

  180

  134·43

  134·43

  —

  190

  140·83

  140·83

  —

  200

  147·23

  147·23

  —

  Table 4 Married couple, one earner—2 children aged 13 and 16 Non-householder: No rent, mortgage or rates Net weekly spending power £

  Gross Earnings

  Pre-Reform

  Post-Reform

  Increase ( + )-Decrease (- )

  70

  104·25

  122·40

  +18·15

  80

  107·33

  124·82

  +17·49

  90

  108·93

  126·80

  +17·87

  100

  110·53

  128·78

  +18·25

  110

  109·93

  130·10

  +20·17

  120

  111·33

  132·02

  +20·69

  130

  112·23

  133·94

  +21·71

  140

  118·63

  135·86

  +17·23

  150

  125·03

  137·78

  +12·75

  160

  131·43

  139·70

  +8·27

  170

  137·83

  141·62

  +3·79

  180

  144·23

  144·23

  —

  190

  150·63

  150·63

  —

  200

  157·03

  157·03

  —

  252

  Table 5 Married couple,·one earner—3 children aged 3, 8 and 11 Average local authority rent and rates Net weekly spending power £

  Gross Earnings

  Pre-Reform

  Post-Reform

  Increase( + )-Decrease ( -)

  70

  111·80

  100·13

  -11·67

  80

  113·23

  100·55

  -12·68

  90

  113·18

  102·53

  -10·65

  100

  113·13

  104·51

  -8·62

  110

  110·65

  105·83

  -4·82

  120

  109·75

  107·75

  -2·00

  130

  108·85

  109·67

  +0·82

  140

  108·54

  111·59

  +3·05

  150

  110·34

  113·51

  +3·17

  160

  112·31

  115·43

  +3·12

  170

  116·16

  117·35

  +1·19

  180

  122·56

  122·56

  —

  190

  128·96

  128·96

  —

  200

  135·36

  135·36

  —

  Table 6 Married couple, one earner—3 children aged 3, 8 and 11 £13,000 mortgage, average local authority rates Net weekly spending power £

  Gross Earnings

  Pre-Reform

  Post-Reform

  Increase ( + )/Decrease ( - )

  70

  —

  —

  —

  80

  —

  —

  —

  90

  —

  —

  —

  100

  101·11

  104·76

  +3·65

  110

  100·02

  106·08

  +6·06

  120

  100·77

  108·00

  +7·23

  130

  101·52

  109·92

  +8 40

  140

  104·35

  111·84

  +7·49

  150

  109·45

  113·76

  +4·31

  160

  112·56

  115·68

  +312

  170

  116·41

  117·60

  +1·19

  180

  122·81

  122·81

  —

  190

  129·21

  129·21

  —

  200

  135·61

  135·61

  —

  Note: Below £100 gross weekly earnings a borrower would be unlikely to get a £13,000 mortgage.

  Table 7 Married couple, one earner—3 children aged 3, 8 and 11 Outright owner, average local authority rates Net weekly spending power £

  Gross earnings

  Pre-reform

  Post-reform

  Increase ( + )/Decrease ( - )

  70

  114·90

  118·13

  -3·23

  80

  117·58

  119·67

  +2·09

  90

  118·78

  121·65

  +2·87

  100

  119·98

  123·63

  +3·65

  110

  118·89

  124·95

  +6·06

  120

  119·64

  126·87

  +7·23

  130

  120·39

  128·79

  +8·40

  140

  118·12

  130·71

  +12·59

  150

  123·22

  132·63

  +9·41

  160

  128·88

  134·55

  +5·67

  170

  135·28

  136·47

  +1·19

  180

  141·68

  141·68

  —

  190

  148·08

  148·08

  —

  200

  154·48

  154·48

  —

  Table 8 Married couple, one earner—3 children aged 3, 8 and 11 Non-householder: No rent, mortgage or rates

  Net weekly spending power £

  Gross Earnings

  Pre-Reform

  Post-Reform

  Increase ( + )/Decrease ( - )

  70

  118·43

  127·05

  +8·62

  80

  121·51

  129·47

  +7·96

  90

  123·11

  131·45

  +8·34

  253

  Net weekly spending power £

  Gross Earnings

  Pre-Reform

  Post-Reform

  Increase ( + )/Decrease ( - )

  100

  124·71

  133·43

  +8·72

  110

  124·11

  134·75

  +10·64

  120

  125·51

  136·67

  +11·16

  130

  126·91

  138·59

  +11·68

  140

  125·88

  140·51

  +14·63

  150

  132·28

  142·43

  +10·15

  160

  138·68

  144·35

  +5·67

  170

  145·08

  146·27

  +1·19

  180

  151·48

  151·48

  —

  190

  157·88

  157·88

  —

  200

  164·28

  164·28

  —

  Notes to tables:

  1. All main assumptions as in "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income Related Benefits", October 1987, copies of which are held in the Library.

  2. Net weekly spending power is defined after payment of income tax and national insurance, receipt of benefits, payment of net housing costs and work-related expenses (travel costs).

  3. Average weekly local authority rents for these family types are assumed to be £19·12, local authority rates £8·02, water rates £1·78. A £13,000 mortgage is assumed to imply a net (after tax) mortgage interest payment of £18·87 per week.

  NHS (Administrative Costs)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the proportion of administrative costs within the National Health Service as a proportion of current costs in(a) 1978, (b) 1979 and (c) the latest available year.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total cost of the administration of the National Health Service in each of the last seven years; if he will express this as a percentage of the total annual cost of the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 14 January 1988]: Following is information, covering both hospital and community health services and family practitioner services, derived from annual accounts submitted to the Department:

  National health service—headquarters administration

  Expenditure on headquarters administration

  As a proportion of total current expenditure

  As a proportion of total expenditure (current & capital)

  £'000

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  255,899

  4·41

  4·15

  1979–80

  306,193

  4·41

  4·16

  1980–81

  378,311

  4·26

  4·00

  1981–82

  393,377

  3·97

  3·72

  1982–83

  403,292

  3·75

  3·52

  1983–84

  418,429

  3·66

  3·45

  1984–85

  444,016

  3·63

  3·41

  1985–86

  479,047

  3·71

  3·47

  1986–87

  516,624

  3·72

  3·48

  Estimated gross current expenditure per head of population (England)

  £ (cash)

  All age groups

  Births

  0 to 4

  5 to 15

  16 to 64

  65 to 74

  75+

  Personal social services

  1979–80

  35

  15

  45

  45

  10

  55

  210

  254
  Sources:

  Annual financial accounts of:—

  (i) regional and district health authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals. (Predecessor authorities for the years prior to 1982–83.)

  (ii) family practitioners committees.

  (iii) the Dental Estimates Board and the Prescription Pricing Authority.

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure on headquarters administration includes all current expenditure on the pay and pay related costs of staff of all disciplines (including general managers) employed at headquarters levels and their office costs and overheads. It excludes the cost of clerical and secretarial support staff employed in departments at hospital and unit levels: such costs are regarded as operational.

  2. The table includes the total expenses of the Dental Estimates board and the Prescription Pricing Authority which are regarded as wholly administrative. Expenditure by other bodies and special health authorities providing central services to the National Health Service (eg. the Central Blood Laboratories Authority) and expenditure met centrally by the Department is excluded.

  Regional Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will itemise in cash terms the amount spent by each regional health authority on administration in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986."

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 7 December 1987]: Tables showing each health authority's expenditure on headquarters administration for the years requested have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will give per capita spending on health and personal social services in cash terms and at 1987–88 prices for each year since 1979 to the latest available date for(a) all ages, (b) up to four years, (c) five to 15 years, (d) 16 to 64 years, (e) 65 to 74 years and (f) 75 years and over, giving the amount spent on (i) hospital and community services, (ii) family practitioner services, (iii) personal social services and (iv) total in England;

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 18 February 1988]: Estimates of gross current expenditure per head of population on health and personal social services, in cash and at 1987–88 prices, for each year between 1979–80 and 1985–86, the latest year for which these estimates are available are given in the table.

  These figures are derived through successive estimations starting with the Department's programme budget analysis, details of which are provided annually to the Social Services Committee and are published by the Committee in minutes of evidence associated with its report on public expenditure on the social services 1987 (HC 413). Expenditure on each of the services identified is then apportioned to different age groups from data on the use of services derived from a variety of sources. Due to these changes in sources and definitions data for the earliest years may not be fully consistent with those for later years.
  255

  All age groups

  Births

  0 to 4

  5 to 15

  16 to 64

  65 to 74

  75+

  1980–81

  40

  15

  55

  55

  15

  60

  260

  1981–82

  45

  20

  60

  65

  15

  65

  275

  1982–83

  50

  20

  65

  70

  15

  65

  305

  1983–84

  55

  20

  70

  75

  20

  75

  330

  1984–85

  60

  25

  75

  75

  20

  80

  345

  1985–86

  60

  25

  80

  80

  20

  80

  355

  Family practitioner services

  1979–80

  35

  40

  30

  25

  35

  45

  85

  1980–81

  45

  50

  40

  30

  40

  60

  105

  1981–82

  50

  60

  50

  40

  45

  65

  115

  1982–83

  60

  65

  55

  50

  50

  75

  125

  1983–84

  65

  70

  60

  55

  55

  85

  135

  1984–85

  70

  80

  70

  60

  60

  100

  150

  1985–86

  75

  85

  75

  65

  65

  100

  150

  Hospital and community health services

  1979–80

  115

  625

  120

  50

  65

  220

  545

  1980–81

  145

  790

  145

  60

  80

  290

  710

  1981–82

  160

  915

  150

  70

  85

  325

  770

  1982–83

  175

  1,005

  160

  75

  90

  340

  840

  1983–84

  185

  1,025

  160

  75

  95

  370

  875

  1984–85

  195

  1,075

  175

  80

  100

  395

  925

  1985–86

  200

  1,110

  185

  90

  105

  390

  970

  Total for above services

  1979–80

  185

  680

  195

  120

  110

  320

  840

  1980–81

  230

  855

  240

  145

  135

  410

  1,075

  1981–82

  255

  995

  260

  175

  145

  455

  1,160

  1982–83

  285

  1,090

  280

  195

  155

  480

  1,270

  1983–84

  305

  1,115

  290

  205

  170

  530

  1,340

  1984–85

  325

  1,180

  320

  215

  180

  575

  1,420

  1985–86

  335

  1,220

  340

  235

  190

  570

  1,475

  Estimated gross current expenditure per head of population (England)

  £ (1987–88 prices1)

  All age groups

  Births

  0 to 4

  5 to 15

  16 to 64

  65 to 74

  75+

  Personal social services

  1979–80

  60

  25

  75

  75

  20

  95

  360

  1980–81

  60

  25

  85

  85

  20

  85

  385

  1981–82

  60

  25

  80

  85

  20

  90

  365

  1982–83

  65

  25

  80

  85

  20

  80

  380

  1983–84

  65

  25

  85

  90

  20

  90

  390

  1984–85

  65

  25

  85

  85

  25

  90

  390

  1985–86

  65

  25

  85

  85

  25

  90

  385

  Family practitioner services

  1979–80

  65

  70

  55

  45

  60

  80

  150

  1980–81

  65

  75

  55

  45

  60

  85

  155

  1981–82

  70

  80

  65

  55

  60

  90

  155

  1982–83

  75

  85

  70

  60

  65

  95

  155

  1983–84

  75

  85

  75

  65

  65

  105

  160

  1984–85

  80

  95

  80

  70

  70

  110

  170

  1985–86

  80

  90

  80

  70

  70

  no

  160

  Hospital and community health services

  1979–80

  200

  1,085

  205

  85

  110

  385

  950

  1980–81

  215

  1,160

  215

  90

  120

  425

  1,045

  1981–82

  215

  1,220

  200

  90

  115

  435

  1,030

  1982–83

  215

  1,250

  200

  90

  115

  425

  1,045

  1983–84

  220

  1,220

  195

  90

  115

  440

  1,045

  1984–85

  220

  1,225

  200

  90

  115

  450

  1,055

  1985–86

  215

  1,195

  200

  95

  110

  420

  1,045

  Total above services

  1979–80

  325

  1,180

  335

  205

  190

  560

  1,460

  1980–81

  340

  1,260

  355

  220

  200

  595

  1,585

  1981–82

  345

  1,325

  345

  230

  195

  615

  1,550

  1982–83

  355

  1,360

  350

  235

  200

  600

  1,580

  1983–84

  360

  1,330

  355

  245

  200

  635

  1,595

  1984–85

  365

  1,345

  365

  245

  210

  650

  1,615

  1985–86

  360

  1,310

  365

  250

  205

  620

  1,590

  256 257
  1 Adjusted in fine with the GDP deflator at market prices.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why he will not publish figures for Greater London as a whole, for Health Service expenditure in real terms, using the National Health Service pay and prices deflator.

  Mr. Newton
  The composition of an individual health authority's expenditure, or that of a group of health authorities in a particular metropolitan area, can differ significantly from the national average. It is therefore not appropriate to revalue such expenditure by reference to centrally assessed movements in pay and prices.

  Prescriptions
  Dr. Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for each year since 1975 the net ingredient cost per prescription given.

  Mr. Newton
  The average net ingredient cost of prescriptions dispensed in England for each year from 1975 to 1986 (the latest year available) is as follows:

  Average Net Ingredient Cost per Prescription

  £

  1975

  0·94

  1976

  1·17

  1977

  1·47

  1978

  1·69

  1979

  1·94

  1980

  2·36

  1981

  2·78

  1982

  3·14

  1983

  3·48

  1984

  3·69

  1985

  3·92

  1986

  4·24

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) why two prescription charges are made for a single course of Cyclo-Progynova tablets;

  (2) if he will list all single course treatment where more than one prescription charge is made;

  (3) what are the purposes for which a course of Cyclo-Progynova are prescribed;

  (4) if he will list those courses of treatment which are similar in purpose or similar in content to Cyclo-Progynova; and in each case what prescription charge or charges are levied;

  (5) who are the manufacturers of Cyclo-Progynova tablets; and what similar courses of treatment they provide which are available to National Health Service patients;

  (6) what revenue has accrued to the National Health Service from Cyclo-Progynova tablets and other courses of treatment respectively for which dual prescription charges are levied in the last full year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the practice of applying a double prescription charge for Cyclo-Progynova used in the treatment of cancer in women.
  258
  Mr. Newton
  [holding answers 26 February and 4 March 1988]: A prescription charge is payable in respect of each quantity of a drug dispensed. Therefore, where more than one drug is required for a patient's treatment, more than one charge is payable, unless the patient is exempt.

  Packs of cyclo-progynova, which is licensed for the treatment of menopausal conditions, and for which the licence holder is Schering Health Care Ltd., contain two separate drugs. More details of the product and its uses may be found in the ABPI Data Sheet Compendium, a copy of which is in the Library. A comprehensive list of every other licensed product of similar purpose or similar content cannot be produced without disproportionate cost, but a list of the more widely used products of this nature may be found in the British National Formulary, which is also in the Library.

  I regret that information on the revenue from charges for cyclo-progynova is not available, nor is it possible to say how many courses of treatment result in more than one prescription charge.

  Housing Benefit and Rent Rebates
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the numbers of people claiming (i) housing benefit and (ii) rent rebates, listing separately(a) standard, (b) certificated and (c) supplement, for each year from 1984 to 1987, for each district council and regional council area in Scotland.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 26 February 1988]: The available information has now been placed in the Library. The figures represent estimated numbers of benefit recipients in each authority. The number of unsuccessful claims is not available.

  EC (Health Care Expenditure)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing health care expenditure per head in each of the European Economic Community countries, expressed in the common purchasing power standard.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 1 March 1988]: The following table shows for 1985 (or for the latest available year) health care expenditure per head in total and for the public and private sectors in EEC countries expressed in terms of pounds sterling using OECD purchasing power parities.

  Expenditure on health care per head of population in EEC countries in 1985

  EEC Country3

  total

  1£'s per head public

  private

  Belgium

  451

  347

  104

  Denmark

  430

  361

  69

  France

  562

  446

  116

  Germany

  563

  439

  124

  Greece1

  127

  121

  6

  Ireland

  309

  268

  41

  Italy

  416

  332

  84

  Netherlands

  531

  420

  111

  259

  EEC Country3

  total

  1£'s per head public

  private

  Portugal2

  150

  106

  44

  Spain2

  237

  170

  67

  United Kingdom

  355

  320

  35

  Source: OECD.

  1 Expressed in pounds sterling using OECD purchasing power parties.

  2 Data for 1984.

  3 Luxembourg is excluded from the table due to reported inconsistencies in the national health accounts.

  Long-stay Patients
  Dr. Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the annual cost to the National Health Service of all long-stay patients, respectively, in geriatric hospitals, hospitals for the mentally handicapped and mentally ill, and psychiatric hospitals.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 3 March 1988]: Costing returns submitted by health authorities include returns for the following hospital types, geriatric, mental handicap, and mental illness, but do not separately identify expenditure dependent on length of stay.

  In 1986–87, total current expenditure in England on inpatients in these hospitals was as follows:

  £

  Geriatric hospitals

  275,889,208

  Mental handicap hospitals

  1481,182,993

  Mental illness hospitals

  2795,317,915

  1 Includes expenditure on community units for the mentally handicapped.

  2 Excludes expenditure on psychiatric units within general hospitals etc. which is not separately identifiable centrally.

  Whitley Hospital, Coventry
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will call for a report from the chairman of Coventry district health authority about the financial arrangements, including rental payments, entered into with Coventry Church housing association in advance of the formal Secretary of State's decision on the closure proposals affecting Whitley hospital in Coventry, South-East.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 3 March 1988]: All aspects of Coventry health authority's proposal for the future patterns of health services in the district are currently being examined by Ministers, as part of a reference on the closure of Whitley hospital and other service changes.

  Abortions
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total number of abortions, under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967, in the Pontefract district health authority area for each year from 1983 up to the latest year for which figures are available; how many of these abortions were performed in emergency to save the life of the pregnant woman; and what is the latter figure expressed as a percentage of the former.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 1 March 1988]: The information is shown in the table.
  260

  Number of notifications of abortions performed on usual residents of Pontefract district health authority, and number of mentions of ground 51 1983–86

  Year

  Number of abortions

  Mention of ground

  1983

  346

  0

  1984

  339

  0

  1985

  355

  0

  1986

  408

  0

  1 Ground 5 of the 1967 Abortion Act permits abortions to be performed "in emergency to save the life of the mother".

  Hospitals
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average and total change in running costs for hospitals where old hospitals have been replaced by newly built hospitals providing an equivalent or near-equivalent service; and what is the total capital invested in this group of hospitals since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  Since 1979 about 250 hospital building schemes each costing £1 million have been completed at a total cost of nearly £1·5 billion. I regret that comparative information linking running costs and activity data by hospitals of different ages is not available.

  Mental Illness Hospitals
  Dr. Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the most recent figures for the number of(a) full-time consultant psychiatrists, (b) adult in-patients, (c) out-patient attendances and (d) day patient attendances in hospitals for the mentally ill.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Mental illness: Consultant staff and hospital attendance England 1986

  Number

  Consultants (WTE)1 in adult mental illness and psychotherapy (at 30 September):

  Total

  1,128

  Whole-time

  843

  Maximum part-time2

  141

  Other part-time

  144

  In-patients, aged 16 and over (at 31 December)

  59,780

  Total out-patient attendances

  1,720,895

  Day patient attendances in main hospitals

  940,167

  Day patient attendances in day hospitals

  2,770,869

  1 Whole-time equivalents, rounded to nearest whole number.

  2 These are usually treated as whole-time staff to reflect their substantially whole-time commitment.

  Telephone Exchange for the Deaf
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer of 19 February,Official Report column 784, what options are being considered for the long-term arrangements for providing the telephone exchange for the deaf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Discussions are in train involving the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, British Telecom and Government Departments about setting up a research study which will address a wide range of options.

  Family Allowance
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether any special arrangements will be made to compensate families on income support from 1 April for the loss of family allowance when a son, or daughter, in full-time education reaches the age of 19 years.

  Mr. Scott
  Transitional protection ensures that families entitled to supplementary benefit during week commencing 4 April and to income support from 11 April, will receive at least as much benefit income under the income support scheme at the point of change. We have no plans to make other arrangements.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Patent Office
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has had from businesses on the transfer of the Patent Office.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have received just over 100 representations, about half from firms of patent and trade mark agents and the rest from industrial and commercial businesses.

  Industrial Revenue Bonds
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to announce his plans for industrial revenue bonds for the inner cities.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government have at present no plans to introduce industrial revenue bonds.

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the response to his Department's new enterprise initiative.

  Mr. Atkins
  Response to the enterprise initiative continues to be excellent. More than 42,000 inquiries have been received. We are on course to achieve our White Paper target figure of 1,000 consultancy projects per month.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what his Department plans to spend in regional assistance in each of the next four years.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department's planned level of expenditure on the main regional assistance measures in the years 1988–89 to 1990–91 is £330 million, £304 million and £265 million respectively. In accordance with normal practice, plans for 1991–92 have not been made.

  Pen Tops
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the technical committee of the British Standards Institute to discuss new safety standards for pen tops.

  Mr. Butcher
  The British Standards Institutions (BSI) is taking urgent steps to develop this standard.262
  Responsibility for controlling the work will rest with BSI but I understand that the first meeting of the technical committee concerned is likely to take place in April.

  Confectionery
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the value of United Kingdom(a) exports and (b) imports of confectionery in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In 1987 exports of confectionery goods were valued at £405 million and imports £330 million.

  Training Centres
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will consider establishing training centres for people on approved courses which do not qualify for local education authority grants.

  Mr. Butcher
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  Economic Progress
  Mr. Stokes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to convey to industry that economic progress will only be maintained by greater appreciation of the need for the highest quality, value, and reliable delivery to the customer of goods and services.

  Mr. Butcher
  The whole thrust of the enterprise initiative is to promote best practice in these and other aspects of performance.

  EC (Single Market)
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in removing barriers to free trade in the European Community; and what further action is being taken to ensure that by 1992 there is a genuine single market in Europe.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Community is making encouraging progress towards the completion of the single European market by the target date of 31 December 1992. More than 100 individual measures aimed at removing barriers have been agreed in the last 18 months, 48 of them during the United Kingdom presidency in the second half of 1986. Following implementation of the Single European Act, the increased use of majority voting is already speeding up the process of decision taking. Priorities for decisions this year include standards, opening up public purchasing, liberalising capital movements, and freedom of establishment for the professions.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the Government's plans to prepare British companies for the completion of the single market in 1992.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Since we announced our campaign the DTI has received an encouragingly large number of representations from all sectors of British business. All have warmly welcomed the priority which the Government are giving to completing the single market and the steps we are taking to make British business aware of the challenge.

  Confederation of British Industry
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My last meeting with the CBI was on 25 January. Our discussions on this occasion were mainly concerned with inner city issues.

  European Space Agency
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairman of the European Space Agency; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Director-General of the European Space Agency (ESA), Dr. Luest, called on me when he was in London on 16 February. We discussed ESA matters and United Kingdom involvement in ESA programmes.

  Industrial Competitiveness
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how the international competitiveness of British industry has changed in the last year.

  Mr. Butcher
  In the third quarter of 1987, the latest period for which data are available, relative unit labour costs in manufacturing were broadly unchanged from their level in the corresponding quarter of the previous year.

  Industry-School Links
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to forge closer collaborative links between industry and schools.

  Mr. Butcher
  A number of measures to forge closer collaborative links between industry and schools were announced as part of the enterprise initiative in the White Paper "DTI-the department for Enterprise" published on 12 January 1988. Three new targets were set:every year 10 per cent. of teachers should have the opportunity to gain some personal experience of the world of business
  every young person should have two or more weeks of work experience, suited to his or her ability and needs, before leaving school
  every trainee teacher should gain an appreciation of the needs of employers and the importance of links between schools and employers.

  In addition, the Government's policy statement, "Action for Cities", announced by the Prime Minister on 7 March contained a range of initiatives including the Department of Employment's proposals to develop "compacts", initially in 12 of the urban programme areas. My Department will be working closely with DES and MSC to foster these partnerships and a wide range of other links between schools and business.

  Company Liquidations
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many company liquidations there were in Hereford and Worcester in the year 1983 to date.

  Mr. Maude
  Company liquidations are not analysed by county, but Hereford and Worcester are part of the area 264
  administered by the Official Receiver's office in Gloucester, which processed an estimated 351 compulsory liquidations in the years 1983 to 1987. No regional analysis is available of creditors' voluntary liquidations, the other type of insolvent company liquidation.

  Tokyo Stock Exchange
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to what factors he attributes the more rapid recovery of the Tokyo stock exchange than the British stock exchange since the crash.

  Mr. Maude
  Many factors influence the behaviour of prices in different markets; and I do not propose to speculate about them.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he plans to take to encourage the revival of the British film industry.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Government maintain the view that the provisions of the Films Act 1985 offer a framework within which the commercial film industry can develop successfully. British Screen Finance Ltd., which received Government funds under the terms of the Films Act, has in just over two years supported over 35 feature and short films. In addition, more than 20 projects have received Government finance under the development scheme managed by the National Film Development Fund.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what effects he expects the uniform business rate to have on his Department's regional policy.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The introduction of the uniform business rate will mean that firms throughout the country with premises of the same rateable value will pay the same rates. This will be of enormous benefit to my Department's policy of encouraging enterprise in the regions.

  Mergers Policy
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he had received on Her Majesty's Government's mergers policy.

  Mr. Maude
  The Department has received a large number of representations during the course of the recent review of law and policy on mergers and restrictive trade practices and these are listed in the Department's recent publication, "Mergers Policy" which is available in the Library of the House.

  Association of Innovation Centres Executives
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next expects to meet Dr. Donaldson, secretary of the Association of Innovation Centres Executives, to discuss Government funding for industry.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to meet the secretary of the Association of Innovation Centre Executives, Dr. Donaldson. However, I recently met Dr. Donaldson and other members of AICE to discuss the work of innovation centres, and ways in
  265
  which these centres might be able to contribute to DTI's new innovation policies. I have agreed to visit the northeast innovation centre later in the year.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of investment firms have registered with the Securities and Investments Board or self-regulatory organisations by the deadline laid down in the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Maude
  The Securities and Investments Board calculates that, on P-Day, approximately 5,100 firms were already members of recognised self-regulating organisations and around 9,140 applications were in the course of consideration. It is not possible to say what percentage of investment firms such a figure constitutes.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received requesting the postponement of implementation of section 9 of the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Maude
  Section 9 of the Financial Services Act was brought into force in June 1987. No representations requesting postponement of the section were made.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is now able to announce the date of authorisation under the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Maude
  Section 3 of the Financial Services Act will require any person carrying on investment business in the United Kingdom to be authorised or exempted. It remains my intention that this section and other key investor protection provisions of the Act should be commenced in April, but the precise date has not yet been determined.

  Competition Policy and Consumer Protection
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received from heavy industry on competition policy issues and consumer protection matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The Department is in regular contact with both individual firms and representative groups from all sides of industry, including heavy industry; in the course of these contacts, industry's views on a range of matters, including competition policy and consumer protection are discussed.

  ICI Teesside
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many automatic grants under the regional aid programmes have been made to ICI Teesside in each of the past 10 years; and what was their value.

  Mr. Atkins
  Details of regional development grant payments made to ICI and its subsidiaries above £25,000 are published in British Business. The dates of publication were as follows:

  Date of publication

  1977–78

  Q1

  12 August 1977

  Q2

  4 November 1977

  266

  Date of publication

  Q3

  10 March 1978

  Q4

  19 May 1978

  1978–79

  Q1

  11 August 1978

  Q2

  3 November 1978

  Q3

  16 February 1979

  Q4

  18 May 1979

  1979–80

  Q1

  19 October 1979

  Q2

  7 December 1979

  Q3

  22 February 1980

  Q4

  6 June 1980

  1980–81

  Q1

  29 August 1980

  Q2

  28 November 1980

  Q3

  13 February 1981

  Q4

  15 May 1981

  1981–82

  Q1

  7 August 1981

  Q2

  6 November 1981

  Q3

  12 February 1982

  Q4

  7 May 1982

  1982–83

  Q1

  13 August 1982

  Q2

  29 October 1982

  Q3

  4 February 1983

  Q4

  6 May 1983

  1983–84

  Q1

  29 July 1983

  Q2

  4 November 1983

  Q3

  3 February 1984

  Q4

  25 May 1984

  1984–85

  Q1

  31 August 1984

  Q2

  9 November 1984

  Q3

  15 February 1985

  Q4

  10 May 1985

  1985–86

  Q1

  16 August 1985

  Q2

  17 January 1986

  Q3

  11 April 1986

  Q4

  20 June 1986

  1986–87

  Q1

  19 September 1986

  Q2

  5 December 1986

  Q3

  10 April 1987

  Q4

  10 July 1987

  1987–88

  Q1

  4 September 1987

  Q2

  18 December 1987

  Q3

  12 February 1988

  Notes:

  Details published are:

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

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

  Information Technology
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his latest estimate of the balance of trade in information technology for 1987.
  267
  Mr. Maude
  The crude trade deficit (1) in the products of the information technology and electronics industries (2) in the first nine months of 1987, not seasonally adjusted, was £1·7 billion.

  (1) Imports (cif) less Exports (fob)

  (2) Activity headings 3301, 3302, 3441, 3442, 3443, 3444, 3453 and 3454 of the Standard Industrial Classification (1980)

  Audio Cassettes (Levy)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received on the need for a levy on blank audio cassette tape.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representations he has received(a) for and (b) against the introduction of a blank tape levy.

  Mr. Maude
  My Department received more than 1.000 responses to the 1985 Green Paper "The Recording and Rental of Audio and Video Copyright Material" and the 1986 White Paper "Intellectual Property and Innovation" both of which addressed the question of a levy on blank tape. A large proportion of respondents commented on that question and the majority were opposed to the introduction of a levy. Since the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill was published in October 1987, my Department has dealt with 80 further representations on the matter and of these, 42 were in favour of a levy and 38 against.

  Product Improvement
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the response to his Department's initiative to help developing firms improve the quality of their products.

  Mr. Butcher
  The national Quality Campaign was launched in April 1983 with the aim of providing a wider awareness of the importance of quality. Since its launch, it is estimated that the campaign has reached more than 70,000 firms. There is continued high demand for the comprehensive range of campaign booklets and videos. Quality-related events have been developed on a regional, company-supplier or sectoral basis. Around 20 such activity programmes have been held with the most recent one in Brighton last month for the south-east region.

  There are around 9,000 company entries in the latest edition of the "Register of Quality Assessed United Kingdom Companies," a 50 per cent. increase on the previous edition. In addition, the level of demand for assisted quality consultancy advice has been significant—more than 5,000 so far. This help continues to be available through the enterprise initiative. From this it is clear that more and more firms are adopting the positive approach to quality which is so vital to the United Kingdom's competitiveness.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the export performance of the aerospace industry in 1987 and on its prospects for the coming year.
  268
  Mr. Atkins
  Final figures for 1987 are not yet available but provisional estimates indicate that the British aerospace industry exported some £5·5 billion of goods during the year. Prospects for the coming year are good with expected exports of around £6 billion.

  Manufactured Imports and Exports
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the growth in manufactured imports and exports in the last 12 months and in the last eight years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is as follows:

  Change in the volume of trade in manufactures in the last twelve months

  Overseas trade statistics basis seasonally adjusted 1980 = 100

  Import volume

  Export volume

  Index, February 1986 to January 1987

  148·8

  114·6

  Index, February 1987 to January 1988

  165·4

  124·1

  Percentage change

  +11

  +8½

  Volume of trade in manufactures 1980–1987

  Overseas trade statistics basis 1980 = 100

  Import volume index

  Export volume index

  1980

  100·0

  100·0

  1981

  97·9

  94·4

  1982

  107·3

  96·4

  1983

  121·4

  95·8

  1984

  133·9

  104·5

  1985

  140·6

  110·8

  1986

  148·2

  114·1

  1987

  162·6

  123·8

  Companies (Advertising)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans there are to seek to protect the consumer from misleading advertising by loan companies.

  Mr. Maude
  It is already an offence under section 46 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to publish an advertisement which is false or misleading in a material respect. In addition the Consumer Credit (Advertisements) Regulations regulate the form and content of advertisements for credit in some detail and ensure that consumers are given full and accurate information on relevant matters, including the total cost of credit. I believe, nevertheless, that there is scope for improving the protection provided by the current regulations and my Department will shortly circulate revised draft regulations which simplify and clarify the existing provisions and contain additional safeguards for borrowers, particularly in the area of secured lending.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has had recently from the British shipbuilding industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Representations have recently been made about the competition faced by United Kingdom private
  269
  sector merchant yards from other yards in the Community. The particular case has been drawn to the attention of the European Community.

  Consumers Association
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to meet the Consumers Association; and what matters he intends to discuss.

  Mr. Butcher
  I intend to meet the director general of the Consumers Association on Wednesday 23 March to discuss a number of topics relevant to consumers.

  Credit Cards
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans for the further regulation of credit cards.

  Mr. Maude
  No. I believe that the legal framework established by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 already ensures that credit card users are adequately protected.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his latest estimate of the balance of trade in manufactures for 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  For 1987 there was a deficit of £6·5 billion in trade in manufactures.

  Business (Marketing Skills)
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the response to his Department's initiative to help developing businesses improve their marketing skills.

  Mr. Butcher
  Response to the interprise initiative continues to be excellent. More than 42,000 inquiries have been received. We are on course to achieve our White Paper target figure of 1,000 consultancy projects per month.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the value in real terms of manufactured goods imported to, and exported from, the United Kingdom in June 1979 and the last month for which estimated figures are available.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is as follows:

  United Kingdom trade in manufactures for June 1979 and January 1988 at 1980 prices

  £ million

  Imports

  Exports

  June 1979

  2,695

  3,061

  January 1988

  4,693

  3,429

  Regional Development Grant (Tourism)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much regional development grant has been paid to the north-west region in respect of the tourism industry in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Atkins
  Data on payments of regional development grants are held by reference to the 1980 standard industrial 270
  classification. There is no specific code for tourism under this classification. The main activities which make up the tourist industry are not eligible for RDG. It is possible that projects involving activities which are eligible for RDG, such as central services, may be submitted by applicants who are active in the tourist industry, but information on grant paid in such circumstances is not available.

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairman of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Butcher
  I met the chairman of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux on Monday 7 March when we discussed a number of current issues including the funding of the services provided by the citizens advice bureaux.

  Takeovers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he intends to take to reduce the scale of takeover activity and the consequent loss of jobs in Wales, Scotland and the north of England.

  Mr. Maude
  Mergers policy has been under review. The main conclusions were announced in the recent White Paper "DTI—the department for Enterprise"; and more detailed conclusions were set out in the Department's policy document "Mergers Policy" published on 3 March. The Government's policy is that the main—though not exclusive—consideration in determining whether mergers should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be their potential effect on competition. Where competition is not affected, the Government believe that it is normally right for proposed mergers to be decided by the market without intervention by official agencies. But mergers may occasionally raise other issues which affect the public interest and the discretion to refer them to the MMC is to be retained.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the contribution to the United Kingdom balance of trade in 1986–87 of(a) the aerospace industry, (b) information technology and (c) pharmaceutical industries.

  Mr. Atkins
  The crude balance of trade for the sectors listed for the financial year 1986–87 is:

  £ million

  (a) Aerospace

  +2,106

  (b) Electronics and Information technology1

  -1,894

  (c) Pharmaceuticals

  +850

  The "electronics and information technology" sector has been taken to comprise activity headings 3301/2, 3441–4 and 3453/4 of the Standard Industrial Classification (Revised 1980).

  Research and Development
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to what percentage of turnover is invested in research and development by(a) the electronics industry, (b) the chemical industry and (c) the pharmaceutical industry.
  271
  Mr. Maude
  In 1985, expenditure by United Kingdom industrial enterprises on research and development they performed and financed from their own resources as a percentage of sales and work done, was as follows:

  Per cent.

  Products of the electronics industry, including office machinery and electronic data processing equipment

  6·5

  Products of the chemical industry, excluding pharmaceutical products

  1·7

  Pharmaceutical products

  10·2

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of gross domestic product was spent on non-military research and development in Britain for the last year for which figures are available; and what is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average.

  Mr. Maude
  The latest available information relates to 1985 and is shown in the table. It was published in table 5.10 in the 1987 "Annual Review of Goverment Funded Research and Development (R and D)". The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) does not compile information on gross expenditure on R and D (GERD) for non-defence purposes for member countries. The figures given are rough estimates for certain countries. They are based on GERD, which is published by OECD for member countries, adjusted to eliminate expenditure on R and D for defence purposes, with the result expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP).

  Estimated GERD for civil purposes as a percentage of GDP in 1985

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  1·7

  United States of America

  1·9

  Federal Republic of Germany

  2·5

  France

  11·8

  Japan

  22·5

  1 1984 estimate.

  2 1983 estimate.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to encourage a higher level of research and development expenditure by British industry.

  Mr. Butcher
  A major objective of my Department's recently announced innovation policy is to encourage industry to fund more of its own R and D, as well as to encourage co-operation between companies and the academic science base. The Government have created the right climate to enable industry to invest more in R and D.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the code approved by the Accounting Standards Committee requiring disclosure in company accounts of spending on research and development; and what further plans he has to encourage greater commitment by companies to research and development.

  Mr. Maude
  The Accounting Standards Committee is considering the responses to its exposure draft 41 which proposed changes to its "Statement of Standard Accounting Practice 13", including a new requirement that 272
  company accounts should disclose expenditure on research and development. The Government support this proposal and we are hopeful that a revised standard will be agreed later this year.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the decision to return the British Steel Corporation to the private sector.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have received a small number of letters from various parties about points of detail. I have so far received a few representations about the principle of privatisation itself. I regard this as a matter which is no longer particularly controversial except within a narrow political circle.

  Airbus Project
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will meet ministerial colleagues from France and Germany to discuss the Airbus project.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met his French and German colleagues on 1 March to discuss the Airbus project, and expects to be in regular contact with them on this issue.

  Export Initiative
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the response to his Department's export initiative.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Since the launch on 12 January, nearly 9,000 export initiative booklets have been requested. While it is too soon to provide detailed figures on the take-up of the various schemes, considerable interest has been shown by exporters in the marketing initiative which provides access to independent consultancy advice on, among other things, how companies should approach and plan for their business abroad.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of manufacturing investment in 1987 and in 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  The provisional estimate of investment in manufacturing industry, including leased assets, for 1987 is £7·4 billion at 1980 prices. The corresponding investment in 1979 and 1983 was £8·2 billion and £5·6 billion respectively at 1980 prices.

  Inner Cities (New Businesses)
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures for the establishment of new businesses in inner-city areas.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A total of 46,000 new businesses were registered for VAT in urban priority areas in 1986. That is the latest year for which complete figures are available. The number of VAT registered businesses in the inner cities was 307,000 at the end of 1986—2·3 per cent. higher than the two years before.
  273
  We have no accurate figures for the number of new businesses below the threshold for VAT in urban priority areas. However about one third of all enterprise allowance scheme applicants come from these areas and we expect to have 110,000 entrants nationally in 1988–89.

  Consumer Credit
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to seek to change the level of protection afforded by the Consumer Credit Act.

  Mr. Maude
  The Consumer Credit Act already provides comprehensive protection for consumers. I have no plans to change the basic framework of protection provided by the Act although I propose amendments to the Act, when there is a suitable opportunity, to simplify and clarify certain provisions which have caused difficulty both for lenders and their customers. I also propose amendments to the Act to remove all business hire and credit from its scope. These changes have been supported by organisations representing unincorporated businesses and sole traders who are at present within the scope of the Act. I am also proposing to amend the Consumer Credit (Advertisements) Regulations to clarify and simplify the existing provisions and provide additional safeguards for
  274

  Table 1

  Type of work distribution of new first degree university engineering graduates entering United Kingdom employment (per cent.)

  1980

  1982

  1984

  1985

  11986

  All engineering

  Engineering, scientific, technical, computing

  87

  85

  84

  83

  83

  Financial

  2

  3

  4

  4

  6

  Other

  10

  12

  12

  14

  10

  Mechanical engineering

  Engineering, scientific, technical, computing

  93

  88

  86

  86

  86

  Financial

  1

  2

  3

  3

  4

  Other

  6

  9

  10

  10

  10

  Electrical and electronic engineering

  Engineering scientific, technical, computing

  94

  93

  94

  94

  91

  Financial

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Other

  6

  5

  6

  6

  8

  Numbers entering employment

  All engineering

  5,065

  5,325

  6,417

  6,412

  5,362

  Mechanical engineering

  841

  1,008

  1,164

  1,197

  1,010

  Electrical, electronic engineering

  1,257

  1,418

  1,852

  1,774

  1,013

  1 The university subject classification changed in 1986. The apparent short fall in electrical and electronic engineering is due to a major part of this subject group being transferred to other categories in the classification, where they are not readily identifiable.

  Source: Universities Statistical Record, First Destinations Survey, annual volumes.

  Table 2

  Sectoral distribution of new first degree university engineering graduates entering United Kingdom employment (per cent.)

  1980

  1982

  1984

  1985

  11986

  All engineering

  Manufacturing

  60

  61

  65

  63

  61

  Finance, commerce

  5

  7

  8

  8

  10

  Other

  36

  33

  27

  29

  30

  Mechanical engineering

  Manufacturing

  80

  79

  77

  76

  74

  Finance, commerce

  3

  4

  6

  5

  7

  Other

  16

  16

  18

  19

  19

  borrowers, particularly in the area of secured lending. I believe that these changes would enhance the present level of borrower protection while at the same time reducing the burden on business.

  Information Technology and Science Graduates
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the trend for information technology graduates and those with science degrees to take employment in the City rather than in manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  My Department regularly receives information on the first employment destinations of UK university graduates from the Department of Education and Science. Whilst many jobs in manufacturing are open to graduates of any discipline, others require specific expertise, graduates in subjects which are less strongly attracted to careers where a general level of academic attainment is required, including some in the financial and commercial sectors. It should be noted that only a small proportion of such jobs are in the City.

  The tables illustrate the recent trends in the first employment of engineering and science university graduates:
  275

  1980

  1982

  1984

  1985

  11986

  Electrical and electronic engineering

  Manufacturing

  78

  74

  79

  77

  73

  Finance, commerce

  1

  3

  4

  4

  6

  Other

  21

  22

  16

  19

  21

  Source: Universities Statistical Record, First Destinations Survey, annual volumes.

  Table 3

  Type of work distribution of new .first degree university science graduates entering United Kingdom employment (per cent.)

  1980

  1982

  1984

  1985

  1986

  All Sciences (excludes psychology and geography)

  Scientific, engineering, technical, computing

  60

  55

  56

  55

  54

  Financial

  15

  17

  18

  20

  22

  Other

  26

  28

  26

  25

  24

  Biological sciences

  Scientific, engineering, technical, computing

  49

  45

  45

  47

  45

  Financial

  10

  9

  11

  12

  15

  Other

  41

  45

  44

  41

  40

  Physics

  Scientific, engineering, technical, computing

  78

  72

  75

  71

  68

  Financial

  5

  9

  7

  11

  13

  Other

  17

  20

  17

  18

  19

  Maths, computer studies

  Scientific, engineering, technical, computing

  64

  63

  62

  60

  58

  Financial

  24

  25

  27

  30

  31

  Other

  12

  13

  11

  10

  10

  Numbers entering employment

  All sciences

  6,082

  5,860

  7,655

  8,020

  6,742

  Biological sciences

  1,486

  1,427

  1,525

  1,643

  1,578

  Physics

  945

  946

  1,252

  1,229

  1,097

  Maths computer studies

  1,721

  1,823

  2,600

  2,659

  2,682

  1 Changes to the subject classification mean that the 1986 figures are not fully compatible with previous years.

  Source: Universities Statistical Record, First Destinations Survey, annual Volumes.

  Table 4

  Sectoral distribution of new, first degree university science graduates entering United Kingdom employment (per cent.)

  1980

  1982

  1984

  1985

  11986

  All science

  Manufacturing

  40

  36

  38

  35

  30

  Financial, commerce

  27

  30

  33

  35

  38

  Other

  33

  33

  29

  30

  32

  Biological sciences

  Manufacturing

  23

  21

  21

  22

  21

  Financial, commerce

  20

  20

  23

  25

  27

  Other

  56

  59

  56

  53

  52

  Physics

  Manufacturing

  58

  55

  58

  50

  40

  Financial, commerce

  13

  17

  18

  24

  25

  Other

  29

  27

  24

  27

  36

  Mathematics, computer studies

  Manufacturing

  38

  35

  34

  31

  27

  Mechanical engineering

  43

  47

  49

  52

  54

  Electrical, electronic engineering

  19

  18

  17

  17

  19

  Source: Universities Statistical Record, First Destinations Survey, annual volumes.

  Television and Radio Programmes (Publication)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps using his powers in relation to monopolies, to facilitate the publication of advance television and radio programmes by newspapers and other periodicals.
  276
  Mr. Maude
  No. The policies and practices of the British Broadcasting Corporation and of Independent Television Publications Ltd. of limiting the publication by others of advance programme information have already been investigated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In a report published on 11 September 1985 the Commission concluded that these policies and practices did not operate against the public interest.

  Inner City Task Forces
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to expand the number of inner city task forces.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Not at the moment. The eight new task forces are establishing themselves very well but 1 see no reason to expand the numbers further. I wish to retain the close contact between Ministers and task forces, the informality, short lines of command and ability to innovate and experiment which have been the main advantages of the task force initiative so far.

  Car Manufacturing
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will estimate the number and geographical spread of firms which are dependent upon the car manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no data on which to provide an estimate of the number and geographical spread of firms which are dependent upon the car manufacturing industry. However it is estimated that there are some 2,000 firms supplying components to the vehicle industry generally of which 20 or so of the largest firms account for over 75 per cent. by value of United Kingdom annual vehicle component production. For many suppliers the vehicle industry represents only one of their markets. There is a traditional concentration of vehicle components suppliers in the west midlands.

  Motor Vehicles (South Korea)
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current amount of motor vehicle exports to and imports from South Korea, together with the duties and tariffs levied by the United Kingdom on Korean vehicle imports and those levied by South Korea on United Kingdom vehicle exports.
  278
  Mr. Alan Clark
  Exports of motor vehicles to South Korea for the 11 months January to November 1987 amounted to £0·5 million; imports for the same period amounted to £16·9 million.

  The tariffs levied by the United Kingdom on Korean vehicle imports range from 10 per cent. to 22 per cent. Passenger vehicles are also subject to 10 per cent. car tax, and 15 per cent. VAT is levied on all vehicles.

  Tariffs levied by the Republic of Korea on United Kingdom vehicles exports range from 15 per cent. to 30 per cent. Additional duties include a special excise tax, ranging from 10 per cent. to 40 per cent. and a defence tax of 30 per cent. In addition 10 per cent. VAT is levied on the total.

  Managed Workshops
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will announce the first managed workshop in an inner city area.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  There are already many managed workshops in inner cities, but I believe that more are needed to provide premises and advice for people starting new businesses.

  English Estates is leading the new DTI-funded programme announced on 7 March and is already involved in negotiations with private sector companies. We should be able to announce specific new projects in the near future.

  Restrictive Trade Practices
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to be able to make a statement about the Government's policy on restrictive trade practices.

  Mr. Maude
  The Government published a Green Paper on restrictive trade practices policy yesterday. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page).

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

EC Trade Marks Office
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present state of negotiations for the siting of the European Community Trade Marks Office.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, from the 10 cities put forward, the European Commission provisionally short listed four early last year. These were London, The Hague, Madrid and Munich. Since then it has not taken the matter further but its next step will be to make a proposal about location to the Council of Ministers, and it may do this in the near future. However, it will be for the Council to make the decision, and it is not bound to accept the Commission's proposal.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, what efforts are the Government making to ensure that our case is given every possible encouragement so that the advice given by the Commission is in our favour rather than in favour of the other three sites?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the decision will take into account all factors. The Government recognise the benefits of having the EC Trade Marks Office in London and hence we are ready to support it with a financial package. He may have noticed the necessary enabling clause, which is Clause 273 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill in your Lordships' House, a Bill with which he is somewhat familiar.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord draws attention to Clause 273 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill before your Lordships' House. Is it a question of money? Is it a question of the Government designing the right financial package which will bring the EC Trade Marks Office to our shore, or are there other factors which will come into play?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as I said, the decision will take all factors into account. It is not just a matter of money. I think that all in your Lordships' House will agree that such a decision should not become just an auction. I assure noble Lords that the Government will pursue with vigour the UK hid to house the EC Trade Marks Office in London.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I recognise that much lobbying can be counterproductive and an auction is highly undesirable, but will the Government make quite
694
sure that the Community realises that we have for one reason or another not done very well in the siting of any Community institution of importance? Is it not time that that was remedied?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I can assure my noble and learned friend that the Government will indeed make this omission very clear to the Commission in our continuing negotiations to try to have the office located in London.

PSBR: Latest Figures
2.39 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest available figures for the public sector borrowing requirement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, in the first 10 months of 1987–88 there was a negative public sector borrowing requirement of £7 billion.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend think that that very satisfactory position will continue in the next 12 months or is the Budget too imminent for him to make a forecast?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there will be a new forecast for this current year for which we still await the figures for two months. It will be made in the Budget next Tuesday so there is not much more that I can say at this point.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the diminution in the public sector borrowing requirement has been compensated for many, many times over by an increase in private sector borrowing requirements? Is he further aware that that diminution has led to growing squalor in the public sector in terms of deficiencies in housing, the infrastructure, schools and so on, and that the increase in the latter has resulted in very considerable pressure on our balance of payments and has contributed to keeping interest rates high, which is gravely disadvantaging British industry?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I obviously do not accept what the noble Lord says. A low public sector borrowing requirement, even a negative public sector borrowing requirement is a sign that the economy is healthy and growing and that public finances are firmly under control. This year's public sector borrowing requirement is likely to be the lowest since the early 1950s, with the exception of one year 1969–70.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the sour grapes reaction of noble Lords opposite will not be shared by most people? They find this particular grape very sweet.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can only agree with my noble friend.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree with my noble friend that high interest rates are disadvantageous to British industry?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it would appear from all the figures that have become available recently that British industry is doing rather well in the world at the moment.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, that does not answer my question. Would the noble Lord be good enough to say whether he agrees that the high interest rate is not advantageous to British industry?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, British industry appears to be doing very well at the moment. It might well do better with lower interest rates, but on the other hand we have to keep control of inflation, which is just as important to industry as interest rates.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne the local authority is currently sacking 150 teachers, and a negative borrowing requirement has been achieved by a multiplicity of economies of that kind throughout the country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is important that public sector expenditure should be firmly under control if we are to have a healthy and growing economy. If the local authority cannot find better ways of saving money than sacking teachers, it is unfortunate.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in view of the somersault in the Government's economic policy, how much importance do they place on M3 as an indicator of money supply?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are tending to stray rather far from the Question on the Order Paper. I have no doubt that if the noble Lord will be patient until next Tuesday my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech will no doubt answer many of the questions which have been posed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not the case that it is not my noble friend who has strayed but it is the Prime Minister who has strayed from her Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I would not accept that. But I must say that that question also strays somewhat from the Question on the Order Paper, which concerns the size of the public sector borrowing requirement for this year.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister indicate to us any connection between the decline in the public sector borrowing requirement and the rise in the deficit of the balance of payments?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think that there is a connection between the two. The important point is that, unlike certain major countries in the world which have not only a public sector deficit but also a large balance of payments crisis, we have only an unfavourable balance of payments at the moment.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, so that we can get a full picture of the situation, will the Minister tell us how many million people are now unemployed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that strays even further from the Question on the Order Paper than some of the previous questions.

Trade: UK and Finland
2.43 p.m.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they have in mind for encouraging more trade in manufacturing and commercial concerns between the United Kingdom and Finland.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it is less than a year since the Department of Trade and Industry completed a year's campaign to encourage UK manufacturers and commercial concerns to look more seriously at the Nordic market, including Finland. UK exports to Finland in 1987 were 20 per cent. higher than a year earlier. No further campaign is at present planned, but a full range of help is given by the government export services and Finland is one of only five West European countries that are eligible for financial support for group business visits under the department's outward mission scheme.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very informative reply. I declare a non-financial interest in that I am a long-standing member of the Anglo-Finnish Parliamentary Group and of the Finnish UK Trade Guild. I have paid three visits to Finland, two of which were in connection with Parliament and one a commercial visit. Is the Minister aware that in the Shotton paper mill in Clwyd there is a marvellous example of Anglo-Finnish co-operation both in employment and in capital? There is a further example in the Osake-Pankki Bank where 25 per cent. of the clients come from the UK. Despite his Answer, can he say when the last occasion was that a British Trade Minister visited Finland and whether he will encourage his right honourable friend to hold a trade fair there to increase exports even further?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am aware of my noble friend's keen interest in Anglo-Finnish trade. There are plans for Ministerial visits involving Finland. For example, the Finnish Minister for Foreign Trade will be visiting this country on 3rd to 4th May this year, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be visiting Finland on 28th May to 1st June. I cannot tell my noble friend when the most recent visit by a British

697
Minister to Finland took place, but I would further point out to him the success of the Nordic campaign which was conducted in 1986–87.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that the Finnish banks have made a substantial contribution to the financial market here in London? Would he further give us some figures, if he has them in his brief, on the balance of manufacturing trade between Finland and the United Kingdom?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I can tell your Lordships that in 1987 there was a balance favourable to Finland in trade between this country and Finland of £742 million. But I should say that approximately 40 per cent. of Finnish exports to this country consist of paper and pulp products. If one excludes paper and pulp products the trade between the two countries is almost even.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, does the Minister agree that our trade with Finland also favourably affects our trade with the Soviet Union?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am not sure that I would necessarily make that connection. In fact Finland's trade with the Soviet Union has fallen very considerably in the past few years, which of course has made it much more important for Finland to develop other markets.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, on the occasion of the proposed Ministerial visits, the Finnish visit to this country and that of the Secretary of State for Scotland to Finland, will Ministers take the opportunity to thank Finnish industry for its £250 million investment in urban new towns which is generating jobs and is providing an outlet for the timber industry, particularly in Scotland?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on the noble Lord's comment to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I should point out to your Lordships that the project that the noble Lord has in mind—the Caledonian paper mill—will indeed create 400 new jobs and another 480 indirect jobs in the construction and forestry industries.

The Red Cross: Use of Emblem
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take to prevent the improper use of the internationally protected emblem of the Red Cross.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, in asking this Question, perhaps I may declare an interest, in that I am president of the North Yorkshire branch of the British Red Cross Society.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 already makes it a criminal offence to use the emblem of the Red Cross without the authority of the Defence Council. The Act also makes it a criminal offence to use without the authority of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Board of Trade any design or wording so nearly resembling the Red Cross emblem that it could be mistaken for or understood as referring to it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the Red Cross emblem is used primarily in time of war for protecting the sick and wounded and those who look after them—doctors, Red Cross personnel and chaplains? Therefore, if unauthorised use is made of the emblem, that might confuse the issue and even result in deaths.
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords. The Red Cross emblem has a very important role to play in time of war. I am sure that your Lordships will all agree with me that we have a high regard for the work of the Red Cross and attach great importance to the protection provided for it by the Geneva Convention.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether similar protection is afforded to analogous emblems such as the United Nations symbol and the red crescent which is also used in time of war for protection? What are the arrangements in those cases?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I do not have details as to how other international emblems or symbols are protected. However, the existence of the laws which were adopted in this country under the regulations adopting the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 emphasises the importance which we all attach to the Red Cross itself.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a publication called Tribune appears with a red cross on the cover which is indistinguishable from that used by the organisation to which he has referred? Are the Government taking any action under the 1957 Act against that publication for a blatant violation of the law?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I fear that there is a limit to the comment which I can make on that question. The matter is being considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions and until he has made up his mind, that is as far as I can go.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there was some surprise when the Labour Party hijacked the red rose of England after some centuries of use, as we were reminded by the England rugger XV at Twickenham recently? Is it not rather amazing that the Red Cross, which has been recognised under international law and the Geneva Convention since 1864, is suddenly seized upon by the Labour Party to lead its long-running campaign in support of the NHS? Surely an apology from the

699
Opposition Benches would be appropriate, as well as a withdrawal of the use of that distinguished and internationally recognised emblem.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord is jumping the gun a bit! Naturally it is important that the emblem of the Red Cross should be protected. That is why the Geneva Convention is so precise on that subject. I am aware that the Labour Party has written to the Red Cross undertaking that in future it will not use any more material containing a symbol which is similar to the one which has been used in that particular campaign.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept my apology for jumping up rather quickly? Is he aware that the Union Jack has been hijacked by the party opposite as its emblem? By what authority was that done? Given the reply by the noble Lord to the effect that the matter of the red cross is being studied by the Director of Public Prosecutions, will he agree that it is wrong for this House to turn itself into a sort of kangaroo court, even with as elegant a chief kangaroo as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am not sure that we ought to hijack the national emblem of Australia either. As I said earlier, I can make no comment while the matter is being considered by the DPP.
Lord Callaghan: My Lords, am I correct in recalling that there was a time when a medieval crusader carried a shield with a red cross on the front page of the Daily Express
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, all I can say to that is that I run up the white flag!
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the cross carried by the crusaders was the cross of St. George, whereas the red cross to which we are referring is the symbol used on the national flag of Switzerland or perhaps the Canton of Geneva? Is he also aware that a host of grateful wounded, including myself, would be deeply regretful if anything were allowed to be done that might impair in any way the integrity of that almost magical symbol, the red cross?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as I have already said, I am sure that all your Lordships would concur with that.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the party opposite has not only hijacked the Union Jack but has also hijacked the Royal crown? If he wishes, I can send him a copy of a local newspaper from the old constituency of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, in which the weekly advertisement of the local Conservative club is surmounted by the Royal crown.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, that may or may not be so. However, I assume that the Royal crown is not protected by the Geneva Convention. That is rather more central to the Question which I am answering today.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord if he is aware that the red crescent is protected under the Geneva Convention and also that it is the duty of all governments or states to protect those symbols?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am aware that they are protected. Perhaps I should also say to the noble Baroness that it is open to the Red Cross to take any civil proceedings which it may wish to take.

County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill
2.55 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 44 (no two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill to be taken through all its stages on Monday next.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Science and Technology: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Viscount Caldecote be appointed a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in place of the Viscount Blakenham, resigned. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Energy Generation and the Economy
2.58 p.m.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff rose to call attention to the role of energy generation in sustaining the growth and expansion of the British economy; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking all noble Lords who have put their names down for the debate this afternoon. They represent a varied range of interests. The only thing

701
which I can find that they have in common is that they all know a great deal more about the subject than I do. However, in the course of the afternoon I hope to profit by their collective wisdom. I should like in particular to welcome the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, who is to make his maiden speech on the subject.
I begin by making it clear that the idea of a debate on the subject of energy and the needs of industry was arrived at before the publication of the White Paper on privatisation of the electricity industry. It is not my intention, and, I believe, not the intention of other noble Lords, to make that document the centrepiece of the debate this afternoon. At least that will relieve my noble friend on the Front Bench of any anxiety that he might have to conclude the afternoon by engaging in fisticuffs with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We do things differently in this House.
The subject to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention is one that in principle receives general agreement. No one denies that a regular, and probably now increasing, supply of energy is the condition of all industrial advance. Our concern is how that is to be assured and to identify the technical and economic components of a policy in that direction. It is a fashionable subject but not a new one.
Since the beginnings of modern industry there have always been close relations between the development of new forms of energy and the changing pattern of industry, going back to the water mills and windmills of the Middle Ages and their role in the basic industries of that time. Some people, listening to the enthusiast for renewable forms of energy, might think that we are going from windmills and water back to windmills and water.
In the past couple of hundred years things have changed with the development of coal, gas, electricity and oil in their various forms and applications making possible the major industries of our time. Looking back on those 200 years of history I think that two factors are relevant to our current decisions. First, it has never been possible accurately to forecast where the next technological advance would come. The changes have probably become more frequent, and recourse to new forms of energy or the exploitation in different ways of old forms appears to develop even more rapidly than in the past. Therefore, one has to be very careful not to confine oneself to extrapolating the present situation and saying that we are likely to have the same but more of it.
The second factor is that, as in other branches of the economy, a great deal will depend upon price, the relation of the price of particular forms of energy to the uses that are made of them, and the extent to which profitable use can be made of them. If we look at more recent decades, how difficult it is to be certain of the relative movement of prices between different forms of energy. At one time, there seemed to be a glut of oil, which looked like making almost all other forms of energy production irrelevant. Those who installed central heating in their homes a couple of decades ago will remember that period. Then events in the Middle East resulted in a major rise in oil prices
702
which for some years much affected for the worse our own economy and the economies of most of the industrial world. Since then, we have had a rather surprising relapse or reaction towards a relatively cheap and abundant supply of oil.
It is even difficult to forecast how particular events, political as well as industrial or technological, will affect this ratio. I think that, if noble Lords had been told seven years ago that there would be an important and continuing conflict in the region of the Persian Gulf and that nevertheless oil supplies at relatively low prices would somehow continue to flow in the world markets, they would have expressed some incredulity. We all thought that we were in for a repetition of 1973–1974 but it did not come about.
Therefore, it seems to me that on the basis of those two considerations—technological change and its variety and the difficulty of adequately forecasting price ratios—we must try to bet on as many horses as possible. A sound energy policy is one which is based on variety and which avoids dependence upon a single source of energy. I think that this is particularly important because of one fact, which is partly technological and partly economic. In the earlier stages of, for instance, our own Industrial Revolution access to energy was very largely geographically determined. While our mediaeval industries had to be located on a stream, industries in the steam engine age were normally placed close to pits. Nowadays, the transport or movement of energy in its various forms has become international. We already receive a considerable flow of electrical energy from France. I am told that the possibilities of new methods of moving coal in liquid or gasified form may make the coal industry even more of a world-wide trading network than it is at present. For those reasons, we shall find it difficult to make the kind of decisions which would be easier in a more enclosed environment.
Finally, we must not, as our industrialists and our authorities on energy tell us, make allowances only for a demand for energy which is likely to grow in the next 10 or 15 years whatever progress we may make—and we should be able to make further progress in energy saving through insulation and other developments We have to expect competition from other countries, for the sources of energy which are presently available to us, notably from countries in the third world where there is likely to be rapid industrial growth in some cases. They will show an increasing interest in access to the sources of energy. Therefore we are working in a rather difficult sphere.
New or alternative sources of energy seem to me to fall into two main divisions. One is the new organisation of the application of existing technologies, in which some people would say that this country is rather backward; that is to say, rather smaller power stations than those that feed our national grid, available for supplying combined energy and heating to urban conglomerations, which is a method more widely practised in some other countries than it is here. The other division comprises the new sources of energy themselves.
Although the literature or at least the polemics on this topic do not always reflect it, to some extent these

703
sources are still geographically based. Twenty or 30 years ago we heard a great deal about the potentiality of directly harnessing the energy of the sun, for instance for domestic heating. That has largely proved to a be a mirage. In a climate such as ours the economic potential is not altogether favourable. On the other hand, living by the sea as I do, I am obviously impelled to admire the power of the waves and to wonder whether there is much to be gained from the research being undertaken into the harnessing of wave power. I am told that the experiments made so far do not appear to be very hopeful.
What is clearly hopeful—the matter was discussed quite recently by your Lordships—is the use of tidal power in the possible barrages of the Severn and the Mersey. There is no fairly general agreement that those projects—particularly the Severn barrage—possess very considerable economic potentialities. However, we have to face the fact that they are likely to be environmentally disturbing to a much greater extent than almost any other alternative form of power. That is a point to which I shall return.
There are also what one might call the relatively minor contributions that can be made in particular localities by windmills. If one lives on a small and windy island, there is nothing to stop the production of a certain amount of locally generated electricity. However, most people think that this is not capable of very considerable extension. In even more extraordinary conditions—for instance, in Cornwall, which has always claimed to be "out" of things but which now appears to be "in" things—there are geothermal energy sources. If the Cornish people ever win their national independence (and the way things are going, why should there not be independence for Cornwall too?) they might be able to supply some of their energy requirements in that rather new way.
Finally, there are other possible ways of directly tapping the energy of the sun through solar cells. That is something which the Japanese have developed with a direct input into various consumer goods which require electrical current. There is some talk that if one could have a whole field, an acre or whatever, of solar cells, in a very sunny climate one might be able to generate a good deal of electricity in that way. Again, that is something which might relieve the pressure upon energy resources in certain third world countries. Unless there is a dramatic change in our own climate, I doubt whether there is much of a future for it here.
Basically, we are left with the current distribution of our major sources of power, which, as noble Lords will know, is roughly one-third coal, one-third oil, one-quarter gas and the remainder nuclear and hydro-electric. The question then arises as to whether we envisage that those proportions should remain or whether there will still be important shifts from one to another. So far as concerns oil and natural gas on the one hand and coal on the other, one is dealing with fossil fuels. There has always been considerable argument as to the likely period before these resources run out both nationally and globally.
Although nuclear power represents only 6 per cent. of our total power requirements, it comprises some 18 per cent. of our current production of electricity. There are questions with which noble Lords will be familiar about environmental and other problems which arise from that technology. When one comes to discuss those problems, and no doubt your Lordships will wish to face them this afternoon, the difficulty is that, quite apart from what might be called the scientific or logical approach of the technologist or the economist, there are considerable human passions involved.
The first and most natural human passion is that which derives from the fact that all these industries employ large numbers of people, sometimes from a closely knit community as in the case of the deep-mining industry. Sometimes they take up a very important proportion of our engineering resources —for instance, power stations and nuclear developments. At stake are people's careers, their futures and the future of the communities in which they live. Naturally those people are extremely concerned about how the arithmetic works out.
As I have mentioned, there is also the question of the relative damage to the environment caused by particular forms of energy seeking. It is a question that has been much to the fore in people's minds in the past 10 or 20 years. It is a universal problem. There is no form of energy, other than possibly solar cells, which does not have an impact upon the environment. In fact, the most deadly impact on the environment comes from the simplest action: the cutting down of forests by relatively primitive peoples in the search for fuel for their immediate domestic needs.
However, in this country there is first of all the problem of the coal industry itself, which has left a legacy of damage to the landscape with which one is now coping. In whatever direction it is extended, the coal industry is bound to produce environmental problems. When the economic factor is brought in, there is the immediate appeal of opencast mining which at any rate temporarily, and in some cases permanently, is bound to scar the countryside.
Therefore, in considering the alternatives, we should attempt, at least for the time being, to limit the degree to which we allow the natural environment to be damaged and keep such resources as reserves. In the course of history, we may one day need them.
The case of nuclear power is rather different. It seems to me that one faces not merely the kind of human reservations to which I have referred but also a very considerable degree of ignorance, misinformation, prejudice and even supernatural fears. I happened to see on television the councillors of Somersetshire County Council expounding their case for preventing the building of a new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point. They were not arguing so much about the practicalities; they were obsessed with a kind of fear of the unknown. The word "radiation" meant to them something akin to what the word "witchcraft" may have meant to their ancestors. It is important to know how representative they were. So far as I know these councillors were all peculiar Democrats to a man or woman. I hope that the noble spokesman for

705
the Alliance parties can tell us whether that represents their national policy.
The only point on which I hope to hear from the Opposition—from the Labour Party—this afternoon, and from those who speak from within the trade union movement, is this. We have some difficulty understanding what their policy is. The latest pronouncement from the Trades Union Congress appears to be that they would not dismantle what we have but they would not allow the building of any more nuclear stations. That is a way of saying that nuclear stations will disappear after a time. I understand that this was put forward following an examination of security in collaboration with the Russians after Chernobyl. It is rather remarkable that although the disaster occurred in Russia, it is in Russia that there is a steady expansion of the use of nuclear power. Whether that means that superstition has been eradicated by communism whereas religion has not is a matter for speculation beyond the bounds of our consideration this afternoon.
Those, then, are—to use the jargon word of today —the parameters of the argument into which we are entering. I now sit down hoping to be enlightened upon these topics. I beg to move my Motion for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for this afternoon's debate which he has opened in an unusually thoughtful and wide-ranging way that allows all of us to take up our particular interests on the subject of energy. He has reminded us at an appropriate time that there is more to the discussion on energy than discussion about who owns it. I therefore do not propose to talk about privatisation this afternoon although obviously it exists as a factor in our discussions. I should like to say at this stage how much I, too, look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Weir. I do not know his expertise on this matter, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
I wish to concentrate on the arguments surrounding the need for a strategy for energy as a whole irrespective of who owns it. It seems to me that attempts to formalise energy policy within successive governments have not been particularly successful. One of the first post-war attempts in this country was the 1951 Ridley Committee which petered out after only a very few years. Then the Energy Advisory Council was set up in 1965. Despite a brave beginning and its influence on the production of one or two important White Papers, it, too, died quietly.
In the 1970s we had the National Energy Conference and the Energy Commission. Both ran into short-term problems which needed quick solutions at a time when there seemed to be a general lack of interest in the need for a comprehensive approach.
Perhaps more useful contributions to the general energy debate have come, strangely enough, from the Royal Commission on Environment Pollution and from Select Committees. For example, our own
706
Select Committee on the European Communities dealt in its 10th report with Community coal policy. And its 18th report is on nuclear power. Each of these excellent reports approached the subject with a general look at the energy scene which should be of great value in future decision making.
Important contributions are also made by public inquiries. Dare I mention Sizewell B? Despite the length and the difficulties of this inquiry, it produced a wealth of very useful information. Together with monopolies commission reports and various academic exercises there is no shortage of knowledge available to anyone who wishes to produce a strategy for energy.
Government policy has to take account of economic objectives, it is true, but also of social implications and environmental objectives. Environmental objectives are becoming imperative, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, rightly pointed out at some length. They are becoming increasingly important as scientific evidence accumulates and as public perceptions of environmental hazards are sharpened. I cannot comment on whether feelings about radiation are akin to those on witchcraft but they are very real. People are frightened, and if we are to overcome that it needs more than reassuring words based on nothing more, it seems, at the moment than rather limited research. A carefully planned policy objective can be badly displaced by events such as Chernobyl which has caused even greater distrust of nuclear power. We have new fears about the greenhouse effect which is causing revulsion against the so-called dirty power stations fired by coal. If we do not succeed in controlling the greenhouse effect, all other decisions may well become irrelevant.
I should like to be assured that the Government are taking this threat seriously. What research is being undertaken in the United Kingdom on the greenhouse effect? Was the report in the Daily Telegraph on 1st March correct? I shall quote from it. It related to a press conference given by the chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council. The report said:
"There is a shortfall for research into global warming—the 'greenhouse effect'—and into North Sea pollution, seismology affecting the stability of nuclear power stations and into deep geological surveying, which could find fuel resources worth billions".
We need to know whether it is true that the cuts for NERC are having a direct effect on those areas of research. If so, it is very serious indeed.
Thirty years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, made clear, it was assumed that oil would replace coal as the main energy source and that eventually nuclear energy would replace oil. It seemed at the time a reasonable assumption. Then came the oil price shock of 1973–74 when still only a small percentage of our power was being provided by nuclear means. Coal, therefore, made a comeback because stocks were available locally and imported coal was cheap.
Nuclear planning was also stepped up in the general need to provide alternatives to oil. World inflation, it is true, subsequently secured a drop in oil prices in real terms but that was overcome by a doubling of prices again in 1980. There seem to be

707
very few certainties in the energy business except the certainty of continuing need. Most informed opinion calls for a government strategy. It is therefore very disappointing to read the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, in a speech on 8th July last year during a debate in this House on the generation of energy for power and industry. The noble Viscount, in the Official Report, at col. 722, said:
"The Government's approach is one of sensible management, not of grandoise plans across all the industries carrying vast contingencies but carefully and painstakingly bringing major reorganisations such as privatisation to fruition".
Is this still the Government's policy? If it is, it seems to go against all informed opinion which calls, not for government interference in management planning of the industries, but for a government strategy for energy as a whole. Any energy policy must recognise that the prime needs are security of supply and reasonable costs—I think that everyone is agreed on that—and then energy conservation. Efficient energy use is absolutely vital. Fashions in fuel choice may come and go, but we know that the earth's resources of raw materials are not infinite and we know now that the earth's capacity to absorb waste products is also finite. No amount of juggling with the best economic arrangements for today will alter those two facts. So we must pursue the best possible use of resources with the least harmful effects on the health of the planet, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said.
No doubt many alternative energy solutions, in addition to those of which we have already heard, will be offered today. I want to mention just one. Combined heat and power is an obvious candidate. We learn, for example, that in Vesterase in Sweden combined heat and power has increased the efficiency of their coal-fired power station to 90 per cent.; that is against 30 per cent. for most of our coal-fired stations, with greatly reduced SO2 emissions. The entire city is heated by previously wasted heat from the power station and there are no individual domestic boilers. That must be a matter for congratulation all round unless one happens to own shares in Pottertons or one of the other boiler-producing companies when perhaps one would not be quite so happy about it. What research is in progress in the United Kingdom on combined heat and power?
Decisions on future supplies are urgent. The lead time for bringing power stations into production is quoted as between six and 12 years, depending upon the particular circumstances of the station under discussion. But to create an energy policy choices must be made. Only government can take the overview necessary to establish national criteria and only government can legislate in pursuit of national objectives. Professor Richard Eden and Mr. R. Bending of the Cambridge Energy Research Group in their book UK Energy suggest that any strategy must be based on consensus if it is to succeed. I quote from page 278 of their excellent book. In talking about the existing situation in the United Kingdom, (which at that time was only two years ago), they say:
"More could be done by way of departmental publications, or seminars, stating the problems and options that are under discussion—not the solutions in White Papers, nor the suggested
708
solutions in Green Papers, but the problems and possibilities, presented at a stage where public opinion may still be effective, or expressions of government concern may be educational".
That last is an important point.
Consensus therefore will involve compromise and it will take time. Professor Eden and Mr. Bending go on to develop at some length the influence which government decisions in other areas can have on national trends in energy demand. While not suggesting that the Government should seek to intervene excessively in the energy market, they insist that:
"Energy policy should not be determined by default—at the very least government should be aware of the energy implications of other policies".
In this case I believe that they are referring to matters such as building regulations, the way in which new buildings are constructed with a view to energy conservation, and everything of that kind, all of which are policies which affect energy demand.
"More generally energy policy should seek to promote actions that will increase national benefits in relation to energy costs. The implications for energy demand should be a recognised dimension in national planning".
The validity of these views is surely self-evident and we on these Benches certainly subscribe to them.
"Had we but world enough and time",
we could take a more relaxed view of the Government's seemingly negative approach to strategy and consumption, but sadly we believe that we are running out of both.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we are all particularly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for venturing into the energy field, which I believe is a new one for him, in his usual logical and rational way. He has introduced a debate which enables us to review energy policy, which we do from time to time. As he rightly said, in the terms of the Motion, energy plays a key part in the economy of the country. I think it is right therefore that we should come to it from time to time. This is the basis on which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, also made her contribution.
As I understand it, this is not the occasion for speaking in any depth about the recent White Paper on electricity privatisation. I hope that when the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, replies he will confirm that at some later date we shall be able to have a debate on that subject, because I am sure that many of us have views that we should like to express on it, but I am refraining from doing so in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble Baroness said.
Thus I shall treat this with the broad view with which they have done. I should like to say that from my experience in the energy industry, I think there are two basic considerations to be borne in mind in approaching the whole question of a strategy for energy. The first is security: making sure that we have the energy. I believe that this is far and away the most important issue, because we have seen what can happen when there is a deprivation of energy, whether it be on a temporary basis or on a longer term basis. That is the first matter that we have to take into account.

709
The second matter is to make sure that we have energy supplies on a competitive and as low a cost basis as possible. In my opinion the skill of the game is to reconcile these two objectives. So I should like to consider the position in the United Kingdom from those two points of view: to consider what our present policies appear to be, or what they might be if we were to try this basic reconciliation between security on the one hand and low cost competitive supplies on the other.
I begin by saying that I believe that the United Kingdom is unique among West European countries. First, we were the first country in history to realise the great benefits of harnessing energy resources for industrial purposes. Secondly, in more recent times, we are the one large country in Western Europe which has at its disposal virtually the whole range of known energy resources from the point of view of the substances themselves and the skills to work them. We have coal in abundance. We have oil and gas in the North Sea. We have nuclear expertise, electricity-generating expertise and expertise which we are developing also in the renewable resources to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred. So we start with a great advantage. The challenge to us is to make sure that we transform that advantage to the benefit not only of the generation in which we live, but to the benefit of future generations.
However, there is one problem in doing that, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred; namely, that if there is one form of forecasting which is bound to be wrong it is what will happen in energy. I have been involved in the business of energy for nearly 40 years. I must admit straightaway that I was among those—the majority in this country—who never forecast the major changes which have occurred since the war. When I originally joined the coal industry in the post-war period our projections were for an ever-increasing demand for coal. Then suddenly the oil appeared and the forecasts then made were for ever increasing low cost supplies of oil. Then the oil crisis of 1973 occurred. At that time the projection was for ever-increasing oil prices. Then the collapse in the oil market occurred in 1985. What is the projection now? The projection can only be that we do not know.
However, the nature of the energy business is such that long-term decisions must be made. Investment must be made and research and training must be undertaken. We must make up our minds as to the best decisions to be taken in the circumstances, knowing all along that there is uncertainty. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that we must have various options at our disposal but nevertheless we must commit ourselves to firm views on investment, research and training. If we do not do so we shall not have the energy in any event.
Let us consider the position in which we are in those circumstances. I begin with what I believe to be Britain's prime energy industry: coal. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, will fully support me in saying that. Coal has served the nation well. For a variety of reasons, which I shall not mention but with which noble Lords are familiar, coal is going through a difficult time at the moment.
As regards government policy, I am disturbed by the fact that they do not appear to be committed to
710
retraining a major coal resource for supplying a large part of our energy needs in the future. If I may say so, there is a large degree of ambivalence. On the one hand, the Government are putting a great deal of money into the coal industry; there is no argument about that. On the other hand—and here I regret that I must refer to the electricity privatisation measure—they are giving no support to the indigenous coal industry, even though special provisions are made for supporting the indigenous nuclear power industry. That appears to me to be a somewhat unbalanced position.
I believe that it is in our national interest to have some fall-back position for our indigenous resources, particularly coal. I am prepared to agree that we should also ensure the retention of nuclear expertise. I am slightly dismayed by the fact that the fall-back position has been erected in the nuclear power industry but that no such position has been erected for our own indigenous coal industry. I should be delighted if the noble Viscount would comment on that aspect of the situation.
I believe that there is an enormous future in our coal industry. We have substantial reserves and great skills in our mining engineers and mineworkers. We also have great skills among the manufacturers of mining machinery. I speak from personal experience of all those matters. Coal is a national resource which we should nurture and develop and I hope that that will be taken fully into account in any future discussions and debates on energy strategy.
The nuclear power industry poses certain problems. I am not opposed to nuclear power and I believe that the safety record that has been developed in this country in particular is second to none. I believe that we should develop that technology. However, I am most concerned about the economic case at the present time. There has been a massive reduction in fossil fuel prices. Apart from France, where the nuclear industry is wholly statecontrolled—and which, in the case of the British nuclear industry, the Government propose to give up—no country is substantially investing in new nuclear plant at the present time. Indeed, the private sector in the United States has not ordered a nuclear plant for the past 10 to 15 years. I believe that we should accept that nuclear power is not a competitive proposition at the present time. We should work in developing our expertise but we should not be committing large resources to that particular form of energy until it is needed.
I should now like to turn to oil and gas. With all the experienced people in the oil industry we have done a wonderful job in exploiting the North Sea. I believe that one of the most remarkable technological achievements of the present time is the exploitation of oil from the North Sea with its difficult physical conditions. We must make absolutely sure that from the fiscal point of view, and from the point of view of government intervention, every conceivable encouragement is given to further exploration and development. It is a risk that from time to time government fiscal policies could inhibit those efforts. Therefore I believe that we should explore the whole of that sector as fully as possible with every support.

711
There is a problem as regards gas because that industry was privatised as a monopoly. I must indicate that I am chairman of an energy firm which is seeking to compete with the gas monopoly. I am a great disbeliever in private monopolies. If we cannot have legislation to correct those monopolies, I believe that it is up to all of us to try to do so by other means. I believe that that is precisely the response which the Government would like to see.
I am a full supporter of the technology of the gas industry and its great skills. It is wrong that it should be in the dominant position in which it has been placed by recent legislation. I believe that that should be reviewed in the near future in the light of some of the measures which the Government have introduced in connection with the forthcoming privatisation of electricity; namely, to encourage a degree of competitiveness.
As regards electricity, a number of things can be said about the proposed measures but I shall refrain from commenting for the reasons given earlier. I shall say only that, to my mind, two major issues remain in the case of electricity as they have in respect of all other forms of energy. On the one hand we must retain security of supply; on the other hand, we must obtain the best deal for the consumer. Whatever measures are eventually taken to deal with that problem, I believe that those two issues should be kept firmly in mind.
I should like to deal next with the renewable question. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to that matter because I believe that we must experiment and develop alternative sources. I should, first, like to include in this category the reference made by the noble Baroness to combined heat and power. I believe that in this respect we in Britain are lagging behind. That is because of the very half-hearted way in which the Energy Act 1983 provided for private generation and particularly for combined heat and power.
I was personally involved in the discussions on the Energy Bill at that time and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was also involved. We considered that the provisions of the Bill would not lead to much private generation or combined heat and power and we were proved to be right. The acknowledgement of that is in the Government's White Paper on electricity privatisation. They accept that the 1983 Act never achieved the purposes for which it was designed but it could well have achieved those purposes. I am a great believer in diversifying the forms of electricity generation. We could have had a great diversity of electricity generation if the 1983 Act had been more firmly drawn in that direction. Therefore, we could have avoided the massive turmoil which is now envisaged in the White Paper to achieve that very thing. I put this point to the noble Viscount and I ask him, without trespassing too much on the White Paper, whether it is the Government's intention, pending the fairly long period before there is a change in the organisation of the electricity industry, to bring back the 1983 Act so that it could be amended to stimulate combined heat and power and private generation in the meantime.
712
I also believe that we should be giving a fair wind—and that is an appropriate word—to wind power and tidal energy on which great efforts have been expended and to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff referred.
I conclude with one other form of energy to which I attach perhaps the greatest importance, which is efficiency in the use of energy. I think that in any strategy, in any objectives, we must give pride of place to efficiency. This country has been notorious for its inefficient use of energy and it is not hard to see why. The reason is that we have always had plentiful supplies. I think that we are beaten only by the Americans who are even more wasteful than we are. However, among European countries, taking any standard you like, we are the most wasteful.
The Government have taken a great interest in energy efficiency but they should be reviewing further measures which could be taken. Now that we are entering a totally new phase with the privatisation of two basic sectors of energy supply, I should say that the question of efficiency becomes all the more important.
Therefore, I have been delighted to follow on the example set by the two previous speakers by roaming fairly widely over the issues of energy. I hope that we shall be able to concentrate on the future of the electricity industry at some early date in the future, but in the meantime I recommend to your Lordships that we keep the general issue of energy policy under regular review.
3.52 p.m.
Viscount Weir: My Lords, in the days when there was still some romance left in industry, the boiler in my company's power house had a Victorian plaque on the front of it which depicted a naked savage staring intently into a fire above which hung a pot of boiling water. Beneath that scene there was the splendid slogan:
"The Ancient did not dream of the power of steam".
Those words, which I suppose were penned by Ruskin or someone like that, seem to me to summarise exactly what today's Motion is about—the dramatic way in which the contribution of energy to our well-being and our economic progress has evolved in the last century through the direct application of the power of steam and today through electricity generation. I suppose that the Industrial Revolution could just as accurately have been called the Energy Revolution.
The recent White Papers on privatisation have projected right into the political arena the way in which in future power generation will be owned and managed. However, I shall of course follow your Lordships's excellent precept that maiden speeches should not be clouded by controversy and I shall not say a word either for or against the proposals. Instead I shall try to touch on some of the ways in which energy generation has an impact on different parts of our economy.
Understandably we hear a lot about the role of the consumer of electricity. However, there is a reverse side to that coin. It is a fact that energy generation in

713
itself is a major customer of the electrical equipment industry. I should mention that I have an interest in that.
To remind ourselves of the importance of that industry to the economy, the members of its trade association, BEAMA, between them have an annual turnover of over £25 billion of which something like £10 billion a year is exported. Today these equipment suppliers enjoy two significant advantages in their relationship with the electricity industry. The first is access to a large home market where consistent specifications and technical requirements for their equipment currently prevail. That gives the basis which is essential to support a sustained and successful export effort.
A second benefit to many suppliers derives from the far-sighted attitude of the CEGB towards product development. This has enabled firms to pursue programmes which would otherwise be far beyond their individual resources and at the same time has given them operating references for their products which are vital to them in export markets. Of course that has cost the CEGB money, but in return it has better equipment available to it, and in terms of our national profit and loss account I know that the expenditure it has made has been paid back many times over through exports. I sincerely hope that, however the electricity industry is reorganised in the future, we shall find arrangements which will enable these benefits to the economy to continue.
I now turn to the balance of payments. Historically there has been very little significant relationship between energy generation and that aspect of our economy. In the past, imports of primary fuel or equipment, or even of electricity itself, from across the Channel have been rather modest. In the future I believe that that will change dramatically. For example, our equipment-makers will have to face much wider foreign competition by 1992, to say nothing of the possibility of importing cheap coal or indeed greater quantities of French power.
All these factors will affect our economy, whether in mining or manufacture, and we shall have to think carefully about the trade-off between the lower costs we may be able to obtain from abroad and the adverse effect on our balance of payments. Indeed, I believe that we would have to take a very sanguine view about our long-term export prospects to neglect this issue entirely.
Again, when we change the structure of the generating industry, there may be some other effects on the economy. One possibility with clear regional implications for industry could be the emergence of differentials in the price of power between various parts of the country. We might also see different policies on pricing in particular areas as between the industrial and domestic consumer. If there is going to be real competition in the industry I suppose that must be so. However, for the moment these matters are still rather obscure, but I suspect that they could become important issues in the future, and they are most certainly economic ones.
Finally, perhaps I could also remind your Lordships that coal and oil are dirty. They foul our atmosphere. I do not mention that because it is
714
National No-Smoking Day today, nor shall I venture into the quagmire of environmental politics. Although I might be welcomed for wanting cleaner air and less acid rain, doubtless I would be equally unpopular with other environmentalists for wanting to achieve those goals through nuclear power. Instead I hope that we tackle the obvious problems of pollution with more resources and with more speed.
I know that the CEGB is spending £600 million on retrofitting some of its existing power stations in order to reduce sulphur emission; its new stations will incorporate just such equipment. Thay may seem a lot of money, but it is pretty modest compared with more than £1.5 billion which one German utility company, the RWE, has already spent in this area. The Japanese also are very far ahead of us in this respect. Moreover, little has been said and less done about the parallel and equally important problem, the emission of oxides of nitrogen.
We are not discussing environmental matters today, but I think that it is perfectly relevant to raise this issue because it will have a considerable economic effect both through the massive investment programme that will be required and also through the increase in the price of power in the future which we will need to pay to have a cleaner environment.
Your Lordships rightly ask that maiden speeches should be short so I will resume my seat, but not without first thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for giving us the opportunity of discussing this most interesting subject.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I happily congratulate the noble Viscount on his impeccable maiden speech. He never breached the conventions of the House: he was brief, non-controversial and informative. No doubt with the background of his knowledge of banking and industry he will certainly prove to be a worthy Member and obviously make many more knowledgeable contributions to this House in future. His speech showed both quality and depth. Though I shall never rival him and will be constantly at a disadvantage on those topics, I let him know that when he indulges in his hobby I shall be ready to stand by his side, cast a fly and compete with him.
In considering the role of energy generation in sustaining the growth and expansion of the British economy, it is also necessary to examine the future of supply and whether it is going to be adequate, for without that there cannot be any planned sustenance of economic growth. Coincidentally, if privatisation of the electricity industry goes ahead as planned I am concerned at what will be the likely consequences for the British coal industry when its major outlets have been privatised.
There is no doubt that coal, from whatever source, is going to be our main fuel provider for many years to come, but the threat from the numerous cheaper fuel alternatives will seriously further reduce the number of coal mines and coal miners. It will also

715
reduce the number of industries that support the coal mining industry and their workers, nearly all of whom are in the traditional mining communities of Scotland, Wales and Northern England.
Your Lordships know as well as I do that the social consequences of past pit closures have been severe. Since the miners strike of 1984–85, 68 pits have closed and 82,000 men have been declared redundant. There has been a wave of misery, unhappiness, unemployment and depression and the outlook, as I see it, will mean much of the same.
At present the make-up of our fuel use is comprised of British coal (about 86 million tonnes), nuclear power (18 million tonnes of coal equivalent), oil (8.5 million tonnes of coal equivalent) and a hydro-electricity (1.7 million tonnes). We produce 15.7 million tonnes of opencast coal. We import French generated power via a 2000 megawatt link, and when in full stream that is equivalent to importing 5 million tonnes of coal per year Then, what will in the end prove to be disastrous for British Coal, we import 9.7 million tonnes of cheap coal from Colombia, China, South Africa, Australia, Poland and the USA. That is opencast coal. It is quarried. Those countries can mine it, transport it half way round the world and unload it in Britain cheaper than we can produce our own deep mined coal. In many of those coal exporting countries the mining operations are based on cheap, non-unionised labour—especially in China, Colombia, and South Africa.
I am afraid that there is going to be a growing dependence on cheap coal imports for many years ahead. Keen competition among the foreign coal exporters will ensure cheapness for the United Kingdom industrial market. Moreover, I believe that the privatisation of electricity will mean that few, if any, pressurised water nuclear reactor power stations will be built after Sizewell B, for who will be prepared at present and in the foreseeable future, with such an abundance of cheap alternative fuels available, to invest in new PWRs, bearing in mind the length and the cost of public inquiries, the time to build of 12 to 15 years and the doubtful competitive generating costs? I believe that it is more likely that coal and dual coal and oil fired power stations will be built.
Coal will still be our basic fuel, but how much of it will be British coal? I am aware of the vast investment in the British coal industry, most of which has been designed to slim the industry as fast as possible in the drive to make British Coal break even in 1988–89, irrespective of the heartrending social consequences in the coalfields. Of course always hovering on the horizon is a profitable, much smaller coal industry based on coal mining complexes of multiple units ripe and ready for privatisation.
Therefore energy generation to sustain the growth and expansion of the British economy will depend upon a base of British coal, albeit much smaller than today, plus the increasing and severe competition from the alternatives, most of which will be from foreign sources. Much depends upon what economic growth is achieved or is foreseen as to the demands that will be made on power generation. Even on a modest expansion of the economy, the CEGB will
716
require at least 75 million tonnes of British coal in the year 2000—about the same as last year, 1987. The demand for coal could rise much higher to an estimated 93 million tonnes, if only Sizewell B is built and nuclear power is not to fill the gap.
Output from British mines last year was 88 million tonnes. Another 13 million tonnes could be added when Selby and Asfordby—those big new mining complexes—are on full stream. However, one must take into account the inevitable attrition of the coal industry: pits worked out, the problem of high cost, unprofitable pits and British Coal's declaration that the objective must be £1.65 per gigajoule its new measurement for the heat content of coal (in layman's terms, £42 per tonne) as "an absolute limit of acceptable cost". There are a number of pits which cannot achieve that level of costing; there were 24 at the last count. I estimate that British Coal will close between 3 million and 5 million tonnes of coal capacity in that bracket. Also the average exhaustion rate of collieries is around 2 million tonnes a year, so by the year 2000 nearly 30 million tonnes of present production will cease.
These factors—namely unprofitability, natural exhaustion and the severity of overseas competition—will mean that between 40 and 50 more pits are likely to close by the year 2000. There is bound to be a major gap between the total energy requirements of the CEGB—particularly its requirement for coal —and what British Coal can produce annually. There are some new pits in the offing; for example, Thorne in Yorkshire and Margam in Wales. They could help to maintain an added provision for the CEGB, but the go ahead is unlikely unless new working practices are agreed beforehand with the unions. Only on that basis would it have any chance at all to compete with its energy rivals.
The trend for coal is clear. In 1983–84 there were 170 pits, with 181,000 men. The output then was 90 million tonnes. Last month there were 102 pits, with 99,300 men and an output of 71 million tonnes. On Monday of this week the chairman of British Coal made a speech in which he said that the new pit figure has now been lowered to 96. By the year 2000 no more than 50 pits are likely to survive. As one who was born and bred into coal mining, represented it in Parliament for nearly 35 years and who has also been the Minister of Power, I must say it is really an absolute national disgrace. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was bordering on this criticism—namely, the way in which this Government have abandoned the coal industry, its workforce and all the families with the consequent ruination of our coalfield communities.
The investment in coal (the Government's excuse) is a sham. It was planned for the demise of coal and not its survival. The protection that this national basic industry needs is now going and with it a great national asset whose worth may well be missed by the turn of the century.
I have to face the facts as regards what will happen to coal while this Government are in office. Those pits with high productivity, having benefited from the investment by British Coal, may survive. Although

717
based on the gigajoule criteria of £42 per tonne, they will still have great difficulty in matching the foreign imports of coal.
Changes in working practices are inevitable if these pits are to survive. Wild announcements by union leaders of pit closures have never helped. As it is an extracting industry, pit closures are inevitable and a dog in the manger attitude by the unions has not helped. It has given the Government the opportunity to close pits faster than was planned. In these new, quite alarming and changed circumstances that face British Coal and the coal mining unions, if a relatively large and basic rump of the coal industry is going to survive, a more enlightened attitude by the mining unions to their own industry and the future of their workforce is an absolute necessity bearing in mind that such vast quantities of cheap power station coal are available from many continents of the world for example, Australia, Africa, Latin America and China. In addition the private utilities will make contracts—and long-term contracts too—for many years to come. This is obvious from the plans that are being laid for the expansion of dock and port facilities for receiving and unloading.
These factors could well sound the death knell for British Coal. As happened during the major coal strike we cannot expect support from the other unions involved—that is, the dockers and the transport unions—for their jobs too are at stake. So one can readily see that by the year 2000, even on a modest growth in the economy fuel and power for our industrial growth will still demand coal. It will be an unquantifiable tonnage, and as a past Minister of Power, I know that it is foolish to try to determine the percentages of the variables in fuel supply. But it is obvious that coal will be required.
British Coal is going to struggle to maintain its market. The security of supply will still concern us, but I admit that with so many cheap sources of energy available and competing with each other to establish firm toeholds in our market, security of supply may not be threatened or on the horizon but some years to come. The world is awash with cheap coal. But I warn the Government not to pursue this course too far and too fast. I ask whether we really want our electricity supplies to be in foreign hands. Of course we do not.
The supplies of North Sea oil and gas will run down, which has been prophesied many times, foolishly and mostly by politicians scoring political points. Eventually that will happen; it is inevitable. It may coincide with the rundown of our coal industry, which will then be unable to satisfy all our needs which is the situation today. With the loss of the balance of payments benefits of North Sea oil in particular and the commitment to millions of tonnes of coal imports a balance of payments problem will surely arise.
In the light of this analysis I say that the continuing battle between the major coalmining unions and British Coal will have to cease. There will have to be a coming together and this means British Coal too if the coal industry is to be saved. It now has a greater imperative to save it for the nation. Its high-handed management manners will have to cease too because
718
the writing is on the wall. Being realistic, I believe that this Government will continue apace on this policy of electricity privatisation while they have the parliamentary majority. The die will be cast before the next general election. Once the private utilities have contracted vast millions of tonnes of coal imports it will be difficult to turn back the clock.
There is no longer any time for fractionalising or short-sighted industrial conflicts. Men and management, mining unions and British Coal must now work out a strategy and stand together to safeguard as much of the British coal industry as they can.
In conclusion I say to the noble Viscount who is to wind up this debate that we need seriously to consider the chief industry of all, which is coal. That is the industry which we shall depend on in future generations, by the year 2000 or 2010. I want assurances from Her Majesty's Government about the future of our coal industry. I want assurances about the security of supply and the growing concern about the balance of payments problem which looms ahead, bad even as that is today, under this Government.
4.20 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, I once represented a mining constituency and I have much sympathy with all that he said about coal. I should like to underline his particular reference to the fact that this is an extractive industry and that therefore sooner or later mines have to close. The problem is how to make the best use of what will remain and how best to turn coal to the best economic advantage. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the recent redundancies have been accomplished voluntarily, which warrants tribute to the common sense of both sides of the industry.
I do not go along with the noble Lord's great fear about cheap coal imports. If British industry were to try to import the quantities of coal which the CEGB now takes from British Coal, the world coal price would shoot up and the situation would come back into balance. I recognise that there will be some imports but the threat of imports on a large scale is bound to put up the world price and restore the balance almost automatically.
We are all in the debt of my noble friend Lord Beloff for opening this debate in the philosophical, knowledgeable and (may I add?) humble way that we have come to expect from him. I should like to join in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, on a striking maiden speech in which he drew attention to the Central Electricity Generating Board's commitment to and support of research and development in the energy field which has been of incalculable benefit. This contribution does not seem to have been taken sufficient care of in the White Paper, to which we are not of course properly referring in this debate today.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, is not in her place. I shall still say something nice even though she is not here to cheer me on. She produced a lovely maiden speech from the Dispatch Box and demonstrated assiduous prep. I have much sympathy

719
for her natural plea for an energy strategy. I have voiced that plea on and off for 20 years only to discover that all energy projections are wrong and, moreover, that they usually become wrong within the period of time that it takes to build a new power station—about 15 years or the time between two or three general elections. That is why governments have on the whole not hitherto carried the can for their energy decisions, which is one reason why—and here I have a plug to make and an interest to declare—some years ago some of us set up the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Energy Studies of both Houses of Parliament to try to develop a consensus approach to energy problems.
When I was preparing for this debate some weeks ago and before the White Paper appeared I looked up the figures for gross national product over the past six or seven years. To my surprise I found that measured by GNP, growth has been of the order of 4 per cent. per annum, although of course economists would make various corrections for such a crude deduction. It is in the context of a steadily expanding economy that the Government now recognise (what in one of these debates more than four years ago they were warned about) that we are in for a shortage of generating capacity and that we need to increase its availability at the rate of about 3½ per cent. a year in the coming years. This in turn means making sure that when older power stations have been phased out we shall have 13 gigawatts—13,000 kilowatts—of new capacity by the year 2000. I should like to say to the Government whom I have gently chastised from time to time on this subject—my noble friend on the Front Bench turns his head as if in recognition—that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 just men; so let us not gloat.
The first question I ask is whether we shall get all this new capacity by the year 2000. Experience shows that the minimum period for bringing a new power station of 1,000 kilowatts into operation is at least 10 years. On paper the figure is 10½ years and sometimes it stretches to 12 years: that is from the planning stage right through to commissioning. At the present time three new power stations are being planned —Fawley, West Burton and Sizewell. Fawley and West Burton will be coal-fired power stations and Sizewell nuclear. Nine more are in what embryologists would call the pre-embryo stage. Three will be coal and six will be nuclear. Two or three of those are on coastal sites. Those nine are not yet into planning. Unless something happens very quickly this year, the year 2000 will be upon us inside of 12 years and we shall not get the 13 gigawatts that we need.
At the same time it is important to stress that it is mistaken for the coal industry to be too alarmed about the fact that several of the planned stations will be on coastal sites. Enormous capital investment is required to bring in coal on the scale that might be envisaged. There is the whole effect on the world price of a sudden new British demand for coal from abroad. I believe that the balance will right itself by the price mechanism. The real question I ask is whether the privatisation of the electricity supply industry will make this stiff investment development
720
target of about £45 billion easier or harder to achieve. That is a mattter for later debates but it is legitimate to ask now whether the effect of upsetting or (shall we say?) rearranging the structure of the industry and bringing into being entrepreneurs with no generating track record will be to make available the funds needed or whether everything will be delayed as a result.
Have we any solace from some of the renewables? In his catholic survey of the situation the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to wind power. We read in Government-sponsored publications that wind could make a "substantial"—I quote the word "substantial"—contribution. I believe that that is quite misleading. A wind farm that matched the ordinary scale of a generating station of 1,000 kilowatts would cover—wait for it, my Lords—400 square miles. That is the scale of site wind power requires. There is one in California and there are many smaller sites around the world. However, if one is going to compete in scale with the generating capacity of a normal coal, oil, gas-fired or nuclear power station, one will need a site of approximately 400 square miles. The comparable figure of a thermal or nuclear station might well be 400 acres.
People have one or two sites in mind to take account of that and they are offshore. Some thought is being given now to siting an offshore wind farm in or off the Wash. Carmarthen Bay is also being spoken of. However, just think of the protests of fishing interests and shipping interests. If one were to plant these things in the highlands, in Wales or on Exmoor there would be an outcry from the environmentalists. However useful windpower may be in certain local areas like Orkney and here and there for small areas of distribution, it is not an answer to the main problem we face.
What then can be said about hot rocks—geothermal? My noble friend Lord Beloff has referred to the work of the Camborne School of Mines. Hot rocks are only to be found in very special places. It is not just ordinary granite that you need; it has to be a special kind of granite which is to some degree radioactive. (I was hoping that the West of Scotland, which is built on granite, would be suitable but apparently it will not be). There is this geological situation in the South-West of England and there the Camborne School of Mines is investigating hot rocks generation.
However, two difficulties have emerged. First, the longer one generates heat from hot rocks the cooler they become. That may sound extraordinary but it is true. Whether that process is due to the wearing out of the heat or to wastage and leakage, I believe that no one yet knows. At any rate, the contribution of hot rocks and geothermal in the UK is bound to be minimal.
Tidal power is another concept altogether, but I believe it is coming nearer into the focus of possibility, subject of course to the survival of a company big and strong enough to raise the necessary finance. The Severn Tidal Barrage scheme is, at the very least, of the scale of the Channel Tunnel. Is that something that the so-called G1—the larger chunk of the CEGB—will have the muscle to

721
undertake when the time comes? We shall see. However, it is fair to raise the question. Or has this privatisation scheme simply knocked that possibility on the head? The Mersey scheme is a smaller one and may stand a better chance.
One point that has emerged from the Government's commissioned research into tidal possibilties is that there are many places around the country which might possibly have something to contribute. I was most interested in a site situated in the North West Highlands called Kylesku where there is a very narrow entrance to a sea loch, which has two fingers to it, as it were, with a tidal range of 4 metres. As an amateur I have always supposed that that site might be a good possibility.
It is worth giving the House the benefit of some material which was sent to me originating in the studies by Messrs. Binnie and Partners undertaken for the Government and which says this about small tidal schemes:
"The energy output of a tidal energy barrage is proportional to the square of the tidal range. Hence the unit cost of tidal electricity generation is in inverse proportion to the square of the tidal range. Unfortunately, the tides along most of the Scottish coastline are relatively small with a mean spring tidal range of typically three or four metres. This compares with the much higher ranges to be found along the Western coasts of England and Wales. For example, Kylesku"—
that is the place I refer to—
"has a mean spring tidal range of only four metres, compared with eight metres for the Mersey at Liverpool and 11 metres for the Severn at Cardiff. This factor"—
that is, the tidal range—
"outweighs the apparent attractiveness of many Scottish lochs resulting from their relatively narrow entrances enclosing substantial volumes of water".
The material I have been supplied with mentions that there is a formula, which Binnie and Partners have worked out, taking as a critical parameter—to use the in-word for today—in these studies the area of the water to be enclosed by a barrage. I ask my noble friend whether perhaps later on he could write to me—of course I do not expect an off-the-cuff answer to this question today—when he has had a chance to check up on the matter. My question is whether the algebraic formula used by Binnie and Partners, to summarise its own measurement of the different opportunities, is correct in considering only the area of water enclosed and not the volume. However, whatever the case may be, if the Severn Barrage could go ahead that would provide us with seven of the 13 gigawatts we require; but it may be that the financing of that project is going to prove very difficult indeed under the new arrangements.
I turn now inevitably to the Continental Shelf and to the onshore search for oil and gas. Onshore fields require planning consent and most of those that have so far been identified are pretty small. However, if they are near the coast and can be worked by deviated or horizontal drilling from off shore—such as, for instance, the Wytch Farm extension—there may be greater possibilities. But generally the onshore fields, whether of oil or of gas, are small and raise hideous environmental obstacles.
722
As regards offshore possibilities, we have a different situation. There is still plenty of oil and gas on the Continental Shelf to go for, but at a price. Seventeen dollars a barrel today is not the 30 dollars a barrel of the boom years that we remember so well. If peace were to break out in the Gulf war the price might well fall even lower. On the other hand, if the Iranians were to take Basra, the repercussions throughout the Middle East might well send oil prices right up again. There is enormous uncertainty and volatility in oil pricing and a consequential hesitation in going for relatively small fields.
On the whole, the new fields that are being found in the North Sea are complicated. They are small in size; they very often stretch across several licensed blocks, which in turn involves the developers, if they are going to go ahead with it, in very complicated unitisation negotiations with one another, to say nothing of the necessary sharing both in transportation pipelines, processing and terminals at the end. Therefore there are heavier on-costs relative to the small fields now being discovered in the North Sea though they would be countered somewhat should the oil price recover.
The other consideration is that on the whole the relatively shallow waters of the North Sea have now been pretty thoroughly explored— of course there is always room for more—but generally speaking they have been thoroughly explored and what remain are the deeper waters. Those deeper waters are much more expensive to drill in, let alone develop. Of course there have been technical advances in the platform design—notably a construction called "the tension leg platform" which happily can be moved and does not have to be destroyed when the field is brought to an end. Indeed one of the on-costs with which the oil fields of the past 10 years are now beginning to wrestle with financially is that of removing such platforms. That is a difficult incubus on the industry.
The marginal fields are smaller and trickier and they require joint transportation and terminal facilities, with very complicated and difficult negotiations to share them out. As I have said, unitisation agreements of great complexity are needed. Therefore, unless the oil price increases there is not a great deal of joy to be found on the Continental Shelf as regards oil and gas supplies.
To return to previous surveys of energy documents, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, had a jolly good reference library of material. I hope that she has not attempted and will not try to read it all, but at any rate she knows where to find material with the aid of a good index and a research assistant. I think that what the Government are now saying is merely that which has been said by all governments since the war: because of the uncertainties in energy pricing and the uncertainties in the costs of getting energy, getting it up or getting it harnessed, one simply has to keep all the options open.
If my memory serves me right, a White Paper was published in the days of the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, or it may have been earlier still. It was a Labour Government White Paper which became ridiculed, for a very silly reason which I never

723
understood, as the "four fuels" White Paper. That is the basis of the matter. There are four fuels available. The trick is to balance them and to decide now what will be the right balance 10 or 15 years hence when new generators have been constructed. Nobody but an astrologer can really answer that, and we have to hope for the best.
Having said that, I must say that I have some reservations about some of the recent remarks of the Government. When the CBI met the Secretary of State for Energy about energy pricing it was told, as was everybody else that energy costs were only 0.2 per cent. of industry's average costs. We know that that is the average, but what about chemicals, what about paper-making, what about the capital-intensive industries? They have energy costs which may rise to 30, 40, 50 or 60 per cent. of their running costs. They are the industries which are rightly concerned about the threat of rising energy prices.
We have been told that the Government believe in the free market principle for the energy industry. That is all well and good. Apparently it is acceptable to import French electricity, so why not be equally free with the export of gas from the UK Continental Shelf? I believe that we are at fault in this country in not regarding our energy situation in the light of what I would call the energy geopolitics of the western world in general and of Western Europe in particular. Enormous supplies of gas are coming right across Europe from Russia. Is there anything wrong with Russian gas? Does it smell worse? If there is to be a war they will cut it off anyway. The idea of taking gas from the Continent is not a stupid one; equally the idea of selling our gas to the Continent makes sense. One of the failures in our current energy policy is that of failing to think in European and Western European terms.
We are told that privatising the electricity supply industry will produce a more efficient industry. Well, we shall see. The best of British luck is all I can say about that. It certainly will not be more efficient (in terms of the merit order operated now by joint ownership of this grid), when that is replaced by a spot market between rival producers who must either collude and pool to have surplus capacity ready, or have wasteful surplus capacity on their own.
Following the confusions of the past few weeks—of which I think there is no doubt, the Government having said that they did not know a fortnight or three weeks ago whether or not they would produce a White Paper, and then they suddenly produced one—we should all shed a tear of sympathy for my noble friend Lord Davidson. He has to speak for the department in this House on a very difficult and complicated subject, and speak for a department of which he is not an integrated member. Of course he is part of a team and he has access when he wants it, but he must have time to use that access. I believe it should be said again, as I have said more than once, that the spokesman for energy in this House should really be in the department. I wish my noble friend the best of British luck. I think that he is going to need it.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, from these Benches congratulations are in order to two noble Lords. One is the noble Viscount, Lord Weir. I join in congratulating the noble Viscount on what was a model maiden speech. I congratulate him also on another count. He is the head of a large engineering company in the West of Scotland. In that area there has been a rapid decline of engineering and heavy industry, but Weirs of Cathcart have shown something which is relevant to the discussion in the House today. They have adjusted and adapted to the changing market in which they operate. As a result Weirs of Cathcart contribute greatly to the survival of heavy industry in the West of Scotland. On that account also the noble Viscount deserves congratulations.
The other congratulations are due to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who introduced the debate. I can say with much more honesty than the noble Lord that I am not an expert on this subject. His broad-range review set the agenda for a very interesting and informative debate. I was tempted to speak only because of the events of the last few weeks in the Scottish courts when two nationalised industries have fought on the question of the price of coal and the right to import. I accept the constraints that have been put on our discussion with regard to nationalisation. I reserve comment on the White Paper until a later date.
There are however, two things I should like to say. I notice from the report of the debate in the other place that the exercise of the monopoly is extremely dangerous. British Gas, in the first nine months of 1987, had 35 per cent. more disconnections than in the previous year. There is an extreme danger that when you give a private organisation a monopoly in the market, this can be abused. The matter will certainly be looked at when we consider the White Paper.
The other comment I should like to make which has some implications for the nationalisation issue is the attitude of the South of Scotland Electricity Board. It has a management I much admire. The board is operating within the remit that it has to produce electricity as efficiently and as cheaply as possible. In exercising that managerial duty, it proposes to import a million tonnes of cheap coal from abroad. I should like to add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, in connection with the importance of retaining a healthy coal industry. The trouble is that if you create, as in the White Paper, a private monopoly in electricity generation, then it will be compelled to take the action that has been exercised by the SSEB. Its prime duty to the shareholders will be to maximise profit without consideration of the consequences on the mining community, the national interest and the balance of payments. In fact, if the policy of the SSEB is pursued, 3,500 jobs could be lost in the Scottish mining industry. This would cost about £60 million in redundancy payments. So other factors than simply the price of imported coal should be taken into account when these about-to-be-privatised monopolies operate.

725
I was delighted—I say this in the presence of the Minister of State at the Scottish Office, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson—to read in the Glasgow Herald today that the two parties are now coming round the table. I hope that there will be a reasonable and balanced solution to a very difficult problem. In fact, I would commend the statement made by the SSEB before the Monopolies Commission in 1987:
"Although the Board will continue to monitor the price of imported coal it is not considered to be in the long-term interest of the Board's customers to import foreign coal in present circumstances".
I hope that a more reasoned view will be taken of the long-term supply situation by the SSEB. I am delighted to have said this without raising passions or creating physical danger for the Minister of State following my contribution. I accept that the SSEB and other industrial consumers have a substantial interest in a reasonable price for coal.
I was encouraged to participate in today's debate after having attended the all-party minerals group in the House last week. We were addressed by representatives of the opencast division of British Coal. I should like to offer one or two comments. More than 50 per cent. of the total production of coal in Scotland is now opencast. The opencast sector of British Coal now produces, at a profit, something like 12 million tonnes a year. A total of £200 million profit was thrown back into the pool of British Coal from opencast production to assist in the subsidy of less economic pits. The operating costs suggest that opencast coal can be produced at something like £26.8 per tonne against the current imported price of approximately £30 per tonne. Thus, opencast coal produced in this country is competitive with imported coal. Compared to deep-mined, which is £1.60 per gigajoule, opencast is about £1 per gigajoule.
People hold up their hands in horror at the suggestion of opencast coal. But it is important to the economy of the mining industry and there are regional implications. A good deal of opencast development is in areas of high unemployment where coalminers have become redundant. It is estimated that 15,000 employees are now employed in those areas. A subsidy of £200 million is given to the deep mining industry. A good deal of the deep-mined coal would be totally unusable if it were not blended with opencast. Opencast coal therefore makes a contribution to the deep mining industry and should riot be regarded as a competitor to deep-mined coal. It is supplementary and complementary.
There is unfortunately the same deep resistance to any change in the landscape which I encountered when I was chairman of the Forestry Commission. While this is not always justified, sometimes it is. I can see deep resistance to change outweighing some of the economic advantages that can be gained from an expansion of opencast mining. I have seen examples of what has been done by the opencast division of British Coal in the restoration of sites that were formally derelict. After three or four years, it has built golf courses and community centres and has carried out landscaping so that trees now grow in areas that had no trees previously. After four or five
726
years of activity, it has restored a good deal of the landscape to a much more acceptable and better condition than that in which it found it.
Nobody likes an opencast development on his doorstep. The planning laws are such that, in order to carry out the necessary development, one has to apply to the local planning committee. That committee, being the conscientious and socially responsible body that it is, is dominated frequently by local miners, members of the NUM, who are not always sympathetic. Sometimes, on a very narrow-minded and short-term basis, they have no great enthusiasm for it. Opencast mining is carried out by the Transport and General Workers' Union. There has therefore been a good deal of frustration in seeking planning permission. Between the process of examining the site and the granting of planning permission, a period of five years can elapse before one is able to proceed with the development, on the assumption that planning permission is ultimately received.
Because of the pressure of environmental interests, some of which may be well intended and justified, the number of decisions in favour of opencast mining from March 1984 to August 1986 represented 52 million tonnes. That figure dropped to 11 million tonnes last year. The rate of success of applications to develop opencast was 40 per cent. in 1984–86. The figure has now dropped to 10 per cent. There is a balance to be struck. The opencast division of British Coal should consider the extent to which it can compensate communities for environmental disruption in areas where it intends to develop and should encourage the local communities to work with it. Greater publicity should be given to the achievements and social objectives in restoring and enhancing sites after opencast has been pursued for three or four years.
Unless a reasonable balance can be achieved in planning, an important national resource will die and imported coal will come in. Opencast production can produce coal at a competitive price. I ask the Government to face what is a real dilemma, namely, how they can resist the total decline of the industry due to planning restraints and so enable coal to be a competitive fuel.
4.58 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for introducing this interesting topic. I add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, on an excellent maiden speech. I am sad that he is not present to hear my welcome.
Whenever I speak on energy topics in the House there seems to be some kind of ghost around. Last time the Sizewell inquiry report was imminently awaited, and we were not allowed to mention it. Today the ghost is in the form of the privatisation White Paper. I shall follow the tradition that we have established and refer to it no more than necessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, spoke of the need for an energy strategy. I have often thought that the only thing that energy strategies are useful for in the

727
long term is as historical documents to compare with the revised energy strategies later on.
One thing is clear. As the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, so ably set out, we shall need much more generation capacity in the near future whether under the private sector or from the CEGB as it is now. One of the problems of electricity generation is that it is mostly best done on a mega or, dare I say, giga scale in large coal-fired or nuclear power stations. I suppose, at the same time, one could advance respectable arguments that security of supply comes from diversity and that a large number of small generating units could offer greater security in the long term than a relatively small number of giant power stations.
Of course, the problem is that economics always militate against cottage industry power generation since small scale means high cost. Hence, such security could only be achieved if electricity prices to the consumer were, on the face of it, very much higher than they are today. There are perhaps some exceptions to this rule in that small generating units could usefully contribute directly to the regional or local grids on a cost-effective basis either for peak sharing or perhaps even base load.
Much attention has been given to energy savings since the oil price shocks of the 1970s. I have often felt that it is rather like asking a poacher to turn gamekeeper to expect the CEGB as a seller of electricity to press the case for energy conservation. However, the next stage beyond energy conservation is to try and collect the energy which could be generated by small units and harness what would otherwise go to waste.
The CEGB's record in encouraging smaller and unusual sources of power generation since the 1983 Act has not been particuarly good, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, noted. Indeed, by all accounts, the CEGB has been at pains to discourage small suppliers of electricity through the price mechanism and with arguments such as, "Small generators cannot guarantee long term supplies of constant quantity and quality". That has always seemed to me a slightly spurious argument. Obviously, while individuals may not be able to do so, groups of small generators can probably collectively guarantee a reasonable average contribution to base load. Perhaps they could even get together in small associations.
I can think of one example where there exists the possibility for small generating units to supply relatively constant good quality supplies of electric power directly into local distribution networks at a competitive price. In recent years, a number of small onshore gas discoveries have been made but many remain shut as uneconomic for the purposes of commercial production in conventional terms. Either the calorific content of the gas is too low or there are insufficient quantities to justify the capital costs of gathering, treating, compressing and conveying them into the BGC pipelines.
However, at the micro end of the scale, a conventional car engine can be modified quite easily to take natural gas straight out of a wellhead and harnessed to a small generator will run for long
728
periods with rests only for maintenance. If adequate volumes of gas are present—and the determination of that is pretty easy for petroleum engineers—then larger generating capacity can be placed right at the wellhead to produce a megawatt or more through unobtrusive quiet, portable, even perhaps skid-mounted equipment—a sort of crocodile clip on to the local grid. When the gas runs out, that can be moved elsewhere. In this way, otherwise unusable reserves of gas can be effectively utilised for power generation and oil and gas exploration companies can get a return on the capital investment which they would otherwise probably have had to write off.
I believe that an EC directive has been in existence for some time restricting the use of gas for the purposes of electricity generation. But, according to an article in The Times of 29th February this year, that directive is, I believe, to be deleted or amended shortly. I hope that perhaps the noble Viscount can confirm this in his reply.
Small gas-fired generators are perhaps one example of alternative sources of low volume but potential base load electricity supply which could be encouraged to contribute to our national security of supply. Given some real encouragement, I am sure that the private sector can come up with a number of other examples outside the ambit of the conventional electricity generating industry. I hope that in the context of privatisation the privatised area boards will not just have the right to purchase electricity otherwise than from the grid but that they will be given an incentive and perhaps a duty to encourage potential local generators outside the conventional electricity industry to come forward and offer supplies and that those latter contributors will be greeted with a pricing policy that gives them a fair living.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I, too, would like to add my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, in his absence, for a maiden speech of remarkable quality. I am sure that we shall hear more from him in the future. I thank my noble friend Lord Beloff for an opportunity to air not exactly my expertise but at least my enthusiasm for this subject. I was almost brought up with the generation of electricity. My grandfather built Barking power station. My father ran it and developed a private utility company or group of companies which supplied most of London and, I think, about two-thirds of the southern counties with electricity up until 1946 and nationalisation.
I was a little young at the time but I remember being very conscious of the pride with which a service was given to both private individuals and to industry. It may interest noble Lords. I remember when I went into the City in 1960 there were still jobbers—sadly, they have now disappeared—who were market makers in the shares of my father's and my grandfather's company. It was called the County of London Electricity Supply Company. I have looked at the records of the company since 1896. There was a graph showing the pre-tax profits and the megawatts produced per year. It was a remarkable

729
and very consistent growth record through times of real difficulty in the 1930s, not to mention two world wars in which this country was much involved. There was a very consistent record of growth. I say that knowing that we are not discussing the privatisation of the CEGB but just to show that there was a precept for private generation and a responsible one at that.
I must declare another interest in this subject. I am a director of a firm of technology consultants. We have as one of our main interests energy, energy conservation, sources of energy and so on. Although I would not be one of the technical people involved, some of the thinking and work rubs off on me, which maintains my interest in this area. We have heard a great deal about the problems of the fossil reserves in this country, the need to maintain employment and the need also to conserve fossil materials for future generations in the next 100 or 1,000 years. I would differ perhaps from previous speakers in looking not 10 or 20 years ahead but 1,000 or 2,000 years ahead. The fossil materials of this planet must be considered in finite terms. We should look upon quite a bulk of those which have been discovered and those which are as yet to be discovered as a legacy for the inhabitants of this planet who will come after us. I also think that we have a real responsibility for the environment in which those people will live. We must be very conscious of the potential damage that the burning of wood and fossil fuels can cause unless safeguards are implemented.
My plea is that there should be very real concern on the part of the Government that the quality of research should be maintained and increased to make sure that emissions are not damaging, that there is research into how damaging they really are and in which direction they travel. I believe that there is a real case for more work to be done, for more research to be carried out and for more finance to be provided for research in that area.
I hope that the energy requirements of countries, including this country, will grow and with it their economies. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, quite rightly said that that was the subject of the debate and that we must prepare for the future. If we are going to maintain a proper supply to industry, and to people, of course we must look possibly to other forms of electricity generation.
Some research is being done. I believe that we spend something in the order of £16 million a year looking into renewables, whereas the sum spent on nuclear research is something of the order of £250 million. I wonder whether that is perhaps the right ratio in view of the importance of the industrial activities which are involved in researching into renewable forms of energy generation being successful.
There is the obvious concept of addition to the grid which is an argument for promoting renewables. There is also the fact that some forms of electricity generation which we enjoy in this country are not possible in other parts of the world. Expertise generated in this country in wind power or tidal power, for example, or other forms of power could be exported to countries where it is not possible to use our forms of energy generation.
730
Most forms of renewables have been mentioned this evening and I do not want to take up your Lordships' time in repeating them; but I think that two which have not been mentioned before this evening are worth mentioning. There is a case for renewables in that usually the material involved is free: for example, the wind or the tide. But there is one form of alternative energy where one could be paid to take it away. I am talking about refuse-derived fuel. There is a form of pelletising refuse which produces pellets with about 60 per cent. of the energy content of coal. There is a considerable amount of activity going on in this country in connection with that fuel.
As my noble friend Lord Torrington was saying, one of the problems about producing renewable forms of energy is access to the grid. I ask my noble friend Lord Davidson to address himself to the question of whether there are problems in various areas of getting access to the grid in financial terms which make sense and are truly competitive when compared with the coal powered or the nuclear generating stations.
I feel that in some cases there may be discrimination as regards the rateable value of some generating stations. That seems unfair. Wind generation has flourished in places such as California where a local grid has guaranteed or made an offer at a fair price for the electricity so generated.
Another source of energy of which there is an enormous volume is hydrogen. In fact, it is one of the most prolific substances on earth. Work initiatives are going on in Germany conducted by industrial companies to look into the use of hydrogen as a form of energy production. The production of hydrogen involves water and electric energy is needed to create it. But off-peak water energy could be used to produce hydrogen which in itself could then be used to create energy. That seems to be an area where I do not believe that much research is going on in this country. I ask the noble Viscount if he can advise me on that subject.
I feel that we are at a time of low oil prices. We have perhaps been lulled into a false sense of security as regards our national energy scene, especially with our massive coal stocks. But things can change very quickly in this world, and we should act responsibly in being more diligent in our encouragement of private and public sector funding for alternative forms of energy.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for introducing this debate and for introducing it in so philosophical a way. He has certainly given us all food for thought; and indeed the debate so far has taken up a number of the points that he raised.
I also wish to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, on his maiden speech. I trust that we shall hear many more speeches from him. I was particularly struck not only by his kind and correct references to the CEGB in relation to equipment suppliers, but also by the point he made that one of the consequences of privatisation may mean

731
differential pricing in various parts of the country. That is virtually the only reference which I shall make to privatisation. However, it is a point to be borne in mind. I hope that the Government, and the noble Viscount who is to reply in this debate, will take that into account.
I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Baroness Nicol who has taken my place very ably on the Front Bench. I congratulate her on an apt speech which was well-delivered and also on getting to the central point of the argument. That point is that we need, one way or another, an energy strategy. In my view, such a strategy must ensure two things. The first is security of supply which will mean ensuring a proper balance of fuels at a reasonable price which will give good energy supplies to all who need them, whether they be domestic consumers or industrial and commercial consumers. That is a matter which we shall have to consider very carefully indeed.
So far, the strategy of the Government (if it can be called that) has been based simply on market forces and intervening in the price structure as a means of conservation. Frankly, I do not think that that is good enough. No doubt the Government will be thinking about their strategy over the next few months and we shall hear more of it in what I hope will be a proper and long debate about privatisation. Perhaps we shall have that debate later on in the year.
We have also heard a good deal in this debate about energy projections. I believe that in another place only this morning the Secretary of State was castigating the CEGB to the Select Committee on Energy. I do not know what he said so I cannot comment upon it. But I know from my own experience that energy projections can go very wrong indeed.
When I worked at a power station in the electricity supply industry, we were told in the 1960s that the great new fuel must be oil. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has pointed out, there has been a great glut of oil at times, as there is presently. We were told that in future we must switch over to the generation of electricity from oil. We were told with a great wave of enthusiasm—the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Mason will remember it—that we must build many power stations which were fired by oil. And we did so.
We built about 10,000 megawatts-worth of oil-fired power stations. Later (and indeed at the present time) those had to be mothballed because the cost of running them was so huge that it could not be sustained. In any event, oil supplies had become very short. I remember that ordinary shopfloor workers at my power station and at others warned the Government of the day that it was bad policy which would rebound later on. And so it proved.
I also remember that the CEGB made a projection of demand for electricity which would have meant consuming 200 million tonnes of coal a year. I remember speaking in another place and suggesting that if those projections were realised, and if we did burn 200 million tonnes of coal a year it would affect the weather. I suggested that the weather patterns of our island would be affected. I do not think that
732
people took me seriously at the time. But perhaps they would do so now because it is beginning to be realised that heat and CO2 emissions have a serious effect on our environment. Energy projections are difficult to make and they often go dangerously wrong.
Perhaps I may now refer to coal. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Mason dealt with that subject so well that perhaps nothing more needs to be said. However, I should like to add one or two more points. If the Government do not maintain a strong indigenous coal industry, then at some time in the future we shall have such a crisis of both electricity and power supply as we have never known before. It must be emphasised that a pit closed cannot be opened easily, if at all. A pit which has not been sunk cannot be brought into production for another 10 years. That is the problem we have. That is why it would be an enormous mistake to allow the amount of imported coal to increase to a substantial degree.
What is more, if we allow a substantial amount of coal to be bought on the world market, not only will we put our coal and electricity supply at the mercy and whim of foreign countries, shipowners and so on, but we shall affect the price structure worldwide as well. Therefore, we must be careful what we allow in the matter of importation of coal.
There is an argument going on in Scotland. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. It is an important argument, and what he said should be noted by the Government. He said that there were 3,000 jobs at stake which would cost the Goverment £60 million. The Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, has said that that is merely a trading matter, and that he does not wish to intervene in a trading matter between the SSEB and the Coal Board.
Have we come to a situation in which the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board or any other board should make the policy of the Government? That is what is happening and that is what he is doing. If he has his way, undoubtedly the coal industry in Scotland will be badly hit. Pits will be closed and the Government will have to fork out a lot of money in redundancy payments and in unemployment pay. Therefore, the Secretary of State ought to intervene and see that a proper balance is struck.
I noted when I was a member of the Select Committee on Energy in another place that in Scotland there is a surplus capacity of some 130 per cent. Scotland has a capacity to generate 130 per cent. more electricity than is needed there. One of the values of an integrated supply industry ought to be that the South of Scotland Electricity Board should be able to export a good deal more of its product to the South of England than it does at the present time. If they did that, there would be an outlet for every tonne of coal that could be produced in Scotland, and what is more there would be a saving in capital expenditure in building power stations in England and Wales. That is a policy which I believe the Government ought to consider.

733
I shall now turn from coal to oil. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, it is true that there is a glut of oil at the present time. The glut may become worse; on the other hand, the Middle East is in such a seemingly permanent turmoil that that glut could be turned into a shortage at any time. We have to bear in mind that, with the best will in the world and on the best series of estimates, we shall lose all our exportable surplus of oil by the mid-1990s and we shall probably have lost self sufficiency by quite a considerable amount by the year 2000. Therefore it is necessary to conserve our oil supplies and to ensure that at the same time as we have a depleting oil supply we have not closed down our coal capacity. As I mentioned previously, 10,000 megawatts of oil-fired power stations are not being fully utilised at present; and I think that consideration should be given to converting some of those oil-fired stations to coal firing. We should start to do so at an early stage.
Most of the points that I wish to make have probably already been made; but I wish to draw attention—and particularly the noble Viscount's attention—to the necessity for conservation and efficiency. As has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords this afternoon, one of the best ways to conserve fuel is to institute combined heat and power projects. Such projects will give very good returns. At the present time, we are building power stations—2,000 megawatt, 660 megawatt sets—and we produce only electricity from them. We also heat the atmosphere for no good reason or pump hot water into rivers, which is wasteful. The power stations provide an overall thermal efficiency of about 38 per cent. As my noble friend Lady Nicol mentioned, it is possible to obtain overall thermal efficiencies of up to 90 per cent. from combined heat and power stations.
Clearly, even though we have coal, oil, and nuclear power, we should be conserving the energy that we have. In this respect, I believe that the plans for building new power stations at Fawley and West Burton should be reviewed. To build a further two 2,000 megawatt power stations (perhaps with 900 megawatt or 660 megawatt sets) would be wrong. For load balancing reasons, I understand and appreciate the need for power stations to be situated in the South. But there is absolutely no reason why four 500 megawatt power stations should not be built near conurbations. They could provide electricity to the grid and perhaps also to the local area; but, most importantly, they could also supply heat to the local area. In that way, we would obtain the best possible efficiency from those power stations.
There is much more that I should like to say, particularly about nuclear energy. However, my time is up and I do not wish to go beyond the 15 minutes recommended in your Lordships' report. In conclusion I urge the Government and the noble Viscount to take great heed of what has been said in this debate, even though it is understood that the Government, before very long, want to divest themselves of all responsibility for electricity generation and indeed the whole of energy policy itself.
5.35 p.m.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for initiating a topical and important debate. Conforming with other speakers, I shall try to keep to the narrow path and not touch on privatisation as a framework for the future, attractive as that might be. I can talk briefly about the present plans for increased generating capacity, which is so necessary if the security of power of which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke is to be achieved. Those plans are CEGB plans. As far as I can see they have been adopted in toto in the Government's privatisation plans and in that way are quite uncontroversial.
As your Lordships know, it is proposed that electricity generation should be broadly divided between nuclear and coal—six nuclear stations and four rather larger coal stations. Whether those can be financed and built on time are topics on which I should like to touch in a moment. I am a convinced supporter of the nuclear part of the programme allowing for the phasing out of the Magnox stations by the end of the century. That will leave the division of power broadly as it is now—80:20, or something of that order.
There is much argument about the cost of nuclear power. One tends to adopt the conclusion which is most attractive to one's argument. The difficulty about comparing the cost of coal and nuclear power is that the composition is so different. The CEGB estimates for Sizewell show that the capital ingredient of nuclear power is nearly two-thirds of the cost; in the case of coal-fired stations fuel represents over 70 per cent. of the cost. The conclusion one reaches depends on the assumptions that one makes about the financing of the nuclear stations or the price of coal in 20 years' time. In the Government's calculations a discount rate of 5 per cent. was used, which I think on the whole is low. On the other hand, it was assumed that the price of coal would not change by the end of the century—an assumption which I think is hazardous.
It remains true that the Layfield Report concluded positively that nuclear power was cheaper than coal. Certainly our European partners in the Community are very much of that opinion. As your Lordships know, the French are 70 per cent. dependent on nuclear energy, and that percentage is moving upward. They can offer us power in bulk at a lower price than any of our existing power stations. That is an argument for its cheapness.
The main argument is surely that we must have an alternative to coal. Nobody argues that coal will not be the main fuel for power stations at the end of the century and well beyond, but there must be an alternative and from what I have heard and seen, I do not think that the renewable fuels can realistically be expected to be usable in this generation of power station.
The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, mentioned the acreage required for a substantial wind station. I think that his figure was low and that the acreage required for the equivalent of a main nuclear station is nearer 400 square miles. However, surely either figure would be acceptable. I am sure that offshore is

735
too costly. Oil is attractive, with the price of oil tending to come down, but the current price of oil is almost immaterial. The question is: what will be its price over the average life of a power station—that is to say, 30 years on? As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, by that time many things could have happened in the Middle East and the price could be totally different. I think therefore that the alternatives are coal and nuclear and I should have thought that the balance between those two sources was probably about right.
To touch on a slightly controversial point, perhaps I may mention finance. The figure for the return on capital of the CEGB which was quoted by my right honourable friend in another place last week was 2.45 per cent. I do not believe that any industry can produce expansion for the future on that kind of return. I am quite certain that a very different picture would be required in any privatisation scheme. It seems to me that that is ample justification for the increase in price, whatever happens, because we need the power.
As regards privatisation, which is perhaps an awkward subject, the amount of capital required for the new stations will be equivalent to that required for between three and four Channel tunnels, which is large. If the cost of privatisation is added, the total bill will be about the same as for nine Channel tunnels. I cannot but wonder whether those sums will be available for the period of which we are talking.
Perhaps I may say one last word about planning permission, following up something that was said by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. If the planning permissions cannot be speeded up, we shall not have any power stations at all. We need 10 of them and so far planning permission has been obtained for one—Sizewell B. It is very understandable. In my own little village the parish council was foolish enough to ask the residents where they thought some additional housing should be built and every answer said in so many words, "Not near me". That is the way any locality feels when it is faced with the prospect of a neighbouring power station, whether it be coal or nuclear.
My only constructive suggestion is that the Government, if they can, should restrict the discussions to local subjects. At Hinkley Point, which I know very well, there are problems of local roads and the construction of housing which are eminently suitable subjects for discussions about planning, whereas the overall justification for nuclear power is not, given the fact that the power station will be identical with Sizewell B. I end by repeating my earlier words: security of power is essential.
5.43 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I do not intend to deal at any length with the White Paper, despite the fact that I know that the Minister believed that some noble Lords would do so. I had the opportunity of putting forward some general criticisms when we discussed the enabling legislation. I shall therefore follow the convention that has been established today and make only one remark; namely, that the six
736
principles seem to me to be nothing more than a political statement and a pious hope, without any real foundation for their realisation.
For some years—in fact for so long as we can foresee—we shall have to depend to a great extent on electrical generation by coal. To put coal and nuclear power in perspective, it is worth being reminded that coal is not the clean fuel that some people would like us to think it is. In the flue gases it produces as much radioactivity as the sum of all our nuclear stations and related processing activities. In addition, the coal-fired stations spew out large quantities of toxic heavy metals. More important, of course, is the acid rain from not only sulphur but also nitrous oxides. The latter will be reduced in new power stations only by about 30 per cent.
What is truly worrying is the increase in carbon dioxide and the consequent greenhouse effect. This is likely to have most disastrous consequences for the world's climate some time in the future. Of course that is not certain, but it is a strong possibility. It will happen when the icecaps start to melt and produce a devastating increase in sea levels. Furthermore, in 1984 in our own coal mining industry there were around 400 new cases diagnosed of pneumoconiosis, a chest disease of miners. It is probably much less prevalent today. But if the figure is projected on a European scale, in one year it is likely to produce as many potentially early deaths as the effects of Chernobyl. I conclude that until other means of generation such as renewables can provide a substantial means of power we must continue to rely on nuclear and coal generation.
That situation must lead to greater emphasis on the alternatives. The first and potentially most important is conservation and the efficient use of energy for which there is great scope in industry. To their credit, the Government are doing a great deal to promote it. For some reason, however, their efforts in the domestic private sector, which consumes about 30 per cent. of our total energy, seem feeble, to say the least. The Government decline to help in the construction of energy-saving houses by promoting an energy audit of houses for sale, as is done in Denmark. In spite of the interest of the EC in this matter, they prefer to do nothing until the EC's legislation is produced in the long distant future.
In a series of Questions for Written Answer, I have pointed out that if the Government were to pay for at least the loft insulation of existing housing stock, there could be an energy saving equivalent to that provided by one modern power station; that is to say, a sum of about £1·5 billion. That calculation takes into account the possibility that most people will use some of the savings for increased comfort rather than energy conservation.
Because of the remote risks inherent in nuclear generation and the objections to coal which I have mentioned, so far as is reasonably possible we should press forward with the other alternatives apart from energy conservation. We could and should start to build wind turbine farms. However, unless they are put out to sea and therefore become uneconomic, their contribution will be limited by environmental considerations. For my part, I believe that they could

737
not contribute much more than 5 per cent. of our energy requirements. Some people have quoted a figure of 10 per cent. We shall only know when we have the public's reaction to the environmental effects of wind farms.
Moreover, wind farms can only provide an intermittent and lower output than their rated capacity. Even with 3 megawatt turbines, at least 800 units are needed in windy sites to match the output of one 1200 megawatt power station, and they would occupy an area of some 400 square miles.
In this context we must be quite clear that there is a limit to how far power can be shipped through the grid. First, there are the direct losses incurred in doing so, amounting to around one half of 1 per cent. for 100 miles. Secondly, unless you convert to direct current, the inductive properties of the grid transmission put the alternating voltage and current out of phase and destabilise the network. These considerations limit effective competition between distant power stations.
There are two other areas where a non-polluting source could provide a substantial contribution on a national scale. The first is the Severn barrage scheme. Accountancy and economic assessment is, to say the least, always suspect because of the assumptions that have to be made with many unknown variables. It appears, however, that the Severn barrage could well produce power at competitive rates. Most certainly, it would do so over an anticipated life of 100 years.
Most of us think that the real cost of energy will inevitably rise, probably faster than the Government's projection. The real problem is in financing the scheme. By privatisation the Government have made this much more difficult. Some government finance has always seemed necessary. Surely, the Government should provide for this and other similar purposes out of the proceeds from selling off the assets in the electric supply industry. The Government must surely realise that private industry and the market place are primarily concerned with relatively short-term financial gain. The Severn barrage is a very long-term project.
I shall make a plea on much the same grounds for combined heat and power and government financial help in launching a demonstration scheme in one of the 10 major cities which Atkins and Partners thought could be viable. Such schemes are common on the Continent. Our difficulty is that we do not have any large district heating schemes to which connection can be made. It follows that any such scheme here has a long lead time before it becomes profitable. There is the uncertainty of how many consumers would change their existing heating arrangements for connection to a heat main and the need to dig up streets to lay the heat mains. For these reasons, I believe that large district heating schemes supplied from combined heat and power will simply not get off the ground unless the Government are prepared to some extent to underwrite the cost.
I must emphasise that I also support other alternative energy projects such as heat from bore holes, landfill gas, waste utilisation, inshore wave
738
generation, and so on. However, protagonists must realise that they can provide only a small, though useful, proportion of our energy needs.
Finally, let me say this on privatisation. It is incredible to me that, without any substantial change in the surrounding circumstances, the Government seem to veer from one extreme doctrine to another. Yes, let us have privatisation where there is a prima facie case for it. However, do not let us forget a previous view expressed as the unacceptable face of capitalism with its short-term financial objectives. It never pays to uproot an existing organisation unless there is a very strong case for doing so. It takes a long time to realise any possible potential benefit and sometimes such benefits do not exist.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, I should like to apologise sincerely to the House for not being present at the beginning of the debate, and in particular to my noble friend Lord Beloff for not being there to hear what I understand was his very philosophical speech.
I do not apologise for talking about electricity because it is very much on our minds at the moment. In electricity, generation is at the heart of supply and it is encouraging to see all the public sector supply industries getting back into the private sector again and joining their manufacturing counterparts. Services such as piped water, gas, cable communication, broadcasting and power supply are all engines of growth with customers in front of them and manufacturers behind them.
I wish to look at electricity in particular because I am employed by one of the British heavy electrical manufacturers. There is only one other, and my noble friend Lord Prior will know exactly which one that is. I have supported electricity as an alternative energy source in transport. I have researched it and I support its privatisation.
In England, the first lights were put on in 1880 by a private company in Godalming and I expect that my noble friend Lord Renwick knows all about that because his family have been very much involved in private generation. I hope that the new distribution companies will keep them on all over the country in the 1990s. Nationalised service has had a short lifespan in this industry. In human terms it has been ashes to ashes—in electrical terms, earth to earth—in something less than 50 years. We are reminded today of this by the name of our maiden speaker, whose grandfather, as I understand it, opened the way to integrated supply in 1925. I should like to congratulate him on the relevant points that he made in his short and excellent speech.
The White Paper covers generation, transmission, control and distribution, so everybody will know their place, but absolutely nothing is said about research and development. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, mentioned the subject in his speech. It is a very significant part of the equation which at the moment sits plum in the middle of the CEGB. If, as we are told in the CEGB report, the R&D spend in 1986–87 was £162 million, I believe that we cannot afford to forget it. Of this, 55 per cent. is spent extramurally; and on top of it all government

739
departments and the Commission in Brussels put more money in. What will happen to this valuable, and most invisible, resource? We must ensure that it is properly mobilised to meet the privatisation challenge.
Technical backup is needed for four different nuclear fuel cycles and for the fast reactor if we look into the future. Further ahead there comes fusion, so there is a fifth cycle to deal with. In addition technical backup is needed for all the non-nuclear areas such as fossil firing and pollution—and this includes prevention and cure.
An interesting point was made by my noble friend Lord Weir about the foreign competition that we shall face. Because we let all the sulphur dioxide go up the spout, no development work has taken place on flue gas desulphurisation. The result is that we shall have to rely on foreign companies—probably from Japan in particular—to supply the equipment under licence to put into effect the £600 million programme for the retrofitting of the power stations here.
My noble friend also mentioned prevention. A lot of technical work is being done on prevention looking at fluidised bed combustion and also Lownox burners and that kind of thing. This means that we shall be able to rely on British manufacturers to supply in the future in this area. We need technical backup for renewals, the grids, alternative uses, advanced generation and electrical storage. It does not all happen by magic. R&D depends on people, and in order to deal with all the processes that I have mentioned a lot of qualified manpower is needed.
The lead times in power engineering are long and, where people are concerned, any sudden change such as we are now going to face can be disruptive. It takes time for people to adjust and to know how to work the new system. Meanwhile a temporary vacuum is created. The danger is that foreign competitors can move in and capture some of the ground before we have the time to pick ourselves up and face the situation, as perhaps they have already done with flue gas desulphurisation.
We must not let that happen. I implore the Government and my noble friend's right honourable friend to make absolutely certain that in going private we do not lose the essentials of the R&D resource. There must be no squabbling between Big G and Little G over who gets what. The right intramural/extramural balance must be established and the Secretary of State must make sure that he can still sponsor vital R&D work which would not otherwise be done by the new companies.
I am reliably told that the shock of having to compete in generation now means that the technical planning and research divisions of the CEGB will have to start looking at the options from scratch. In effect, all the hard work now has to begin on finding out how best to deploy all the R&D resources in the most effective way for the future. Although it might appear to be a straightforward exercise I think that that is very far from being the case when one looks at the way it is all scrambled together at the moment. For example, the Electricity Council has a controlling share in Chloride Silent Power, which has brought
740
the new sodium sulphur batteries near to commercialisation after absorbing the General Electric research efforts in the field.
What is to happen to that initiative? What is to happen to British Electricity International, the consultative arm of the supply industry, which engineers systems for overseas customers based on British practice and hardware developments and tries to introduce British innovations into overseas power networks? In whose hands will the responsibility lie for securing EC research support for power generation, whether it be nuclear, tidal, wind, superconducting or fossil-fired? What will happen to the collaborative research panels set up by the CEGB to discuss R&D requirements and programmes with the manufacturing companies in the main plant areas? These have only just been set up to replace the Power Engineering Standing Committee, which provided up-front money for future prospects.
Who, by the way, is to supply the JET experiment at Culham with its pulsing power? Is it to be Big G or Little G or the distribution companies? If I were the director of the JET project, I should shop around for the cheapest. My noble friend Lord Weir has already mentioned that there are likely to be many differing tariffs available. The Director is French, so he might try to get his supplies from EDF via some part of the network. Who is to support UKAEA projects, BNFL projects, new combustion techniques, combined heat and power developments? I shall not go any further, because the list is endless, but the point I want to make is that R&D work in energy must be co-ordinated.
I should like now to consider the various options that we have. The first, and perhaps the worst, is that the new companies should be left to sort themselves out, which means squabbling over the resources. Some is bound to get trodden on and may disappear. I do not favour dealing in this way. Secondly, the Secretary of State can seek professional advice and referee the carve-up to make sure that none of the essentials becomes lost. That is much better, I think. Thirdly, I should like to propose that the Secretary of State draws on the resources in the heavy electrical industry to ensure that the momentum of energy growth is maintained in the power engineering field: that it drives economic growth, not the other way round. This means, too, getting science out of the universities and on to the shop floor. That is not easy, but the contract research organisations built up in this country from research associations and independent institutes have shown how to bridge the gap between the two.
I should like to propose that serious thought should be given to forming an electrical power research institute in one of the regions such as the North-East where power engineering is already strong right across the board from generation through to application. The creation of a private sector centre of excellence to serve our energy needs would be invigorating, and I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that option seriously.
In the electricity industry, we are faced with converting a primary fuel into a secondary fuel. My noble friend Lord Renwick talked about hydrogen.

741
That is another case of converting a primary fuel into a secondary fuel. At the moment much waste heat goes up the chimney, but we must remember that other premium uses for coal may come along—liquefaction in transport, chemical feedstocks and that kind of thing. We must therefore bring some synergy into the power engineering R&D sector. What better way to do that than by creating a private sector centre of excellence in the North East which already has produced world class innovators such as Armstrong, Parsons and Swan. Edison did not get his patent on the filament lamp. It was a Swan-Edison patent. The power generation system for the SDI kinetic energy weapons comes from Newcastle. We have a shortage of power engineers in the UK. In energy-conscious countries such as France, Germany and Japan, R&D programmes in the power engineering field are highly co-ordinated and often 100 per cent. funded by their governments.
We must make sure that R&D gains ground on privatisation, that we avoid duplication and that our efforts in the shorter-term development needed for such projects as the 900 megawatt coal-fired stations match the longer-term efforts aimed at the distant prospects.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for introducing this important topic. Let me say to him apropos his opening remarks—or perhaps I should say it to the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson—that there is no danger of fisticuffs, verbal or otherwise, this evening. Indeed given this lovely spring day my mind turns to quite other subjects.
The debate was introduced by pointing out that we must not simply extrapolate from the present circumstances into the future. We must take the long view and the long position is extremely hard to forecast. Indeed, I stand second to nobody in your Lordships' House for making errors in forecasting. At best I hope that my forecasts are about as good as random, but I sometimes fear that they are worse than random. However that is by the way.
We must bear in mind how difficult it is to forecast, but, given the nature of the topic, it seems to me that some degree of forward looking is unavoidable. Therefore essentially built round the debate must be the paradox that it is hard to look forward, but it is extremely important to do precisely that. What is vital to be borne in mind is that what we observe at the moment need bear no relationship to what we shall see in the future. Because at present there does not seem to be an energy constraint on economic performance, and because we do not observe anything like that at the moment, we should not assume that in due course such a constraint will not appear. The difficulty is that we must look not merely into the future but a long way into the future. I am rather frightened by the literature that I read in the sense that it talks of energy shortages in the year 2020 when few of us will be here. That is a subject to which I shall return in due course.
742
The lead times are quite enormous. Curiously enough the general public has little idea of how long the lead times are. We are indebted to several noble Lords for reminding the House that the lead times are long with regard to coal mines in particular. One does not simply decide that one needs more coal tomorrow and start to dig. One must take as much a forward look with respect to coal as with almost any other relevant energy technologies.
While we agree that we must be efficient and economical—which are themes on which I shall have more to say—it would be a mistake to assume that the economy can grow without a growth in the demand for energy; in particular without a growth in the demand for electricity. In other words, I do not think that the argument that there is an easy way out as regards efficiency stands up for one moment. That does not mean that we should allow the efficiency argument to fall by the wayside. It means that we should be grown-up, sensible and realise that this country will require a great deal more energy input over the period with which we are concerned.
As regards economic considerations, it is obvious that we need energy which is produced as efficiently as possible—that is, technically efficient—but we also mean economically efficient in the least cost sense. However, the price that is paid for energy must represent a proper return for the resources now being put in and it must also generate a return to justify the research and investment for the future. In particular, if one is concerned with coal it must be economic to produce coal and therefore the price must be such as to justify that. With respect to oil, it must certainly be the case that we must not take our oil decisions on a price so low that it does not remotely pay companies to explore for oil in the future. We should like to have the price instantaneously as low as possible but it would be a great mistake if the system worked so that it was so low as to produce no return to justify investment for the future.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in his introduction, referred to security of supply. Security does not come for nothing; it must be paid for. It may well be that the public disproportionately wants security and that they are slightly irrational. I can remember that on the day of the great storm last year my power was cut off for approximately 12 hours. I became incredibly miserable, as did many other people, but it was for only 12 hours. I would have paid a large sum of money not to have been cut off even for 12 hours, but that is being rather irrational. Nonetheless, we have a great desire to have the power available, particularly electricity. We shall debate that in due course when discussing privatisation, but it means that there must be sufficient capacity in the system to meet the maximum demand and no less than that. However, that is not a subject for today.
Another aspect of security of supply which has been raised is imports. It is clear that the ability to buy any of the goods that we need from abroad is always advantageous. It always provides us with a buffer stop which makes life easier. It may concern the occasional import of coal or the transmission of electric power across the Channel link, and I am

743
certain that in due course we shall be re-importing natural gas. My view on security is that it would be foolish for us to base our energy policies on external supplies. We must be as near to being self-sufficient in the production of energy as we possibly can be. I shall have a little more to say on coal in a moment but I believe that it is vital to support our coal industry and not say that it is another item that we can buy from abroad and that there is no need to fuss about it. I believe that to be an entirely mistaken view. Security of supply is important and the easiest and most sensible way to achieve it is on the basis of domestic production.
Before speaking about the possibility of energy scarcity, the energy gap and the future of coal and nuclear power, I should like to say that, as an economist, I take a rather dim view on the question of the environment. The obvious point to make is that, while a good environment is ipso facto desirable, it does not come cheaply and one cannot have something for nothing. I believe that the notion that there exists somewhere a magical supply or source of energy which is not environmentally damaging is completely preposterous. I have not yet come across one which does not have an environmental disadvantage here, there or somewhere. All the sources which seem so nice, including windmills, have certain unattractive environmental qualities. I understand that the Severn Barrage is not without its environmental impact.
That is not to under-value the importance of the environment but to say that if one wishes to have a good environment it will be expensive and one may have to pay for it in terms of more expensive processes of energy generation. It is a question of the choice people wish to make. It is important to point out that a good environment is not available for nothing.
I should now like to deal with coal. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, gave the House a rather doom laden view and uttered certain words of warning. I do not think that he was mistaken in uttering those warnings, which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also mentioned. They are not mistaken in saying that there is at least one scenario for the coal industry which would lead one to be pessimistic.
However, if one carries out any kind of analysis of the likely demand for a basic fossil fuel in electricity generation, one sees that the demand for coal will start well before the end of the century and will rise rapidly. Looking at the potential supply of coal in this country, I believe that there is no reason whatever why it cannot be produced here at economic prices. What is required is a policy starting today preparing for the digging of appropriate coal mines on a large scale.
It is all very well for everyone to blame the National Union of Mineworkers for the difficulty. I do not believe that it is either right or fair to single out the NUM as the reason for us not moving ahead with coal production. The finger could be pointed elsewhere. I do not wish to become involved in such a rowing but I point out that there is no reason whatever why the coal industry cannot have a
744
first-class future and why the demand for coal will not rise quite rapidly before the end of this century. That time is not so far away and if the demand is to be met there are things which we must do now.
I should now like to turn from coal to nuclear power and declare the reverse of an interest in saying that I speak for myself on this subject. The subject of nuclear power is fraught with controversy and one dare not commit anyone else on it. I regard the question of nuclear power as being technical: what is the least cost way of producing electricity? My difficulty is that to which several noble Lords have alluded. It goes back to the years when I advised the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries when the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, was a member. I believed then, as I believe now, that there is no one in this field whom one can trust to give genuine data from which one can calculate what is of least cost. My answer in respect of nuclear power is that such stations provide the cheapest electricity. Other things being equal, I have no doctrinaire objection to producing nuclear electricity. My worry is: who will tell me the truth about what is the actual cost?
One other matter with respect to nuclear power which has already been mentioned is the very high discount rates—and the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, mentioned the relevant rate of interest—and nuclear power ceases to be economic very rapidly indeed, which is a great pity. No industry, or very few, that I can think of would benefit more from lower discount rates than the nuclear power industry. I emphasise that from the point of view of power generation the question one asks is: what is the cheapest way in terms of long-running costs to produce this?
Perhaps I may return to one of the matters introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, because I believe that we can then infer from that what is the correct policy. He emphasised how difficult it is to forecast the future and that we have a range of options. What follows from that is that quite clearly our technical processes of production should be a mixture. Indeed, as with almost any decision of a portfolio kind, if one does not know what is going to happen for certain, then various options are chosen—a mixture of methods of production—which will minimise the risks. My view would be that we require an energy policy which sees coal, oil, gas—which we have not said much about—nuclear power and renewable sources as all parts of the relevant strategy. I introduce a slight word of controversy. The difficulty as I see it from my side is that we do not seem to have an energy policy in the first place. We ought to have this mixture, but who will take responsibility for seeing that we have it? Nonetheless, whichever way we approach the matter, a mixture seems to me of great importance and indeed is the correct way to do things.
Several noble Lords—the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, the noble Lord, Lord Ironside—referred to research and development. I suppose those of us who press this point are always accused of riding our hobby horses, but I cannot think of any aspect of the problem which is more important than the need to reinforce research and development right across this sphere.

745
Perhaps I may refer to the Department of Energy. It engages in research and development, but reading the document on the subject I believe that it has a slightly grudging attitude. That may be matter of tone, and I should like it to be more encouraging, but the department does not write about research and development as if it really believes in it; that is the difficulty.
One aspect with which I totally agree is that there is already a great deal of available technology which we do not use in this country and the Department of Energy believes that one of its roles is to persuade industry to use it more broadly. There I agree. But the future of our country requires a great deal more than that in terms of research and development. At this point I shall not rise to the fly cast by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, on privatisation. I shall save that until we debate privatisation. However, I should have thought that privatisation will fall as a case because it cannot meet the R&D test. However, I withdraw that remark because I do not wish to argue about it at the present.
Before making one or two economic comments let me say this. Several noble Lords referred to tax concessions as a way to encourage R&D, to encourage efficient use of energy and indeed to encourage more general conservation. The Government should look again at the tax side of this. As several noble Lords pointed out, it is in the national interest that we use energy economically. Therefore it is worth considering whether changes in tax structure will help in that direction. I do not put it any stronger than that.
I referred to energy gaps. Until now I have not congratulated the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, on his maiden speech. The reason I delayed is that in his excellent speech he introduced certain aspects of the balance of payments side of energy. At the moment the position is not too bad. There is still an enormous oil surplus which is a tremendously important contribution to the balance of payments over the 10 years from 1975 to 1985. We have moved from zero gross exports of oil and enormous imports to the reverse by the mid-1980s, of enormous oil exports and much less in the way of oil imports. Therefore, we have a net positive balance of payments again from oil.
However, what of the future? Even on fairly optimistic views of what will be available—and I must admit that I tend to be on the more optimistic side—the oil will start to run out by the end of the century or thereabouts and we shall start to move into deficit with respect to the oil account. If we follow what some of us believe to be the wrong path on coal imports we shall also be running into deficit on the coal account. Therefore, far from energy making a positive contribution to the balance of payments, it will begin to make a very important negative contribution. The noble Viscount was right to draw that to our attention. Again it is a matter to which we shall return.
We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for introducing the debate. The topic is important and has been well worth the time devoted to it. We look forward to the answers to our questions from the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, My theme is that
746
these are also matters for action and in our opinion the Government have a more active role to play in supporting research, in helping to improve the environment and in preparing for the future. If the Government—and for that matter the rest of us—do not make the right choices in energy it will not only be us who suffer but future generations.
6.28 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate and I start by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in it. I shall ensure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy is fully informed of the feelings and views expressed in your Lordships' House.
It is less than a year ago that the House discussed similar topics in great depth during a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. Although there may not have been great changes in energy policy or improvements in knowledge in the intervening months, nevertheless I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Beloff for introducing today's debate which has been wide ranging and to which your Lordships have made many interesting and thoughtful contributions.
Apart from the interest that it has generated, the debate gives me the opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Weir on an excellent maiden speech. He brought to the debate a wealth of expertise and experience and we look forward to hearing from him on many occasions in the future. I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, on her major maiden speech as the official Opposition spokeswoman on energy. I noted that she had not forgotten to bring her expertise on environmental issues along with her—presumably in her handbag.
My noble friend Lord Beloff introduced the debate in his usual inimitable style. He covered the subject so comprehensively that I wondered whether there would be much left for your Lordships who were to follow him. However, there is such a wealth of knowledge and expertise on energy issues in your Lordhips' House that I need not have worried.
My noble friend Lord Beloff said that this was not an occasion for discussing the recent White Paper on privatisation of the electricity supply industry. Your Lordships were good enough to translate that into an instant convention. Perhaps I could remind your Lordships that when I repeated my right honourable friend's Statement in your Lordships' House a fortnight ago I mentioned, as a matter of courtesy, the fact that there was to be this debate today. However, I also said—and I repeat it emphatically now—that as it now appears certain that your Lordships will wish to have a full debate on the White Paper, this will of course be arranged through the usual channels.
This has been such a wide-ranging and knowledgeable debate that I doubt whether I shall be able to cover all the points raised and questions asked. If, as I suspect, I am not able to do so, I shall of course write to your Lordships where necessary. However, I will do my best.
My noble friend Lord Beloff was right to point to the changes that can occur in energy prices and to the

747
impossibility of forecasting the future of the energy market. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also drew attention to that. It is precisely for this reason that the Government recognise the need for diversity in energy supply, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, and to make full use of oil, coal, gas, nuclear energy, the renewables and so on. However, we have seen in the past the mistakes following from government trying to plan our energy economy. We aim to free the market and to allow producers and consumers to make their own judgments and decisions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, quoted from Hansard our last debate in July to indicate my view that the Government did not believe in an energy strategy. The noble Baroness hoped that I might have changed my view. My noble friend Lord Torrington gave the noble Baroness the short and the precise answer to that. There is only one certainty when it comes to planning for uncertain energy futures; that is, you are bound to be wrong. Trying to plan for energy supplies simply ignores the fact that one cannot determine decisions by consumers and one cannot decide what will happen in the world energy markets.
My noble friend Lord Beloff compared the fear today of possible dangers from nuclear power with the fear of witchcraft in the Middle Ages. I can confirm to my noble friend that nearly 90 per cent. of radiation to which the population of the United Kingdom is exposed comes from natural sources. Of the rest, almost all comes from medical diagnosis and treatment. The United Kingdom nuclear industry contributes much less than 1 per cent. of the total average exposure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked what research and development is in progress on combined heat and power. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, also mentioned this point. The short answer is that 18 research and development and demonstration projects worth £5·6 million are currently supported to the tune of £1·2 million from Department of Energy funds. The noble Baroness also mentioned the importance of energy efficiency and I welcome her remarks. Energy efficiency is in everyone's interests—producers and consumers alike—and there remains a great deal of scope within our economy for industrial, commercial and domestic users to make economic energy efficiency investments. The Government have played a leading role in establishing awareness of the case for energy efficiency and this has been done successfully, leading to gross annual savings of some £700 million.
The noble Baroness, my noble friend Lord Weir and others referred to the over-riding need to protect the environment. Both sides of the House recognise the need for the protection of the environment. The Government are firmly committed to this aim and the energy industries have an excellent record on the environment which we want to see maintained. Very high standards currently exist to ensure the protection of the environment with respect to both conventional and nuclear power stations.
The United Kingdom has an excellent record in controlling acid emissions. Annual total sulphur
748
dioxide emissions have been reduced by 42 per cent. since 1970. Emissions of nitrogen oxides have remained broadly stable over the same period, while in many countries they are still rising. The CEGB's programme for the installation of emission controls at certain existing and all new coal-fired power stations will further reduce both sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. In addition, radioactive discharges from nuclear power stations have been and will be maintained at extremely low levels—well within the limits set by the environment departments.
I wish now to speak about oil. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, expressed concern about the United Kingdom Continental Shelf fiscal regime and its possible adverse impact on offshore activity. The fiscal regime is, of course, a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I should point out that the United Kingdom has a good record of flexibility in adjusting the tax rules to reflect changed circumstances, and this is recognised by the industry worldwide. Offshore activity dropped in 1986 following the sudden fall in the oil price but over the last year it has picked up substantially.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale gave your Lordships much information about renewable forms of energy generation. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, hoped that the Government would give a fair wind to wind and tidal power. Both wind and tidal power are considered to be the most promising renewable technologies for electricity generation. Government funding of a major research and development programme is aimed at developing cost effective and environmentally acceptable technologies for both wind and tidal power and a wide range of other promising technologies.
Research and development is an essential ingredient in ensuring the continued growth and expansion of the UK economy. No government have done more to support research, particularly on the alternative or renewable sources of energy. The Government are supporting a comprehensive research and development programme aimed at exploiting the significant renewable energy resources in the United Kingdom. Over £121 million has been invested by my department since the inception of the programme and strong support will continue to be provided to ensure that their full commercial potential is realised. The level of expenditure is carefully related to the needs of the technologies. Over the next three years we expect to be spending £50 million on work in this area. United Kingdom industry and the generating boards are playing an active part in the programme, which I very much welcome.
I should reply in a little more detail to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. As regards tidal power, the United Kingdom has access to a substantial tidal resource and a number of sites have potential for tidal power. The Severn estuary is one of the best potential sites in the world due to its exceptionally high tidal range. The Government and the Severn Tidal Power Group have jointly funded a study of the economic viability of a private sector tidal barrage in the estuary.

749
Support has also been given to a preliminary evaluation of a smaller but nonetheless potentially attractive scheme for a Mersey barrage. The department is contributing to further studies to reduce uncertainties over the Severn and Mersey estuaries as part of a £7.7 million tidal research and development programme, started in July 1986. I could go into more detail but perhaps I should say that the environmental aspect is being considered very carefully.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale asked whether a formula in a Binnie and Partners report on the potential for tidal energy from small estuaries in the United Kingdom was correct. As my noble friend said that he did not expect an answer from me today, I will of course write to him.
As regards wind, the Government's policy is to support the development of wind energy so long as it continues to look promising and until the technology has improved to the point where its cost effectiveness in UK conditions can be demonstrated, which is unlikely to be before the mid to late 1990s, following which it will be expected to compete with other energy sources without further financial support. The programme is being undertaken in close collaboration with the wind turbine manufacturers and the ESI with whom its funding is being shared.
My noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Lauderdale both referred to geothermal hot dry rocks. The Government's geothermal hot dry rock research and development programme is working on the very frontiers of science and the Camborne School of Mines research team is to be congratulated on the advances it has made over the past three years. It was only last week that we announced a further £8 million programme of work in this area aimed at developing the technology further to a stage where a full-scale prototype HDR system can be considered.
My noble friend Lord Ironside expressed concern about the future of research and development in a privatised electricity industry. The industry will continue to need to undertake and to buy in R&D. It will be for the industry to decide how to run this aspect of its business, but I agree with my noble friend that it is vitally important.
It may well be that the two new generating companies and other parts of the privatised industry will wish to collaborate on research and development, and there is no reason why they should not do so. Outside research and development contractors will be free to compete for the industry's business. I am sure that the privatised electricity supply industry will continue to value the expertise of outside research bodies. We shall be discussing in detail with the industry over the coming months how the privatised industry can best continue its research and development. Of course, we shall be debating the subject in due course. As regards the future of AEA and BNFL work, privatisation will make no difference.
I come now to coal. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, the noble Lord, Lord Mason, in his usual forceful style, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, all expressed views about the future of the coal industry. Coal will
750
continue to be the major source of fuel for electricity generation well into the next century. I am confident that British Coal can rise to this challenge if it can produce coal competitively and reliably. However, it would be imprudent to rely on a single source of fuel or a narrow group of fuels.
As I have said, we need diversity in our energy supplies to contribute to the security which noble Lords have rightly emphasised. Therefore on privatisation we shall place an obligation on the distribution companies to take a specified minimum proportion of capacity from non-fossil fuel sources. This will be set at a level achievable on privatisation. The companies will be able to contract for nuclear capacity, though renewables such as tidal and wind will have an important part to play. The obligation is aimed at encouraging diversity and security rather than in protecting a particular fuel. It will ensure that the industry takes full account of the broad national interest. I am sure that it would anyway. It is right for the Government to state clearly our strategic priorities.
Her Majesty's Government believe that coal can play a vital role in meeting the long-term energy needs of the nation. The Government have demonstrated by the high levels of investment in the industry (over £2 million every working day) that they are committed to the future of the coal industry.
As regards industrial relations, challenges facing the coal industry over the next few years will need the co-operation of all the workforce and of the mining communities. I do not wish to go into the details of the NUM dispute at this stage.
Regarding investment, the BCC is investing over £2 million every working day; and almost £6 million have been invested in the coal industry since 1979. That alone demonstrates our commitment to the industry and our confidence in its future potential.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and I believe also the noble Lord, Lord Mason, raised the question of opencast coal. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to the fact that more than 50 per cent. of the coal mined in Scotland is opencast. I agree completely that opencast coal is an important low-cost energy resource that should be exploited. It is a vital national asset against imports and we wish to see the sector develop. It is just as important to the coal industry as deep-mined coal.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, also mentioned the subject of the current negotiations between the SSEB and the BCC. There again, all I can say today is that I hope the South of Scotland Electricity Board and British Coal will now resume commercial negotiations with a view to agreeing mutually satisfactory arrangements for coal supplies. Those are commercial matters for the two industries.
My noble friend Lord Weir spoke of his concern for the future of equipment manufacturers under privatisation. My comment upon that is that privatisation will not only provide a challenge for equipment manufacturers; but most importantly, I am sure that it will bring many new opportunities. My noble friend Lord Renwick asked what research the Government are undertaking in hydrogen. As part of our renewables programme, we have carried

751
out a vigorous assessment of all those technologies which offer the promise of making a useful contribution to the energy supply of the United Kingdom. This has included a review of the potential of hydrogen. The review concluded that in the United Kingdom hydrogen is a long-term prospect as an element of energy supply. This remains our view, and we are continuing to maintain a watching brief on activities elsewhere in the world. I shall ensure that a copy of the review is placed in the Library of the House.
My noble friend also asked me about the expenditure on renewables compared to nuclear R&D, and whether it was a fair balance. There is no reason why the expenditure on the renewables R&D should bear a proportional relationship to expenditure on nuclear R&D. Both programmes are regularly reviewed by the Secretary of State for Energy, the Advisory Council for Research and Development and the department's Renewable Energy Advisory Committee. Both committees consider that the size of the present renewables programme is about right. It is an expanding programme with a planned increase of £2 million in 1987–88, which represents an increase of about 15 per cent.
My noble friend also asked about emissions from power stations which I have dealt with to a certain extent. I add to that by saying that we are committed to ensuring that all fossil-fuelled plant is subject to proper emission controls. This will be the case whether the stations are in the public or the private sector. In addition, 6,000 megawatts of existing generation capacity will be retro-fitted over the next decade.
My noble friend Lord Torrington asked about private generation and the problems that might arise. The 1983 Energy Act (to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred) has to some extent encouraged private generation. There are now twice as many private generators supplying the grid as there were in 1983. The CEGB has enjoyed an effective monopoly of generation. Our privatisation proposals will introduce competition into generation and allow all generators to have equitable access to the grid. Privatisation will therefore encourage small private generators in a very real way.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount if he can say whether meanwhile—as it seems to have been hinted in the White Paper—there could be some modification to the 1983 Act?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I took note of the point raised by the noble Lord on that matter, and I had better write to him about it.
The question of rating was also raised by my noble friend Lord Renwick. I agree that private generators should be rated on an equal basis. The Department of the Environment is currently undertaking a major review of the rating system including the statutory formula by which the ESI is assessed. This will be completed in 1990 and it is hoped that equal rating for private generators will then come into effect.
752
My noble friend Lord Torrington also asked about the status of the EC gas directives, and whether they would continue in force. I understand that within the Community we are discussing the removal of the directive which places an obstacle on the operation of the market. Agreement has not yet been reached. I shall be glad to check the position and write to my noble friend if there is anything I can add.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, called the six principles set out in the White Paper a pious hope. As I have already said, we shall soon have the opportunity to debate the White Paper in full. In response to the noble Viscount, I say that the principles of our privatisation proposals are very much intended to bring real benefit to the electricity consumer by ensuring that downward pressure is put on cost through competition, and that future decisions about electricity supply are taken with the interests of the consumer in mind rather than being driven by the views of a monopoly producer.
The noble Viscount also asked about the national grid and made some technical points about its operation. I hope he will forgive me if I am unable to respond immediately to them. I assure the noble Viscount that I shall look at the Official Report, and that I shall write to him and give him any information that he might find helpful.
Perhaps I may conclude by emphasising two themes. No doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will be quoting part of what I say at some future date. First, energy markets work best when governments get out of the way and allow private enterprise to move in. Secondly, governments, nonetheless, have a strategic role. They have to take a long-term view to ensure continuous security of supply. We want customers to be free to choose the type of energy they want knowing that there are thriving industries able to provide it on competitive terms. We are not in the business of producing state-directed plans laying down how much of each energy should be supplied, by whom, when and on what terms. Whenever and wherever that planned approach has been tried it has been proved to fail. There is surely a moral in the fact that those countries in Europe with the most severe energy problems are those with the most heavily-planned energy policies. I am referring to the countries of the Eastern bloc. It does not follow from that that we do not have a plan or a strategy. We do. For a start, we are committed to enlarging the role of the private sector in the production and distribution of energy. We believe that private enterprise operates more efficiently than state-owned industries. Privatisation can also allow competition to move in on monopoly, and that is good for costs. What is good for costs, is also good for prices.
We have already made substantial progress. When we took office in 1979 only 41 per cent. of energy in the United Kingdom was privately produced. The figure is now 73 per cent. I must not anticipate the debate, but following the privatisation of electricity it should increase to 87 per cent. We also believe that free markets offer the most reliable way of ensuring secure energy supplies at stable prices. The market may not be a perfect system but it is the best there is.

753
The fact is that government retain duties within a free market economy. As I have already stated, in energy one of them is security of supply. It is our view that diversity is the key to this. Britain is very fortunate in its energy. Nature was generous with fossil fuels. We have rich reserves of coal, oil and gas, and expectations of their extent are rising. We are self-sufficient, and we are determined to follow policies that put all our resources to good use. However, by the end of the next century the world's known finite energy resources will run out. So it would be an act of complete selfishness and recklessness if we did not now provide for other forms of energy to take their place. That is why we must diversify now out of fossil fuels. Future generations would not forgive us if we failed them.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, after a most interesting debate I am sure that your Lordships would not wish to stand further in the way of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in his efforts to bring peace to the Middle East. I shall not endeavour to go over any of the ground that has been covered except to say that, even so, a great deal has not been covered. In regard to energy resources no one has mentioned biologically produced energy. There is, for example, methane from waste, which may become, and in some countries is already, an important energy source. Perhaps most surprising of all no one has mentioned the experiment on nuclear fusion, which has been going on at great expense, only partly covered by this country, at Culham in Oxfordshire. The fact that we could spend the afternoon on energy and not discuss something which if it happened would revolutionise all our thinking on the subject shows what there still would be if we had a further debate.
However, my original purpose in getting your Lordships to contribute to my education has been thoroughly fulfilled. I should like to thank all noble Lords, and in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, for choosing this occasion to make his maiden speech. Having dipped his toe into the water, I hope that he has not found it too cold to come back sometime. With that, and with thanks to the Minister for his attention to all of us, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Palestine Conflict
6.53 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will promote an international conference on the conflict in Palestine.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ask this Unstarred Question in no spirit of criticism of the Government. Indeed, except in one respect, they deserve credit for their current policies on Palestine. Ministers are assiduously canvassing for an international conference and for the other three essential elements of a peaceful settlement—namely, security for Israel, self-determination for the Palestinians in the occupied territories and the participation of the PLO in the peace negotiations.
754
Moreover, Mr. David Mellor and other Ministers have expressed publicly, with evident sincerity, their repugnance to the methods used by the Israelis in the occupied territories. On all these points the Government are at one with the other governments of the European Community, with virtually all the members of the United Nations and, I believe, with the opposition parties in this country. I suspect that there is more common ground today between the parties on Palestine than ever before, and that is most welcome.
What is difficult to defend is the Government's ambivalent attitude towards the PLO. On the one hand, Ministers correctly assert its right to participate in peace negotiations and they rightly deny that it can be described as a terrorist organisation. On the other hand, Ministers continue to refuse to talk to the PLO unless and until it unilaterally recognises Israel and unilaterally renounces violence. If Israel and the Palestinians both recognised each other and jointly renounced violence, that would be a huge step forward. However, that is not the Government's position. They are insisting on conditions from the PLO, conditions on which they are not insisting in the case of Israel.
However terrorism is defined, a head count of the victims shows that the four men with the worst terrorist records in the Middle East are Gaddafi, Abu Nidal, Begin and Shamir. All terrorist acts are to be utterly condemned, whoever perpetrates them. This includes, if the reports are true, which they may not be, this week's outrage in the Negev. But compared with these four men Arafat and the PLO are not in the same league. If Ministers are ready, as they have been, to receive Mr. Shamir at No. 10, they ought to be ready to talk to the PLO in the interests of reaching a settlement. The PLO is an essential element in the search for a settlement and by refusing to talk to it Ministers are weakening the contribution that they can make to peace.
The same is true of Mr. Shultz. We must hope that, despite his ostracism of the PLO, his initiative will have positive results. However, the prospects seem very unpromising. Israel rejects the idea of an international conference, rejects the idea of any withdrawal from the occupied territories and rejects any contact with the PLO. Nor are there any signs at present that the United States is ready to require Israel to compromise, as it could easily do. Therefore it is of the utmost importance for the British Government and the European Community to use all their influence with Israel and the United States to persuade them that failure to compromise at this time would end in disaster for Israel itself.
The Israelis put forward two objections to withdrawal from the occupied territories. The first, an objection put forward by only a minority, is that Judea and Samaria were promised by Jehovah to Abraham. It is possible to hold Judaism in the greatest respect without finding this a credible justification for Israeli rule in the occupied territories, especially if, as Palestinians are fond of arguing, conversions to and from Judaism over the centuries mean that today a Palestinian Arab is as likely as an Israeli settler to be descended from the Jews of

755
Biblical times. The more important objection, widely held in Israel, is that a Palestinian state would undermine Israel's security.
Let us consider the possible military threat to Israel from such a state. A glance at the map shows that the new state will be embraced on three sides by Israel, that its one airstrip will be within artillery range of the Israeli army, that its one small port in Gaza will be at the mercy of the Israeli navy and that its two mountainous roads linking it with Jordan could be destroyed in five minutes by the Israel air force. Even if this state was not demilitarised, as is very likely in a settlement, and even if there was no neutral zone between the two countries manned by an international peacekeeping force, which again is a likely outcome of a settlement, the new Palestinian state would be a military hostage rather than a military threat to the state of Israel.
The last time I was in Israel I established that the chiefs of staff have made no appreciation of the possible military threat of a Palestinian state to Israel. The reason is obvious: there is no such threat. However, the Israelis go on to argue that the new state might ally itself with Syria, Jordan or Egypt for an attack on Israel. But if the oppression of the Palestinians is ended, Arab support for an attack on Israel would be lessened and not increased. Equally, the Palestinians themselves, having shaken off Israeli rule and established their new state—which inevitably would be vulnerable to economic and military reprisals—would be less and not more inclined to start a war or to launch guerrilla or terrorist attacks on Israel.
No state can ever enjoy perfect security, least of all perhaps a specifically Jewish one implanted in the heart of the Arab world by force at the expense of the native inhabitants. However, if Israel were to change course and to come to an international conference to negotiate a settlement on the lines suggested, for example, by the European Community and the United Nations, she would stand a fair chance of achieving security and surviving in peace.
On the other hand, what are her chances of survival otherwise? Certainly Israel is still dominant militarily in the region. She still has an effective alliance with the United States. However, year by year the balance of power, financial, economic, diplomatic, demographic and even military, is slowly swinging against Israel.
Demography presents a particular threat to the survival of Israel. The great majority of Jewish people do not want to live in Israel. Many Israelis want to leave and are doing so in increasing numbers. The birth rates of Jews and Arabs in Palestine are different. If Israel does not change course there is a serious long-term threat of a new exodus which would undermine the viability of the state. In addition, there are increasing numbers of Jewish people inside and outside Israel who now publicly criticise the Israeli occupation, demanding that land should be traded for peace. They are showing the moral courage and the independence of mind, together with a hatred of oppression of all kinds, which the world rightly associates with Jewish people.
One thinks of the recent brave stand on principle of Labour's foreign affairs spokesman, Mr. Kaufman. Not the least achievement of all those people is to have convinced the Arabs that their adversary is not the Jewish people but the Israeli Government and their supporters; it is not Judaism but a debased form of Zionism. In the years ahead this could prove to have been a vital service to the Jewish people. I wish that more Jewish people would follow their example. Sadly there are many who speak out passionately and well against crimes committed by non-Jews against Jews but who when crimes are committed by Jews against non-Jews remain shamefully silent.
I think that all noble Lords recognise the limitations on British power in the region. As a member of the European Community we can play an important part in persuading Israel and the United States that withdrawal from the occupied territories is in Israel's own vital interests. Forty years ago Israel began, and has since continued, to try to establish itself in the Middle East by the ruthless use of military power and by attempts to repress the Palestinian and neighbouring people. At one time or another Israel has bombed Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, Tunis, Amman and Beirut. It has especially inflicted terrible suffering on the Lebanese people by invading and bombarding them and still in the south subjecting them to ruthless military intervention. That policy of expansion and repression has failed. Israel is now less respected and less secure than it was before. I urge that the Israeli Government now take the advice of their own Jewish critics, change course, trade land for peace and find security in the only way that it can be found—by giving justice and freedom to the Palestinian people.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has I think done us a good turn this evening by putting down this Unstarred Question at this critical and delicate time. I shall not dwell on events in Gaza and on the occupied West Bank, save to say that the Palestinian INTAFABA has alerted worldwide opinion to the urgent need to find a lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute. Strangely, Israel's operation which they call "Peace in Galilee"—which achieved none of its objects—did not have the same effect in spite of the awful casualties (at least 15,000 people were killed) which resulted from it. I shall not dwell on that aspect, either.
I want to look forward and not back to the Balfour declaration, Suez, the 1967 war, and the partition of Palestine, because all those, and other things, are water under the Allenby bridge. Since 1945 I have consistently expressed my views that Palestinian rights were being endangered and might be extinguished. That opinion has led to my receiving a good deal of abuse, both verbal and written; it has been very unpleasant—but perhaps my skin is too thin. The question that I have asked myself consistently is this: where do British interests lie and how can one be even-handed between Jews and Arab? I should like to strike a personal note here. My Jewish mother, the daughter of Henry Simon

757
(well known in Manchester) often gave me excellent and balanced advice, as, indeed, did my uncle Ernest who was well known to many of your Lordships as Lord Simon of Wythenshawe. We frequently discussed those issues from the time when I first went to Palestine as a young soldier in 1938. The essence of their advice—and of many other Jewish friends of mine—was that peace in Palestine could never be achieved by force or repression. I believe that that assertion is as true now as it was then.
I think that Eretz Israel and Palestinian rights are incompatible, and I am sorry to have to say that. However, I sincerely believe that Israelis, within their 1967 armistice lines—because that is what they are—with their age-long experience of democracy world wide, could thrive and prosper beside a reborn Palestine. Despite what is happening today in Gaza, and in the occupied territories, the Palestinians and the Israelis now have the opportunity, if they will seize it, to practise:
"the art of living together in harmony".
Those words were used in the dramatic maiden speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits —although in another context (col. 377 of Hansard for 4th March). I refuse to believe that Israeli security and Palestinian self-determination are mutually exclusive. That is how they were described to me by a very distinguished and senior representative of the Israeli Government the week before last. I refuse to believe it.
Therefore, where do we go from here? The European Community, with Britain in the lead, pointed the way in 1980 through the Venice Declaration. I thought the principles that were then laid down could not be criticised, and were entirely right. Unhappily, the follow-up to the declaration has been feeble, leaving aside only the Prime Minister's own brave initiative when she went to Amman, which, unfortunately, came to nothing. It did, however, prove certain points.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, spoke of the importance of the European Community playing a leading roll in finding a solution to the problem. I should like to see them playing a much more forceful role. I should also like to see this country in the lead because of our unrivalled experience in those parts of the world, in spite of all the mistakes that we have made. The United Nations created the problem that we are discussing this evening when Palestine was partitioned. I say that not because Palestine was partitioned, but because the partition was ill-thought out and unpoliced; it therefore led to the disaster that we now see. Why cannot the Security Council make a supreme effort to find the path to peace now? I am sure it exists. Is it not possible that the United Nations might take on the trusteeship of the West Bank and Gaza? That is a very difficult undertaking; but do not let us forget that UNWRA are on the spot and already have trusteeship for all the Palestinian refugees. Do not let us forget, either, the great success the UN have had in Cyprus since 1964, on the Golan Heights since 1974, and in Sinai after Israel's withdrawal. Admittedly, their efforts in South Lebanon have been a total failure; but the reasons for that are clearly understood and they lie at Israel's door.
758
Is it not possible that during the coming months and years work can be done in great detail on a blueprint for demilitarisation and policing after Israel's withdrawal behind the 1967 armistice lines so that Israel's genuine fears—and I accept that they are genuine—can be stilled? Is there any hope in trying to find an Austrian solution, as I call it, by which I mean writing into the Palestinian constitution non-alignment and a ceiling on forces? Had that not been done with Austria, the Soviet Union would still be occupied in the Soviet zone. Is that a possibility?
Lastly, I should like to turn to a few points in fairly quick succession and in telegraphese on some of the things which concern me and on some of the phraseology which has been used. We talk about autonomy. The autonomy of a state means the right of self-government, according to the dictionary. It can occasionally be qualified by political, local or administrative considerations. But the United States' policy, as expounded by Mr. Schulz, will go no further, according to The Economist—I think this is an accurate summary—than "semi-autonomous" Palestine in federation with Jordan. How can one have a semi-autonomous country in federation with another country? I do not begin to understand that. I say this without disrespect, but that sounds to me like some sort of gobbledegook.
On the subject of self-determination, surely the Palestinians have as much right to seek to regain their statehood as had, for example, the Polish Home Army during the war under General Bor-Komorovski or, for instance, as have now the Mujahadin in Afghanistan. I do not think that can be denied.
Having mentioned the PLO, I wish to make some criticisms of them. They always go for all or nothing. That is a dead end. They can only achieve their rights step by step. All too often the PLO trump their own aces. In spite of that, I do not believe that it is possible to short circuit the PLO. Too many efforts have been made to try to do just that.
On the same subject, I wish to see the Palestine National Council, and therefore the PLO, change the charter which denies Israel's right to exist by promising to strike out any such references to Israel immediately Israel recognises their right to self-determination. We are entitled to ask for that.
Turning to terrorism, is it not as wrong to label the whole PLO as terrorists, as has been done fairly often (the noble Lord, Lord Paget, is guilty of that, and may have some riposte to make), as it would have been to label the Haganah or even the Jewish Agency as terrorists because of the shocking things done by Irgun, Lehi and the Stern group? I say that bearing in mind the equally shocking things done by Abu Nidal and other minority groups which come roughly under the umbrella of the PLO, though I think their activities have never been condoned by Arafat.
Yet under this heading the PLO are asked to renounce terrorism and the Israeli Government are not. At the same time the PLO are asked to recognise the 1967 armistice lines before they can attend a conference, but Israel is not so asked. The PLO are asked to recognise Resolution 242, which incidentally Yasser Arafat did quite recently and I have the date

759
here. He has done so on several occasions. Why is there undue emphasis on that resolution which regards the Palestinians as refugees and which was specifically drafted, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, immediately after the 1967 war came to an end, requiring Israel's withdrawal? It had nothing to do with Palestinian rights and was not intended to have anything to do with them. None of this seems to me to be even-handed, which I suggested was the first important principle.
To conclude, I mention two glimpses of the obvious. First, the status quo is not sustainable. That has been said on both sides of the Atlantic and by many people whose opinions we must value. Secondly, the parties—as they are so frequently called from my own Front Bench—will not solve this problem on their own. I am certain that there is no chance of that at all. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said that time is running out for Israel, and I agree with him. Their survival depends on their coming to terms with their Arab neighbours and coming to terms with themselves.
I should like to see a United Nations trusteeship of the West Bank and Gaza which would give a desperately needed breathing space of several years during which a series of conferences could be held and many working parties could get down to work to try to find the way to a comprehensive peace settlement under strict UN supervision. I fervently pray that that will happen.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, during one of the recent demonstrations in Jerusalem a mullah was heard to shout through a loud-hailer from the steps of a mosque, "The Ayatollah demands a martyr a day". That remark is very revealing about the present troubles in Israel—not a series of spontaneous riots but a carefully organised and carefully sustained uprising, as three weeks ago President Reagan said was the case, based on information the Americans had from intelligence sources.
The uprising is organised from Moslem fundamentalist sources outside Israel, the same sources which hold most of the hostages and which are trying constantly to destabilise the moderate Arab governments in the Middle East. Is it not significant that in all this trouble criticism of Israel from the surrounding Arab countries has been extremely muted?
The uprising has been nurtured by the world's press and the media. The spectacular and sickening daily stone throwing, the throwing of Molotov Cocktails, the wielding of knives and guns, have been as manna from heaven for the 800 representatives of the world's press who are now in Israel. I am told there are more there than in any other country in the world. There are well authenticated examples of stone throwing actually being organised by the media to enable the cameras to get their pictures.
The uprising has presented young Israeli soldiers—they are not professional but 18-year-old conscripts—with a situation that they were never trained to handle, any more than our young soldiers
760
were trained to handle the situation into which they were put in Northern Ireland 20 years ago. The functions of the soldier and the policeman are quite different. Of course there have been excesses—terrible excesses—which we and everyone in Israel very much regret.
The International Federation of Human Rights in Paris recently carried out an investigation and published its report last week. Perhaps I may quote from the report:
"The Israel Defence Forces, responsible for maintaining order in the territories, did carry out acts of punishment, but those were departures from, and not part of, deliberate policy".
It continued:
"The members of the delegation confirm that they did not find evidence of the use of dum dum bullets by the Israel Defence Forces, in contrast to the charges voiced by the British Labour leader, Neil Kinnock".
When a kindly English lady visits Israel she is whisked off immediately to hospital to see tragic young Arabs who have been wounded. She would be less than human if she did not shed a tear and less than human if she did not see her own son in those boys there. But we are entitled to ask what they were doing when they got themselves wounded. They were throwing bricks through the windscreens of Israeli army jeeps; they were throwing Molotov cocktails; or they were wielding knives or guns. That is how they got wounded. Then perhaps the kindly English lady should go to the other hospital and see the 300 young Israeli soldiers who have been wounded, who are lying there and who also look like her son.
The image that the world press has fostered in recent weeks of savage, inhuman, ferocious Israelis against peace-loving, gentle Arabs is as far from reality as it could possibly be. Quite apart from the hundreds of acts of terrorism—the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, knows that there are hundreds of examples—by the PLO in Israel and abroad which, for example, in 1985 alone, caused 124 deaths, there are most appalling examples of the way in which Arab countries have dealt with dissent and riots in their territories. Let me quote one or two. A few years ago in the town of Hama there was a riot. The town was circled by the Syrians, who levelled it with artillery fire and killed 20,000 people. In 1980 the Syrians killed 5,000 people in the El Zatar refugee camp in Lebanon. In 1987 the Amal militia laid seige to Bourj-al-Barajneh and killed hundreds of people by bombardment and starvation. At the university of Yarmouk in Jordan, the Jordanian authorities killed eight students in putting down a minor riot. I could quote many other examples of the way in which the Arab countries deal with dissent in their territories. Of course, none of these was reported at any length in the world press. The press was not there; the cameras were not there.
Between the Atlantic coast of Morocco and the borders of India there is one democracy, the state of Israel—one country alone where the press is allowed to come and go as it pleases and photograph and report whatever it likes. But does Israel get any credit for this? Of course not. All that happens is that its democratic freedom is abused.
In the grossly distorted image being projected in the world today, there is, I believe, a clearly

761
discernible strand of anti-semitism. Anti-semitism in my opinion is the biggest blot there has ever been on Western civilisation. After centuries of persecution culminating in the holocaust, the Jewish people must have the added dimension of a secure homeland. I believe that the West must ensure that security.
Britain, of all the nations in the West, surely has a major responsibility for this commitment. We were responsible for the Balfour declaration. We were the mandatory power after the war. We were the people who walked out on the mandate and left Jews and Arabs to fight it out. The present impasse is the result of 40 years of Arab rejection of two nations, a concept that Israel has been prepared to accept ever since it was proposed by the United Nations in 1949.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, talked about land for peace. He forgets that Israel has offered land for peace. In 1956, in 1967 and in 1978 it traded land for peace with the Egyptians and concluded a peaceful settlement with them. The PLO, on the other hand, has consistently reaffirmed its position as "no peace, no negotiation, no recognition".
Displaced persons are always one of the saddest and most tragic consequences of war. In Europe after World War Two there were millions of displaced Poles, Germans, Czechs and others. Mercifully they are now all resettled. When we walked out on the mandate there was a vast number—approaching a million—of displaced Palestinians. The Arab states then set about creating another million displaced persons by expelling all Jews from their territory. The number of Jews displaced by the Arab countries was certainly as great as the number of Palestinians displaced after the war of liberation. All those Jews displaced from the Arab countries were quickly absorbed and resettled by Israel in spite of its limited resources and limited territory. The Arabs with their vast territory—one sees from a map of the Middle East that Saudi Arabia is as big as most of Europe —and their vast resources from oil could have settled the Palestinians refugees quite easily. But they choose not to do so.
The United Nations offered resettlement. Its offer was spurned. Since 1971 the United Nations, with Britain acquiescing, passed the most astonishing resolution. It has passed a resolution 17 times calling upon Israel to desist from rehousing the refugees and to leave them in squalor in the camps. The last time was 30th October last year. Britain voted for the resolution. It now includes the West Bank as well as Gaza.
Appalling though the squalor of the camp is, anyone who knows Cairo will be aware that it is not as bad as the slums of Cairo. That does not make it any better; but let us keep it in perspective. It is not as bad as a thousand Arab villages across the Arab world. In spite of the United Nations resolution, however, Israel, from its limited resources, has rehoused 10,000 refugees in nine separate residential projects. Of those 10,000, 70 per cent. were given land and allowed to have houses built according to their own preferences.
In addition, Israel has built an infrastructure in the area of the camps. It has started many new industries—carpet making, furniture making, floor
762
tile making and so on. It has created many new facilities and services, including universities, public buildings, mosques and clinics.
To hear the press accounts, one would think that Gaza was a slum from end to end. I wonder whether your Lordships are aware that some of the most opulent housing in the whole of the Mediterranean is in Gaza, some of it occupied by rich Saudis who are only too glad to live in the state of Israel. But a completely distorted view is given of Gaza. Why do not the media give a complete picture of the situation instead of this simplistic picture of goodies versus baddies, of Arabs versus Israelis? Their failure to do so simply hardens the intransigence on both sides and does not help to find a solution one little bit.
There is one point I want to make quite firmly because we must bear it in mind. Israel must restore order no matter what the cost—the tragic, unfortunate cost in loss of world esteem and goodwill. Bearing in mind the overthrow of the Shah's regime in Iran, which none of us thought was possible before it happened, by a mob inspired by religious fanaticism, Israel cannot allow the situation to get out of hand because Israel is unique in the world. It can never afford to lose. Israel is a one-chance country and it cannot afford to be beaten.
I do not often praise Her Majesty's present Government. Leaving aside the aberration of Mr. Mellor, I want to applaud them for the efforts they are making to get agreement on a Middle East conference. I know from a number of sources that they are making real efforts to get a conference under the auspices of the five members of the Security Council. But the Prime Minister knows, as we all know, that the major impediment to holding such a conference is Mr. Shamir.
I should like to ask that Mrs. Thatcher use her considerable influence to try to persuade her fellow Conservative prime ministers to show a bit of flexibility about this conference. I am sure she is doing that. I do not say this at all critically because I have applauded all that she is doing to try to get a conference. I also applaud Mr. Shultz for his efforts. His modest plan probably represents the maximum common ground among the maximum number of participants in the region. It certainly holds out the prospect of a short-term, even a medium-term solution, which, if the will is there, could lead to a long-term solution. I sincerely hope that it will do so.
7.33 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for his very revealing speech, with which I entirely sympathise. As your Lordships may know, I have spoken four or five times on this subject in the past four or five years; the last occasion was in a debate which I myself initiated in April last year. Noble Lords also know that I am sympathetic to the Arab cause, although of course not in any way opposed to the Jews themselves.
I shall not dwell on the press reports, the broadcasts and the television reports which we have had about the horrors in the part of the world we are talking about. They must be familiar to many noble

763
Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, who has just spoken, referred particularly to Gaza. I see the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, looking towards me: he knows a good deal about this subject also. I would only ask him to refer to the speech that I made in April 1987 about conditions in the Gaza Strip which have been described by many people. There are such horrible things as the deprivation of water rights for the Arabs in that area, torture and so on, with conditions in the hospitals which have been accurately described as quite appalling.
I do not want to go into the details of the horrors and persecutions, the tortures, stonings and so on because I think that is quite pointless. But there is growing evidence that the Israelis themselves are turning against their own regime. I can quote two examples of this from the Israeli Mirror. That is a paper which is produced in Israel and it is strongly critical of the Israeli Government. One of these reports describes an ex-brigadier calling on his soldiers to refuse army service. Another one which I think even more revealing is by an Israeli army doctor who said: "I never imagined Jews could do this". This is the story, it is quite brief:
"I am of European origin and I know what my parents suffered. Not even in my worst nightmares did I ever imagine that we, the Jews, would do to another people what the Germans did to us."
I think that is a most revealing statement.
"We may not be building gas chambers and we have no organised extermination structure, but we are not very far from that. All those beatings and humiliations. They were sent to me"—
these are the patients—
"wet and covered in mud and marks of beatings, blindfolded and with their hands tied. I saw signs of blows on their hands, legs, backs and sometimes heads. The soldiers have learned to administer dry beatings, that hurt a lot and leave marks, but do not cause damage…I saw two cases of swollen testicles but could not tell whether they were caused by blows or illness."
I emphasise again that that is by an Israeli doctor.
Secondly I want to deal with the PLO, which has been referred to by most speakers so far. I remind your Lordships that, as has already been said, the PLO is by no means a wholly terrorist organisation, though I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Paget, will challenge me on this. Although the point was made previously I feel that I must make it again that the largest of these groups, Al-Fatah, is a most moderate group and that the PLO's own representative in London, Mr. Faisal Awaidha, has been consistently moderate and helpful in every way. We know of course that one of the most extreme terrorist groups is Abu Nidal, which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. But I must emphasise that it is not typical of the group as a whole.
I should like to call to the notice of noble Lords something which has not been mentioned before and which I think is particularly important. That is Arafat's own peace plan. This peace plan was presented in Tunis at an international press conference two or three months ago. In this declaration, Arafat lists four stages. Stage one: transfer to the United Nations for a period of six months of the rule in the occupied territories; UN forces to be stationed on the Palestinian side of the border for an unlimited period, as long as the Israeli government wishes. Stage two: general elections to be
764
held in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Stage three: an international peace conference to be held, attended by all sides including the Israeli government and the PLO, the PLO taking part in an independent capacity. Stage four: the establishment of a Palestinian state, and also co-existence between the Palestinian state and the state of Israel for as long as the Israelis wish.
A great deal has been said on this very difficult and delicate issue over many years. I feel that there is nothing of any great substance that I can add. But I hope strongly that the Minister will continue to press Her Majesty's Government to do all they can to use their good offices to achieve this conference, which we all feel is of the utmost importance. I hope that the inclusion of the PLO will be one of the prime factors of the conference.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I find this a rather curious debate because of the degree of naivety with which a world which is unknown to the participants in the debate is being described. The situation is so utterly unlike that when one gets over there. This conflict is represented as a great national uprising of a people trying to get their own country back. Curiously enough Palestine is a country that has belonged to a great many people. The only people to whom it has never belonged at any point is this Levantine—Arab is a false name for it—population. That population has never been there except upon the basis of being in somebody else's country.
When we go back, we find that the Philistines lived there. They were Achaean Greeks who were driven south and to the sea by the Dorians. Then we find it was Egypt. Then the Jews came over. There was a period under David and Ahab when Israel established an empire that reached from the Nile to the Orontes. Then came Assyria and Babylon who divided Palestine between them. Then came Persia. Then came the Greeks of Alexander and again for a short period the Jews under the Maccabees. Then came the Romans, the Byzantines and the Franks of the Crusades. Saladin was the only Arab who ever ruled and he certainly was no relation to the present Levantines.
Finally there came the Turks and the British. But the British rule was the most interesting because it came after the First World War. Our mandate was to provide a national home for the Jews. We did not do very much about providing a national home for the Jews. The Jews provided themselves with a national home. Basically they bought it. To a very high degree Palestine was bought by the Jews in deals with the Arabs carried out at the Hotel Georges V in Beirut. There was a room kept for the purpose.
Then we come to the post-war period. This is where the participation of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, becomes so interesting. The question then was the desperate search for a home by the victims of the holocaust. They passionately wanted to get into Israel. That really was a case of people looking for a home.
We had Ernie Bevin in charge. He was a tremendous man but he was certainly not without

765
blemish. His dominant force was hatred. He hated the employers: he had to put them down. He hated the Germans. I shall never forget one occasion when I had to go and see him when I was working with Victor Gollancz in trying to get some food to the Germans in that awful winter when they were down to 700 calories.
Ernie Bevin said to me, "Tell your friends in Germany to go and look at the concentration camps. That is all that interests me." He was a very very formidable person. But to him the Jews were the sweatshop masters in the East End against whom he had organised. One could never persuade him that the people who were ruling Palestine were very different from that. If at that period Ernie Bevin was our Batman, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was his Boy Robin. He was there when these awful things occurred. Ernie decided that we would end the mandate and that we would withdraw our defences and the army and leave four Arab armies, including the famous Arab Legion under the command of Glubb Pasha, in the region free to invade. It was Ernie's intention that Israel should be destroyed and smashed. We know what sort of mercy it would have received then.
In those circumstances, when the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, tells us that all he is saying about the need to compromise and to help the PLO armed terrorists is for the good of Israel could there be any man from whom Israel would be less inclined to take advice?
Then we come to the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. I am sorry that he is not here for the moment. He came out with the to my mind quite terrifying suggestion that these areas where order must be kept should be handed over to the United Nations. Just look at the record of the United Nations here. There is the complaint of the damage that has been done. In 1971 the Israelis were building very substantially in Gaza at the rate of 12,000 yards of brickage a year. In that year and in every year since the United Nations has passed a resolution calling upon Israel to cease its housing efforts and to take effective steps immediately for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps from which they were removed. That is the body which it is suggested should act as trustee. The one thing that can be said about the United Nations is that if things are bad almost anywhere in the world one can rely upon the United Nations to make them worse.
The Arabs repeatedly condemn rehousing, apparently because they realise that reasonably contented people cannot be exploited for political ends. In the Gaza Strip the camps are administered by the United Nations, which is also responsible for the housing, the sewage system and other services there. We should not be sending for the very people who are responsible for what we are complaining about and putting them in charge. That is not a practical or a sensible idea.
The Arab nations have had all the facilities in the world to take in every one of the refugees. They had the money. They had the industry. They could have absorbed the whole lot of them. But they have kept them in Gaza and maintained them there as a
766
propaganda instrument. That is why they are there. They would not be there otherwise.
Now there is an Arab rising. Could anything be much more disgusting than to see how such a rising works? The fathers keep under pretty safe cover and the children are sent out to throw the stones. Anybody who comes along to the hospital is shown those wretched beaten children. What were they doing to get themselves beaten?
The important matter is order. I do not happen to agree with my noble friend in his call for a conference. I do not think that in such conditions a conference would be worth a damn. What we ought to do is to leave the job to the Israelis, who are the people who know the job, and we should get out of the way. But that job has to be done and order has to be restored. The system was working fairly well until a few months ago; now it has gone bad. But the job can be done if we get out of the way. The highly efficient Israeli army were not originally trained to deal with such matters. They are getting trained and we know that. The last thing we ought to do is to send people out to tell them how to do their job.
The Foreign Office sent out a minister who proceeded, in circumstances of violence, to dress down an Israeli army colonel who was in charge of the situation. Nothing can be more important than the prestige of an officer in charge; and to undermine the officer's prestige was wrong. If the colonel had told a sergeant to take the young man along, paste his bottom and send him away until he had learnt manners, he would have been entirely within his rights. I wish he had done that. It was disgraceful conduct.
The Israelis are highly able people and they can do the job if we will keep out of the way and not try to tell them that their real interest is to surrender a strip of land which runs the length of their country and another strip of land that pinches them to within 20 miles of the sea. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said that it was to Israel's strategic advantage. It is not to Israel's strategic advantage to place the whole of its country within artillery range from three directions at the same time.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, it was just a little over 50 years ago that the eminent Zionist leader, Dr. Weizmann, addressing a Royal Commission described the Jewish-Arab conflict as not so much one of right and wrong as of two rights and two wrongs. He added:
"And ours is much the smaller wrong".
A moderate and fair-minded Arab might well have made a similar remark, though I do not know whether any such remark is on the record.
The prerequisite of peacemaking is even-handedness and compassionate understanding. I respect the consistent and staunch endorsement of Arab causes by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. But I cannot help feeling that the fair-minded even-handedness which is so often present when he speaks on other issues was missing from his speech. Of course we all deplore transgressions and repressive

767
acts of violence on the West Bank and in Gaza. But anyone who claims first-hand experience of one party's excesses should pause to ponder on the foul deeds of the other.
Have those who are so forceful in their attack on the Israeli authorities that try to restore order and protect human life ever been in a casualty ward where wounded Israeli soldiers, maimed civilians or mauled innocent bystanders languish? Have they paused to reflect that Israel has since its very inception been pleading for the razing of refugee camps and the reintegration of refugees? Have they thought that the Israelis are in the West Bank and Gaza simply because 20 years before King Hussein joined Nasser in his high-risk venture to smash the Jewish state—the state which on the morrow of the Six Day War asked for negotiations, only to be met by the famous "three nos of Khartoum": no recognition, no negotiation, no peace?
Today we are debating the need for an international peace conference. It is an old notion of mixed parentage and varied motivation. Mr. Brezhnev was the first to advocate such a format to allow the Soviet Union to re-enter the Middle East arena. For a long time the Americans saw little point in it. Presidents Nixon and Ford stonewalled the idea. But when President Carter seemed to warm to it, a wary President Sadat, who had only recently ejected the Russians from Egypt, was prompted—one might almost say stung—into flying to Jerusalem for his bilateral initiative.
King Hussein favours a conference under the United Nations Security Council umbrella, for he cannot afford to replicate the sweeping magnanimity of the late leader of Egypt. The King of Jordan does not have the sort of claims to support in the West Bank and Gaza without ambiguity that would allow him to make far-reaching concessions. He needs an international cover.
Europeans have favoured a wider conference for complex reasons—a nod to the Arabs, a wink to the Soviets and a traditional penchant for diplomatic congresses with echoes of Vienna, Berlin, Versailles and Geneva. Now that America is a latecomer to the idea, Mr. George Shultz's timetable is one of neckbreaking speed. Israel is divided to the point of making it an issue for a probable rush election, with Vice Premier Shimon Peres for and Premier Shamir against. World public opinion is understandably on Mr. Peres's side.
But before we succumb to the rather fashionable bias against the Israeli Premier, let us consider some of the pitfalls of an international conference which might abort. In doing so I am not defending or indeed quoting Mr. Shamir. I am calling on another witness—the distinguished former United States Secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissinger. He can justly claim that his achievement, his technique and indeed his philosophy of negotiation in the Middle East changed belligerency into non-belligerency and disengagement, and ultimately led to the only peace treaty between Israel and an Arab neighbour—the Camp David Accord.
In a recent article in the Washington Post, Dr. Kissinger argues that peace comes piecemeal and not
768
necessarily through the fiat of an international conclave. Often step-by-step diplomacy and interim arrangements of a durable kind are preferable to contractual peace. He questions whether some of the procedural devices mooted by Mr. Shultz and Mr. Peres, and apparently condoned by King Hussein and President Mubarak, would stand up in the event; whether the Soviets, on the one hand, would be content with the role of fig leaf or umbrella and the Americans, on the other hand, would go through with their commitment to help the parties either to break through or break up but not to have a settlement imposed on them.
Above all Dr. Kissinger argues that if a conference is to come off the diplomatic groundwork before it opens has to be as thorough as possible. Indeed, unless the parties concerned sit down with a wide measure of tacit agreement the outcome is likely to be negative, which would have a demoralising effect. It would be far more destructive than if no conference had been summoned.
It cannot be stressed too strongly that it would be truly beneficial if Her Majesty's Government, either by themselves or in concert with their EC partners, were to play a prominent part in reassuring the parties that if a conference takes place it can succeed only if there is no whiff of a diktat from above and least of all a carefully stage-managed performance designed to put pressure on the Americans to put pressure on Israel. That country, after all, holds the disputed territories. That is one of the reasons why we should take trouble to appeal to both sides of the Israeli coalition.
Compassionate understanding of the Palestinian Arab case impies support for political self-expression, autonomy and possibly sovereignty. Compassionate understanding of Israel implies support for her need of iron-clad security, open borders, the breaking of the economic boycott and human ostracism. It also implies understanding of the broadest band of public opinion. After all, it was Mr. Begin who signed away the Sinai, including the Jewish settlements, in the grand tradition of General de Gaulle's withdrawal from Algeria.
I believe that a genuine will for peace on the part of her Arab neighbours would influence the broadest possible spectrum of Israeli opinion and allay the suspicions that the conference, as envisaged by some Russian and Arab spokesmen and possibly some European governments, might be a trap, a straitjacket or an invitation to a beheading.
Mr. Peres's eight-point programme for an international conference is on the record. It seems to me to contain some very positive suggestions. Negotiations to solve the Palestinian problem in all its aspects are to be conducted in three bilateral geographical committees: a Jordanian-Palestinian and Israeli delegation in one, a Syrian and Israeli delegation in another and a Lebanese and Israeli delegation in the third committee. A fourth multilateral committee would include all the delegations with the addition of Egypt. Whereas the bilateral committees would be engaged in solving the conflicts of the past, the fourth committee would deal with charting opportunities for the region's future.

769
It is here that Britain and Europe, as friendly bystanders, can be most effective in pledging as well as charting a future for the region that would bring it economic prosperity, social justice and the premium educational, health, technological and cultural offerings of our civilisation. If the people on the ground were to feel that at the other end of a long tunnel there was not just a paper peace, not just a set of hollow declarations but a tangible promise of prosperity it would be worth the risk, the sacrifice of deeply held ideals and the replacement of traditional tenets of faith with a fresh catechism of hope.
8.2 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, many people, myself included, believe that Israel deceived the United Nations at the time of its admission to that body. Israel has never honoured the obligations clearly stated and agreed to by her at that time. I refer to General Assembly resolutions, and in particular Resolution 181, which concerns itself with the territory and boundaries of the Arab and Jewish states, the city of Jerusalem, the Holy Places, and minority rights; Resolution 194, which stipulated that all Palestinian refugees be repatriated; and the additional violation of Resolutions 181, 194 and 303 under which Jerusalem remained an international zone. Furthermore, in launching the wars of 1956, 1967 and 1982, Israel has continued to flout the principles of the UN charter and international law.
The state of Israel has argued from its birth that its Arab neighbours pose an intolerable threat to its security and boundaries and that those same neighbours wish to drive all Jews into the sea. This has since been exposed from within Israel as being so much Zionist propaganda. Jews and Arabs had lived for centuries in harmony long before the arrival of the first Zionist. However, some Zionists used that argument as an excuse for their own acts of terrorism against innocent civilians, including many British, during and up to the end of the period of the British mandate. We can all remember with horror the blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. No methods were deemed off limits by the Stern and Irgun gangs who were responsible for some of the most hideous atrocities ever committed. Organised terror, both physical and psychological, was used against the British and Arabs in an effort to get both to leave the country—the British to return home and the Arabs to go to any other country to which they could be pushed.
When we speak of the present unrest, the rioting and violence in the West Bank and Gaza, we conveniently overlook the fact that it did not begin last December. It began over 60 years ago, grew to a revolting crescendo in 1948–49 and has been a festering sore ever since. It has been responsible for engulfing the entire Middle East in instability. Responsibility for this situation must rest firmly with Great Britain, the architect of the Balfour Declaration of 1919, which created the mess in the first place, and with the United States for its systematic undermining of UN resolutions in support
770
of Israel and at the expense of the Palestinians. These unfortunate people have been the victims of Western duplicity for all that time. Is it any wonder that they are now united in their wish to throw off the yoke of oppression and occupation?
I wonder how many noble Lords from all sides of the House would have reacted differently. Would we all have sat down quietly and happily handed over our country to someone else simply because it suited politicians in a far-off land with an eye on their careers? Would we have acquiesced meekly or would we have resisted stoutly? Whenever invasion threatened the United Kingdom we responded as one. We put aside our differences and squarely faced our enemies, even though it meant making sacrifices in terms of lives lost and comfortable lifestyles compromised. We defended our basic human rights, our families, our land, our freedom and our democracy. We fought fiercely and only once did we lose. Not since the Normans have we been invaded and occupied, although we came very close to it in 1940.
The Palestinians have not been so lucky. They were invaded first in 1948, then in 1956 and yet again in 1967. All their land has either been taken from them by force or is under military occupation. Have they not a right to oppose this? Have they not the right to resort to any method to rid their homeland of the aggressor? In fact, is it not their duty to do so? Would it not have been our duty if the same had happened to us in 1940?
There have been many who have criticised the PLO as being a terrorist organisation—myself included. If we have any respect for the sanctity of human life, we must reject and abhor acts that take away the most basic human right of all, that of the right to life. But should we not remember that the PLO grew out of a desperate need to respond to gross acts of terrorism as practised by members of Jewish terrorist organisations against the Palestinian Arabs? How were Palestinians supposed to react? Were they not supposed to object to having their land taken away, their families and friends killed and maimed, to being deported or squashed into squalid refugee camps, to having their houses blown up or even to being massacred? Surely there is not one Member of this House who would have tolerated any of those acts had they happened to him.
What is the difference between our commandos in World War II entering a German town and planting a bomb designed to kill German civilians and Palestinians going into Jerusalem to do the same thing to Israeli citizens? There is no difference, yet we praise the first as an act of heroism and condemn the second as an act of terrorism. That is hypocrisy on a grand scale. Do we really have a monopoly on justice and morality?
Until recent television pictures began to give us hard evidence of the brutalities taking place we found it expedient to look the other way. Now we cannot ignore them. It is to our undying shame that it took television finally to force us to bear witness to the hideous reality that is the illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the relentless persecution of the Palestinian Arabs.

771
To quote from the current issue of the New Statesman, the PLO:
"has for years put forth a moderated negotiating position, often with considerable clarity, and they have found no politically significant partner in either Israel or the United States".
The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, said that Yasser Arafat on several occasions has accepted UN Resolution 242. I am glad that he drew the attention of the House to that fact. However, that news was deliberately suppressed in the United States. What Yasser Arafat said on 14th January 1984 was:
"The PLO would recognise Israel's right to exist if it and the United States accept PLO participation in an international Middle East peace conference, based on all United Nations' resolutions including UN 242".
The PLO is and has been ready for direct negotiations with Israel but has only met with US support for Israeli intransigence and a continual refusal by the United States to recognise that it is the recognised representative body of the Palestinian people. It would be interesting to discover just who the United States thinks represents the Palestinians. Apparently it would accept almost anyone except the Palestinians. The present round of US-led peace mission diplomacy is not aimed at obtaining a just solution to the Palestinian problem but rather at bringing a halt to the violence in an effort to save Israeli and Amercian faces from continued embarrassment. It is doomed to utter failure if it continues to deny full PLO participation.
The United States says that it is seeking a formula acceptable to Israel and Jordan. What about asking the Palestinians? They are the people who are trying to live in that country, which is their right, and whose country it was for centuries until 1948 when Israel was given some of it and 1967 when she took the rest by force. I have every sympathy with the victims of the horrendous holocaust. Indeed there is not to be found a more repulsive example of mass persecution and extermination. What I have no sympathy with at all is those same methods which were used by Hitler against the Jews in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s being used against the Palestinians today by the very people who ought to know better from their own bitter experiences. Two wrongs do not make a right.
The United States holds the key to the lock which could open the door to peace. So far it has been reluctant to turn that key. Time is running out. If the violence, oppression and brutality are allowed to continue, when the United States finally recovers its morality and dignity and goes to turn the key, the lock will have been changed and the key will no longer fit.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, I shall try to be brief and avoid repeating points already so well made by other noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Glenamara and Lord Paget. I should like to ask just one question: are we not looking too narrowly at what is happening at the moment in Israel?
I have recently returned from Israel. There is positive evidence that the instigators of the present troubles are not the PLO but the fundamentalist Jihads. The situation is a creation of Khomeini. I believe that we are witnessing an attempt to reestablish
772
the fundamentalist Islamic empire which extended from the Caspian Sea to the Iberian peninsula. How did Khomeini rise to power? Was it not by taking exactly the same route that is now being taken in Israel. Women, young people and children are brought out into the streets in Tehran.
Certain criticisms of the Shah, which may have been justified, are highlighted. The world media aided and abetted Khomeini. All the sympathy was for Khomeini who was claiming to right the alleged excesses and tyrannies of the Shah. What defeated the Shah was the sympathy and support of the world media. Little did the press realise at that time that the Shah's injustices would be replaced by something far more horrendous and tyrannical. The methods worked.
The next attempt was on Iraq. The Russians now find that even they have problems in Azerbaijan with the Shi'ite fundamentalists. Israel is merely a rehearsal. The process can be repeated and if it can work in Israel it can work anywhere. One can certainly find injustices in Amman and try to de-stabilise the regime there; one can find injustices in Egypt and try to de-stabilise Cairo; one can go straight on from there. Apart from responding to an appeal for sympathy, is it not worth pondering whether this is a problem of the West versus a planned and hoped-for tyrannous dictatorship by the Islamic fundamentalist empire?
Why is the criticism about what is happening in Israel so muted in Cairo and Amman? Why did all the trouble start after the Amman meeting, which attempted to pave the way for a settlement? I should like to ask the Minister to consider whether there is a wider interest than our just assigning right and wrong. Incidentally, if I may return to the question of why there is so much reservation and anxiety in Israel about an international conference, the Israelis are very conscious of that other international conference which was called in the case of Czechoslovakia in 1938 when, in the interests of peace, the Czechs were advised and forced to trade land for stability. One should consider what happened to them.
It would be helpful if the media were to reflect not only on what they are doing but on the further consequences of their actions. My other points have been made so much better by previous speakers.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I rise first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for giving us this opportunity to discuss a matter of such very great concern, and also to support most strongly the observations of my noble friend Lord Chelwood. I set the context of my remarks in something that he mentioned: the Austrian peace treaty. I shall look about the Mediterranean basin for evidence—which most certainly exists—of diplomatic successes that have led to peace treaties and the resolution of very longstanding problems over the past 35 years. I realise that the Danube basin is a little further away than the Mediterranean but the noble Lord mentioned the Austrian peace treaty as a prime example. I should like to mention another, which is the diplomatic success at Trieste that was achieved in

773
1953 after a period of years. That again concerned an area closely constricted by mountains and sea. It is a very narrow corridor which was disputed for many years by Austria and Italy. The treaty represented a solution to the problem of a very important and much disputed territory.
Another area of concern for centuries has been the disputes between Greece and Turkey. Only a matter of weeks ago there was the spectacle of the conclusion to the preliminary phase of negotiations—the starting point of an accord of some description, the precise nature of which is a little unclear at this time, between the Prime Ministers of Greece and Turkey. Those are all matters for considerable optimism. I feel that the Question the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has put before your Lordships this evening has seeds of optimism within it, although certain contributions this evening would perhaps make that seem difficult.
Perhaps I may join with my noble friend Lord Chelwood over the nub of his principal argument: there should be trusteeship in the West Bank and in Gaza. He quoted the most important statement of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits,
"the art of living together in harmony".
That is what the principal substance of peacemaking is about.
The Venice Declaration was the subject of the debate held in your Lordships' House, introduced by my noble friend Lord Chelwood on 22nd May 1985. On re-reading that debate, I was particularly struck by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. He reminded your Lordships of the exact terms of the Venice Declaration. I most warmly commend once again to noble Lords one phrase that he used. It is the statement from the Venice Declaration that justice for all people implies the recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. I may be accused of taking this out of the general ambit of the Venice Declaration. Nevertheless, it is part of that statement and it is one that should be commended in general terms.
Reference has been made in considerable detail to both the West Bank and Gaza. I should like to take up the points on Gaza raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. Once again, we should bear in mind that in Gaza there are in general terms over 700,000 Arabs and about 3,500 Israelis. I do not know whether the noble Lord would agree with those figures, but I am speaking in general terms. The Israelis now own about one-third of the land—and approximately that encompassed by the best survey that we know at the present time. If one considers therefore the question of the Venice Declaration, it is incumbent upon those who feel that the situation in Gaza should be examined to consider that justice for all people implies justice for the Palestinians in that territory.
I turn now to the Government's preparation for this conference. I feel that all the efforts that the Government have made for a step-by-step approach are most welcome, and perhaps even more so if it is behind closed doors. There are so many cases where diplomacy in that area can achieve more without the blaze of publicity. However, it was very welcome indeed to hear from the noble Lord, Lord
774
Glenarthur, yesterday of the trouble that the Government have taken to increase their grant to UNRWA. That was announced yesterday in reply to a Starred Question in your Lordships' House. It is an increase to £5.25 million for the year 1988, and a further £5 million towards the European Community contribution. All this is most welcome, and it assists in the general ambit of interest and care that the Government are putting behind the European Community's initiative and the general care that they have towards the Palestinian problem.
I have said that I join with my noble friend Lord Chelwood over the concept of trusteeship. I do so for a very particular reason. I believe that this country, having held the mandate responsibility from the inception of the League of Nations up until 1948, has a particular fund of knowledge which may be drawn upon. It may well be said that anything that took place prior to 1948 is irrelevant. Nevertheless, in the archives in Whitehall there will be found Cmnd. Paper 6019, which was the Government's White Paper of May 1939. It was very significant because it expressed the desire to see established ultimately an independent Palestine state separated from the national Jewish home.
In this step-by-step approach for a conference, I am quite sure that the Government will examine all the past models, and all the past maps and proposals made over a very long period by extremely experienced administrators. Each one had limitations. Each one had drawbacks and each one now can be claimed to be irrelevant. Nevertheless, in examining those White Papers, and in examining models of this very restricted area, there must be points to be raised and taken on board.
I close with the view expressed by the European Community five years ago in 1983. This is again a statement that is very well known to your Lordships. The EC remains convinced that a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East can only be secured on the basis of the principles which they have stated so many times in the past.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, like previous speakers, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for giving us a further opportunity to debate the almost frightening subject of the Middle East. I find it particularly poignant. I was one of those who, in 1936, with the TUC contingent from Wales, marched to London. I had never been there in my life. I got to know Gardiner's Corner, Whitechapel Road, Commercial Road and all the streets where Jewish people lived and where the Fascist movement was out to disrupt. We did our best to foil that, to stop it. Within four years, Europe was threatened by Nazism and this nation stood alone. If we had surrendered and given in, the holocaust that followed would have been a thousand times worse. I believe that Great Britain's great role should be put on the record.
I remember also spending some time in the East End. I was reading geography and the German language. As an extramural student in the University of Wales I stayed here for two or three months. It was

775
pointless to go home. There was no work. The docks and the pits were closed; most of us were on the dole. During that period I learned to speak a great deal of Yiddish. I began to understand the difference between a separdime and an ashkenazi. I could understand those issues. I hope that it will be understood when I say that my country stood alone. It gave a massive contribution to anyone who believed in freedom and was opposed to any form of terrorism. However, I also happen to believe that, just like the Palestinians, just like those on the West Bank, just like those in the Gaza Strip who have resisted another nation occupying their land, we in this country would have resisted any Nazi occupation. We might not have been PLO, but I am convinced that we would have been a British Liberation Organisation, led no doubt by people like Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin. I firmly believe that this would have been the role at that time.
It seems to me that mankind will never understand this issue. It arises in Northern Ireland and the Middle East. One of the most terrifying aspects of all political activity is the territorial dimension. When you occupy and steal—I repeat, steal—somebody else's homeland, you are asking for trouble. I am totally convinced that, whatever it may be doing in some respects that is distasteful, the PLO has the same determination in its guts and its heart as we would have had had the Nazis invaded and occupied this country. I should have been very proud to have been a member of the BLO. Therefore, I think that has to be taken into consideration.
When the war was over, we were told of the most appalling crimes in mankind's history—the holocaust and the shudders, the horrors and the terrors, it caused. Anger rose in all our breasts. There was total confusion when our British soldiers were slain by the Irgun Zwei Leumi, and they, too, have a right to be honoured and mentioned. I am doing that right now because I think they were quite innocent lads. They were doing their duty. They were certainly not anti-semitic. But they suffered and were slain by the Irgun Zwei Leumi.
One of the most disturbing features of the whole situation is that it might not have arisen had only the tremendous co-operation and brilliant thinking of Mrs. Golda Meir and King Abdullah become a reality. I believe that would have contributed towards bringing lasting peace between the semitic nations. If one is anti-semitic one is anti-Arab as well, as I understand it.
When Golda Meir and King Abdullah arrived at their conclusions, it seemed to me, and to people much more clear than I who were interested in Middle East progress, that here was a way forward that would be of great help and assistance. Unfortunately King Abdullah was assassinated and things went from bad to worse.
The major issues in this debate have already been raised. It would be boring and upsetting to go over them all again. Late in the debate there is not a great deal more to say. I shall, however, mention one frontier that we all have to endeavour to arrive at. In the words of Aneurin Bevan, the trouble with all
776
mankind is that we seldom arrive at the frontiers of undertanding until our own souls are smitten with grief. The hearts of those Jewish people who were in Europe at the time of the haolcaust, who lost people but who survived themselves, were stricken with grief just as much as a Palestinian mother or an Israeli mother, and just as much as a British mother when her son was killed by the Irgun Zwei Leumi. We have to put all these things together, for if we do not we shall never arrive at the frontiers of understanding.
I believe therefore that there is enough goodwill if we can only find it and bring it together. That is why I believe that an international conference is so sane. The words of Churchill are still as appropriate today as when he first uttered them against killing, slaying and maiming. Let us have jaw, jaw which is far better than war, war. If we have an international commitment, it must be gathering together people of different nations. The proposal submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and supported on all sides of the House, has at least a modicum of possibility. The coming of peace may be a long way off, but I believe that there is a chance if we stop talking and acknowledge that if someone stole somebody else's land 10,000 years ago they are still thieves.
I remember the problems in the United States of America. I am not anti-American. My grandchildren were born and bred American. I have one little, brilliant granddaughter who may well be the first woman American President. But there was a terrible time when we were fighting the Fascists. Terrible things were happening in the United States of America. In some parts of the deep South in the mid 1930s it was not particularly safe to have a different skin pigmentation from a white man. It was not particularly easy to live in some parts of the Mid-West if one belonged to some kind of Indian tribe. This form of racial hatred has gone on and on.
The tragedy is that if the Anglo-Saxons could not agree on one thing or another, or the Europeans, surely the great semitic nations can find an answer to the problem that now confronts them. I believe that if the determinations and decisions of an international conference were accepted and honoured by all sides, then the desert of enmity could blossom into lasting friendship and understanding and so allow Arabs and Jews, the great semitic peoples, not only to contribute to each other's wellbeing but in so doing could give an example to all mankind.
8.35 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Meggido: My Lords, I am very aware of the major contribution that many noble Lords have made this evening. I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for bringing this Unstarred Question before your Lordships' House. The hour is late and therefore I shall not detain the House for longer than is necessary. But I speak this evening with a deep feeling of respect for the many soldiers of this country and of the Commonwealth who laid down their lives in Palestine in the name of peace. I also have great respect for the many governments and people who have attempted to

777
initiate and to bring about a lasting solution in Palestine. We have become aware tonight of the most serious, indeed the most dangerous, situation developing in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The revolt on the West Bank continues to serve as a grim reminder that the present state of Israel has no right, apart from forcible occupation, to any part of Palestine.
Some 70 years ago this country took possession of Palestine by right of conquest: a conquest that was duly recognised as we have heard by mandate agreed at the San Remo peace conference in 1920 and subsequently approved by the League of Nations two years later. It was as result of terrorist activity by the Zionist organisations and other ideological groups opposed to our occupation that orderly government became totally impossible. We were forced to give up the mandate in May 1948, but I suggest to the House that our sovereignty over the country has never been surrendered.
Being a soldier, I should like to speak for a short while on the military situation. I believe that a similar military situation exists today in Palestine as it did when this country was the paramount power. Israel today has a young and inexperienced conscript army, as we had during the intervening years after World War 2. The young conscript is trained in conventional war, but not in combating carefully orchestrated terrorism. The Israeli army is learning the hard way by painful experience.
Today in Palestine we see an additional element, as again has already been mentioned—the power of the media. The media influence opinion across the world. On our TV screens we have seen the media in their almost daily involvement in street battles. It is clear that the press is adept in setting up traps for the Israeli security forces. Time and again one sees the young, inexperienced and often very frightened soldiers acting in a most fanatical and brutal fashion. However, I remind your Lordships that a similar situation faced this country in the early part of 1946. There were, over a period of four months, 20 acts of terrorism involving our forces and our equipment. These culminated in the destruction of the King David Hotel by the IZL organisation on 20th July, as has already been mentioned. That act alone resulted in 152 deaths, injuries and people missing, principally among civil servants and soldiers and included the Postmaster General, his two assistant secretaries and the Economic Adviser to the Palestinian Government. After that explosion, 700 Jews were interrogated and 30 were detained. Many allegations of brutality followed from both sides to no avail.
Political pressures and worldwide media attention has led to universal condemnation of the Israeli Government for the brutal manner in which their armed forces have been trying to suppress the violent protests of the indigenous population of the occupied territories. As highlighted by a scathing attack by one of the Ministers of Her Majesty's Government, the criticism is sadly justified. However, the cause and the background behind much of what happens is either misconstrued, not understood or deliberately changed to meet the situation.
778
On the Palestinian side, the deep sense of despair, and the growing sense of patriotism among the ordinary people, cannot forever be ignored. I suggest that the ordinary people regard the Palestinian Liberation Organisation as their own army created as a result of the Arab summit conference of 1964. Under Yassir Arafat's chairmanship the PLO has gained considerable international acceptance as the sole legitimate representative of the people, committed as it is to the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. I do not want to enter the argument as to whether the PLO should be included in any future peace conference. However, the PLO's intransigence and its record of extreme acts of terrorism in recent years must be taken into consideration. I reject the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that it should be included at the present time, but I believe that there may be a place for it in future negotiations.
In its Resolution 608, passed in January this year, the Security Council also condemned the Israeli Government's decision to deport Arab ringleaders and called for negotiations to take place to end the Israeli occupation. Comparisons with the situation in Northern Ireland are totally false. I suggest that this country faced a similar situation in Cyprus when we were instrumental in the deportation of President Makarios in the hope of bringing about a more peaceful situation at that time.
This country has consistently stood by its belief in the right of Israel to exist within secure boundaries, but it has never recognised the right of Israel to govern the City of Jerusalem. Sadly, one must acknowledge our diminishing influence and power in Palestine and the greater involvement of the superpowers in recent years. I believe that, as a member of the European Committee, we have a great deal to offer and an important role to play, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, pointed out.
We have a hope as a result of the active diplomatic efforts of the US Government. Agreement exists between Mr. Peres and King Hussein as to how an international conference might work. Though this move is temporarily blocked by the Israeli Government, it has the support of the 12 Foreign Ministers. I applaud the efforts of our Government and those of the US Government to find a solution in an important part of the world. We also have a residual responsibility, and I should like to join with other noble Lords in urging the Government to bring about an international conference which will eventually lead to a lasting peace in the area by every means possible.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in the debate but several points have been made which I believe require answering. I should first like to deal with a point made by several noble Lords. It is that the violence that has been observed on the West Bank was greatly exaggerated by the media and that it was a media creation. Reference was also made to the fact that 800 journalists were present and that they affected the projection of the violence to the outside world. The South African Government have always used exactly that argument as regards

779
violence in South Africa and it is unjustified. We know that film editors show the worst pieces of film and not the best, and viewers understand that. There is no doubt that the conditions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have created the violence that has been seen on television, just as in South Africa. I understand the concern of lovers of Israel that she should not try to defend the indefensible. I believe that one cannot blame the media for the violence that is taking place when one considers the violence from the Israeli troops that has been seen on television.
I wish to deal with the point which directly followed from that and which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton. He criticised the Foreign Office Minister, Mr. Mellor, who intervened in the actions of the Israeli colonel. I should like to ask the noble Lord what he would have done if he had been invited to another country and had seen an officer commanding troops who were acting in what was to his mind a totally unjustifiable and unjust manner. I remind him of the Nuremberg judgments where it was held that even obedience to the orders of a superior officer was no defence when the acts being perpetrated were against common humanity.
I believe that the Palestinians have suffered displacement and an injustice. Until that is put right the position of Israel will steadily become less secure. The ayatollahs were able to use the festering injustice felt among the Palestinians to put forward their extreme views and I believe that that has not been sufficiently appreciated in the Middle East.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has chosen the right moment to initiate this debate on the problems of Palestine. We listened to his speech with great interest, as we have listened to all the speeches that have reflected the differing views on both sides of the problem. The House is aware that there are a number of crises in the Middle East and I find it difficult to separate one from the other. From Teheran and Baghdad to Beirut and the West Bank and Gaza the whole of the Middle East is in a ferment. The need for a settlement of the various disputes is obvious and acute. The slaughter in the Iran-Iraq war continues unabated. The Lebanon is an almost uncontrollable shambles. We were shocked to hear of the recent kidnapping of Mr. Peter Coleridge and were delighted and relieved to hear today that he has been released. We hope that Mr. Terry Waite and others will also be released in the near future. The fact that good men are so mistreated reveals the black depths of the problem.
As has been explained in the debate, the violence has now extended to the occupied territories. It has resulted in many deaths and more casualties and in some excesses, as described by my noble friend Lord Glenamara. That is most sad, and we are concerned because of our respect for Israel and her democratic tradition. Such events must mean that she has—temporarily, we trust—lost ground in international esteem. That has not helped Israel's longer-term interest. However, it is necessary to add that part of the problem is the failure of all Arab countries save one to endorse United Nations
780
Security Council Resolution 242, which implicitly recognises Israel's right to exist within secure pre-1967 war boundaries. This has lain at the root of Israel's reactions and fears from the start. Furthermore, Arab countries, especially those with great wealth, may wish to ponder their own record on the refugee problem over the years.
The noble Lord and others have dealt with Mr. George Shultz's troubles in an effort to find a solution and to seek agreement for an international conference, which appears to find almost universal approbation in the House in this debate. Mr. Shultz deserves the utmost praise and our support for his persistent efforts. I am glad that both Government and Opposition in this country gave him sympathetic support.
Mr. Mellor, the Minister of State, has recently visited the Middle East, as have my right honourable friends Mr. Kinnock and Mr. Kaufman, and we have of course noted their reactions. Mr. Kaufman believes that the Israeli Prime Minister Mr. Shamir, should indicate his willingness to sit down at the conference table and negotiate with the Arab countries. Mr. Kinnock was moved by the damage the conflict is inflicting both on the Palestinian people and on the Israeli democratic tradition. He also said that he believes the key to the solution lies in the attitude of the Israeli people in that at the end of the day they must choose between the seemingly military option offered by Mr. Shamir and the prospect of peaceful negotiations offered by Mr. Shimon Peres, who supports the proposal for an international conference. I quote my two honourable friends because they have recently returned from Israel.
From Britain's viewpoint, therefore, it is encouraging that we can all agree upon the need for a conference and that we should do all we can to bring it about, and that, I believe, was the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. But there are complications and these have been manifested during Mr. Shultz's strenuous travels. At the start the United States Secretary of State appeared to be pessimistic in his comments on the chances of success. He was not receiving a very warm welcome. On 1st March the Guardian stated:
"Syria was unhelpful … and Jordan sceptical",
and that he was marching from one inconclusive meeting to another. However, I am not as pessimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, because mercifully there is another mood abroad and this has been reflected in the more helpful remarks of the distinguished Israeli Foreign Affairs expert, Mr. Abba Eban. He referred to the statement of over 100 leading Israeli academic figures, including some who had never before issued a controversial political word but who urged an early end to the occupation regime. He recalled the last words written by Mrs. Golda Meir to the nation, which was referred to in the speech of my noble friend Lord Molloy. Her speech to the nation included the fact that no sane Israeli ever believed that Israel could permanently rule all the territories and populations in the West Bank and Gaza and that new borders would have to be fixed with Jordan. In my view, that is the spirit of the Venice Declaration, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred.

781
We also recall the London Agreement of 11th April 1987 in which King Hussein, who must be praised for his constant efforts to seek a solution to this problem, and Mr. Shimon Peres elaborated a scenario for bringing the Israeli-Palestinian problem under serious negotiation.
Mr. Shultz can take comfort from this as he comes to the end of his very difficult mission. However, as has been said already, the problem is the division within the Israeli Government themselves. We must hope that Mr. Shamir will find a compromise which will enable him to move towards a conference which we all think should be held. Mr. Abba Eban has asked the crucial question:
"Can Mr. Shamir maintain his position against the opinion of the entire world including the United States and half the Israeli people?"
I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he could clarify one matter. Can he say what steps were taken for Mr. Shultz to meet representatives of the PLO during his mission? The timetable proposed by Mr. Shultz is that the conference would be convened by the United Nation's Secretary General in mid-April and that negotiations between Israel and a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation on an interim arrangement of limited self-rule for the 1·5 million occupied Palestinains would start in mid-May; talks on a final settlement would be next December. As I understand it, that was the timetable which the United States Secretary of State had in mind.
The aim of the negotiations would be United Nations Security Resolution 242, which, as the House will recall, insists on the:
"inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by force".
The latest news is that Mr. Shamir will pay a crucial visit to Washington next week and we must hope some constructive results will emerge from what could be an historic visit.
As the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, said, we must appeal and not dictate. He referred to the necessity to avoid a diktat from above. I thoroughly agree with what he said. It would be a tragedy if the Shultz initiative drifted into the sand.
As I have said before in these debates, there is a limit to what Britain can do, although we are conscious of old historic associations; but we must give this worthy initiative all our support and encouragement. We can work through the United Nations, which, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Paget, is given the most thankless tasks in all the world's trouble spots and which, contrary to his view, I believe does a remarkable job in all the circumstances. We can work with the United States, which is our ally and friend. We can work within the EC, which has taken positive initiatives to seek a settlement. We should also keep in contact with the Soviet Union.
We owe this to the innocent people of the Middle East who are suffering so much this time. Furthermore, we know that the beginning of stabilisation in the Middle East, which is a great prize and must be a great objective, would be a huge step towards the creation of more stable world peace.
8.57 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I believe we all agree that the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is timely. It is taking place at a time of intense diplomatic activity on the subject and against a background of disturbing events portrayed in almost nightly reports on our television screens. I am grateful to him for enabling us to discuss a matter of considerable international concern. One matter which this evening's interventions have made clear is the deep interest which your Lordships have in a part of our history in that part of the world and the deep concern we all feel about the situation in the occupied territories and the need for early progress towards a negotiated settlement of the underlying Arab-Israeli conflict. Perhaps I may make it perfectly plain at the outset that the Government fully share that concern.
The toll of suffering and death in the occupied territories since the current wave of unrest began on 9th December last year has been immense. At least 80 Palestinians have been killed. We deeply deplore these acts and all acts of violence such as those which the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara cited and, indeed, the sort of matter to which the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, referred. We call on all sides to exercise maximum restraint in order to avoid further bloodshed.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred to what I think he described as our alleged ambivalence towards the PLO. The PLO is an umbrella organisation which expresses the aspirations of many thousands of Palestinians to secure their legitimate rights. We deplore the terrorist activities of several of its component organisations. However, I have taken careful note of the points made by the noble Lord.
We fully agree that the Palestinians must be allowed a voice in the negotiations which will determine their future. However, for the PLO alone to represent that voice it is necessary for the PLO to end the ambiguity of its policy on three points which will have to form the core of any negotiations: that is, the acceptance of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 238; recognition of Israel's right to a secure existence and renunciation of the use of violence to achieve its ends.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, may I be permitted to intervene? My point was that that is a requirement unilaterally imposed on the PLO. If Israel and the PLO agree to recognise each other and jointly rejected violence and terrorism that would be splendid. Why do the Government put those conditions only on the PLO and not on the Israeli Government?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I hope that, by taking note of the point made by the noble Lord and by explaining to him the importance that taking into account those three points has in considering whether the PLO represent that voice of the Palestinians which the noble Lord seems to indicate in his remarks it does, he will understand why I have made plain those three points since they govern whether the PLO is to be included in the sort of negotiations which the noble Lord seeks.

783
History such as we have heard this evening and particularly as referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, whose name is much associated through his forbears with that part of the world, my noble friend Lord Sandys and the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is important and it is relevant. Like my noble friend Lord Chelwood, I should like to deal with the present and look towards the future.
We have expressed our concern vigorously to the Israeli authorities, both bilaterally and, as many of your Lordships would have us do, with our European Community partners. In particular, we urge the Israeli occupation authorities to refrain from the use of lethal force and beatings. These only fuel Palestinian resentment and escalate the violence. The appalling nature of this policy was recently demonstrated most disturbingly by the burying alive of four Palestinians and the shocking pictures of soldiers attempting to break the limbs of Palestinian detainees. Those responsible for these and similar abuses must be brought to book.
Until Israel eventually withdraws from the occupied territories, we will continue to urge it to administer the occupation in strict accordance with international law and respect for human rights standards.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, are we going to say that to the Russians, too, in regard to the lands that they occupy? Are we to tell them that they must occupy those lands humanely and not, as we do in the case of Afghanistan, tell them to stop occupying someone else's country? Why not say that in the case of Israel's occupation?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is always easy to draw instances from other parts of the world and not compare like with like. I suspect that that is what the noble Lord may be doing in citing instances of the sort that he mentioned. Let us deal with one subject at a time and concentrate on this particular problem, which we all agree is most disturbing.
The noble Lords, Lord Glenamara and Lord Kagan, regretted the picture of the situation in the occupied territories which is given by the world's press. It is true that the media will focus on the sensational. I understand the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, about the role of soldiers in these circumstances, particularly young soldiers. However, it is also true that the reports of acts of violence which the press publish also bring home to us the need for an early negotiated settlement. We all agree that the suffering must be brought to a quick end. However, essentially that is a short-term measure and will not solve the root causes of the unrest.
I have to say that I have some reservation about the analysis offered by the noble Lords, Lord Glenamara and Lord Kagan, that this unrest stems from a Moslem fundamentalist conspiracy. I do not believe that the available evidence bears this out. Palestinian protests arise from a deeply felt resentment at the suffering experienced over the years. The current violence adds fresh urgency to the search for a just
784
and comprehensive negotiated settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
With the diverging views that have been expressed, this debate has also highlighted the many difficulties that exist in promoting and establishing the settlement we all wish to see. In his excellent speech based on his wide experience, my noble friend Lord Chelwood pointed to some of these problems. The principles for a settlement are clearly established; indeed, they have been rehearsed many times from this Dispatch Box and they were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. They are the right of all states in the region, including Israel, to a secure existence within recognised borders and the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are actively involved in promoting all efforts to help the parties to achieve a settlement on this basis. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandys for his recognition of that. We are in close touch with several of those concerned. For example, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister met King Hussein last week. We remain in step with the King's courageous work to advance the cause of peace.
I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, but I have to say that I found very little with which to agree, perhaps particularly on the matter of an international conference. I hope that he will accept that there is broad agreement, and he will have heard much of it this evening, that an international conference involving the parties to the conflict and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council can provide a suitable framework for the necessary negotiations. The conference would have no right to veto solutions reached by the parties or to impose solutions on them. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, indicated, that Israeli government policy remains opposed to the holding of an international conference to resolve the dispute. He asked whether my right honourable friend the Prime Minister would use her influence with Mr. Shamir to advance progress towards a solution. We take all available opportunities to make clear to the Israeli Government our firmly held belief that it is in their own interests to trade territory for peace, and to reach a settlement which will guarantee their own long-term security.
We have given our full and active support to the proposal for an international conference. Support for the idea was reiterated after the Prime Minister's recent meeting with King Hussein, and in another place on 2nd March. The support of the 12 member states of the EC was most recently expressed by the Foreign Ministers in their statement of 8th February.
My noble friend Lord Chelwood has advocated a more prominent role for the United Nations in bringing about a solution. The Security Council and the General Assembly pay close and continuous interest to the issue that we are debating. However, for the present I am sure that we are right to lend support to the initiative taken by the United States as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, did in his remarks. We stand ready to play our part in further

785
consultations in the Security Council at the appropriate time.
My noble friend, supported also by my noble friend Lord Sandys, suggested a United Nations trusteeship as a solution for the occupied territories. I hope that both my noble friends will accept that for us to espouse precise arrangements for a settlement is at present premature. Those directly involved in the dispute must be encouraged to enter into negotiations themselves which they find mutually acceptable. We would not rule out a role for the United Nations in an eventual settlement. I believe that my noble friends will agree that time and negotiations will show whether that is appropriate.
Several of your Lordships have referred, as I did just now, to the current initiative by the United States to advance the peace process. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister had valuable discussions with President Reagan and with his Secretary of State, Mr. Shultz last week. She welcomed the steps being taken by the United States to give fresh impetus to the search for a settlement, and she encouraged Mr. Shultz to continue his efforts. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for his endorsement of those efforts.
The noble Lord asked specifically about the aborted meeting which was to have taken place recently in Jerusalem between Mr. Shultz and the Palestinian representatives. Obviously, I cannot comment on the details of the shuttle of Mr. Shultz; however, I am aware that such a meeting was proposed but that the Palestinians concerned declined it.
We hope that the parties will be able to reach early agreement with the United States on detailed proposals which can offer a sound basis for progress. I believe that to be compatible with the scenario given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld. We support the American approach towards the peace process. It provides for careful preparation for a conference and a solution by stages. I agree with him that what we are aiming at is a conference which offers not a trap for the participants but an opportunity for lasting peace. The American proposals are not intended as a substitute in any way; they would build on the wide consensus in support of a solution. We shall continue to work with those directly concerned in order to achieve the measure of common ground and compromise necessary if a peaceful settlement is to be found.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, for his remarks about the long-term future and economic prosperity of the area. I agree that we must not lose our vision of the future. We are convinced that the first need is a political solution to the present conflict. We remain prepared to play our part, once a settlement is in place, in the reconstruction of the
786
economies of the area where development has been so sadly held up by the failure to obtain peace.
Perhaps I may say (as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to it) that any discussion of the region would be incomplete without at least some reference to the tragic occurrences in the Lebanon. The Lebanon has suffered a tragic waste of human and material resources during almost 13 years of war. Its economy is under increasing strain; it has become the base for numerous terrorist groups and it is one of the world's major drug-producing centres.
As I have said to your Lordships at Question Time yesterday, we remain committed to the Lebanon's sovereignty, unity, independence and territorial integrity. External intervention from whatever quarter cannot solve her problems. Only by the Lebanese themselves working together to rebuild their country can a solution be found. A restoration of central government authority appears essential. The international community is not immune to the Lebanon's problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, reminded us, we have a constant and a grim reminder in the fate of foreign hostages. We are doing all we can to secure the release of British hostages within our firm policy of making no substantive concessions to terrorism. Concessions only feed more hostage-taking. We were delighted to hear of the release, unharmed, of the two UNRWA officials who were kidnapped last month and of Mr. Peter Coleridge of Oxfam.
We have an interest in peace for the Lebanon as much as for any other part of the Middle East. A settlement there should not have to wait on a resolution of the wider Arab-Israel dispute. Equally, it is difficult to envisage Lebanon not being present at an international conference. Meanwhile we continue to press Israel to complete her withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in accordance with Security Council Resolution 425.
I hope I have made clear the Government's concern at the suffering and the tragic waste of human lives and resources which result from the failure to bring about just and lasting settlements to the conflicts besetting this troubled region. I can assure your Lordships that we remain determined to play whatever part we can in helping to restore peace in the area.

Corn Exchange Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past nine o'clock.

  INDEPENDENT OIL COMPANIES: GOLDEN SHARE
  INDEPENDENT OIL COMPANIES: GOLDEN SHARE
  DEEP SEABED MINING AGREEMENT
  DEEP SEABED MINING AGREEMENT
  MoD: STAFF RESIGNATION STATISTICS
  MoD: STAFF RESIGNATION STATISTICS
  NUCLEAR RISK REDUCTION CENTRES
  NUCLEAR RISK REDUCTION CENTRES
  DEER ACTS: FORFEITURE PROVISIONS
  DEER ACTS: FORFEITURE PROVISIONS
  PRISONERS' GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES: REVIEW
  PRISONERS' GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES: REVIEW
  CRIME PREVENTION: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
  CRIME PREVENTION: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
  FIREARMS DEALERS
  FIREARMS DEALERS
  NHS: SUPRA-REGIONAL SERVICES
  NHS: SUPRA-REGIONAL SERVICES
  NHS FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES
  NHS FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES
  NHS CLOSURE STATISTICS
  NHS CLOSURE STATISTICS
  CARE IN THE COMMUNITY: GRIFFITHS REPORT
  CARE IN THE COMMUNITY: GRIFFITHS REPORT
  SPECTACLES SUPPLIED BY UNREGISTERED OPTICIANS
  SPECTACLES SUPPLIED BY UNREGISTERED OPTICIANS
  THE ARCTIC: UK PARTICIPATION IN DISCUSSIONS
  THE ARCTIC: UK PARTICIPATION IN DISCUSSIONS
  THE ARCTIC: ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION
  THE ARCTIC: ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION
  CONVENTIONAL STABILITY TALKS
  CONVENTIONAL STABILITY TALKS