Sitting of 15 March 1988

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

    Education Reform
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made of the effect of the proposed national curriculum on the percentage of students who go on to university.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The national curriculum aims to improve the quality of education for all our pupils and we expect more to go on to college, polytechnic and university.
    Mr. Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as Britain is seventh in the league table of nations sending their students on to university, arid with approximately 15 per cent. of the student population going forward at the moment, compared with 44 per cent. in the United States, one of the main aims of the Education Reform Bill should be to get more students into university?
    Mr. Baker: Yes. I have already set the ambitious target of increasing the number of students by 50,000 in the lifetime of this Parliament. Since we have been in office we have increased the number of students in higher education by more than 160,000. My hon. Friend is correct: the level has increased from one in eight to one in seven. Our aim is that by the end of the century one in five school leavers will go on to higher education.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a national curriculum is no use without proper tests? Will he also confirm that the emphasis will be on proper written tests and not on some form of airy-fairy assessment which may be far from consistent between one local education authority and another?
    Mr. Baker: I shall be pleased to send my hon. Friend a copy of Professor Black's report, which recommends that there should be assessment and testing at the ages of 7, 11, 14 and 16. He specifically refers to pencil and paper tests and gives examples of those. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that Professor Black also recommends that the results of the tests should be published—not the names of the individual children—so that parents can assess the performance of schools.
    Mr. Straw: Has the Secretary of State explained to the Prime Minister that her desire for crude pass-fail tests in the national curriculum would not only lower educational
    976
    standards but would require a vast army of external examiners and invigilators, which would cost a great deal more than Professor Black's proposals? I assure the Secretary of State that so long as he fights hard against the Prime Minister and the other forces of darkness in this area, he has our full support.
    Mr. Baker: I do not think that I want that sort of support. As the hon. Gentleman knows, debates on such matters are vigorous and robust, and now sometimes public. However, all decisions taken on such matters are collective decisions.
    I am glad that in Committee the Labour party did not vote against any of the clauses on the national curriculum or on financial delegation, and it virtually approved open enrolment. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman did his duty, but basically he knows that we are right.

    Funding Councils
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to ensure that women are represented on (a) the Universities Funding Council and (b) the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education anti Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The desirability of securing a reasonable proportion of women members is certainly a factor that my right hon. Friend will be considering in making appointments to the higher education funding councils.
    Ms. Quin: I am glad to hear that reply. At the moment the proportion of undergraduates who are women is encouragingly high, but does the Minister accept that the presence of women on the funding councils would help to secure a better representation of women undergraduates on the courses on which, up to now, they have been very much under-represented?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Members will be appointed for their individual contributions and not because they belong to any particular representative group. It is upon that basis that my right hon. Friend will be making his recommendations.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend ensure that colleges with a religious basis, such as St. Martin's in my constituency, are enabled, within the fund, to maintain their ethos and religious basis?
    Mrs. Rumbold: We are extremely concerned to ensure that voluntary colleges will have representation that will reflect their wishes and encapsulate what they want within those colleges.
    Mrs. Clwyd: As 44 per cent. of all students in full-time higher education now are women, surely it would be more representative if the Minister agreed that half the membership of the funding councils should be women, so that their interests are properly represented?
    Mrs. Rumbold: No, that would be quite improper. It is absolutely essential that the membership of the funding councils should comprise people who are best qualified to be representatives. If those people happen to be women—certainly my right hon. Friend will be anxious to ensure that there is proper representation of women on the funding councils—that will be most satisfactory from all our points of view.
    Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend owe her position on the Front Bench to her ability, or to the fact that she is a woman? If the former, will she make sure that, when she appoints people to the funding councils, they also owe their positions to ability, irrespective of gender?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Modesty prevents me from answering that question.

    Heriot-Watt University
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his statement on 29 February, Official Report, column 722, what representations he has received from Professor Des Smith FRS, head of the department of optical and laser physics at Heriot-Watt university, about the impact on that university of the new selective criteria for funding research.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): I discussed this matter with Professor Smith when I visited Heriot-Watt university last October, and he subsequently sent me the university's comments on the ABRC document, "A Strategy for the Science Base". Professor Smith and I exchanged further letters on the ABRC's proposals last month.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the future for the improving departments of a small university?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the question of how the principle of selectivity and concentration on scientific research should be carried through into the universities. Professor Smith supports that principle. There is an argument about the means and whether it should be done by university, by department or by subject area. That, of course, is a matter upon which the Government have yet to make a decision.
    Dr. Bray: What support is being given specifically to Professor Smith's work in optical computing? That work opens up new technology that simply does not fit in with the Government's scheme of things.
    Mr. Jackson: I shall have to come back to the hon. Gentleman about the specific question of opto-electronic technology. I have been to see Professor Smith's work, but I do not recall the exact figure of allocation. The allocation of funds to universities by research councils is a matter for the universities and the research councils.

    Student Grants
    Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he now expects his review of higher education student funding to be completed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he now expects to publish a consultation document on the matter of financial support to students in higher education.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The work of the student support review is expected to be completed by the middle of this year.
    Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important things about the review is that nothing is done to discourage the participation in higher
    978
    education of students from lower-income families, and that nothing is done that would create a particular obstacle to graduates who wish to pursue careers in less well remunerated professions?
    Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. In the review that we are undertaking the point of access is very important. I made it clear earlier that we want to increase the possibility of access for many of our young people. Compared to other countries, we are not doing well enough in that regard. It is noticeable that for a long time in most of those countries which have had a system of loans working with grants such a system has not discouraged access.
    Mr. Stern: Does my right hon. Friend have any evidence about the proportion of students who do not receive their full, assessed parental contribution?
    Mr. Baker: This matter is of considerable concern to many students. A survey commissioned by my Department on undergraduate income and expenditure — to be published shortly—has shown that, in 1986–87, 40 per cent. of dependent students failed to receive the full assessed contribution due from their parents. That is an area where a loan system could help considerably.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Can the Secretary of State advise us whether the review took into account the implications of the poll tax for students?
    Mr. Baker: The review is considering the whole range of expenditure by students and their sources of income. The survey upon which I have just commented covers the whole range of income and expenditure.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Secretary of State recall that a few years ago the Tory Government decided to meddle with student grants and the net result was that literally thousands of students, many from middle-class families, came to Westminster to protest? They blocked Westminster bridge, without any provocation from people such as myself, and the net result was that the Tory Government had to back off. Is he aware that if he starts the process again, not only will those students come down to Westminster to lobby, but they will carry out the same exercise and we on the Opposition Benches will support them to the hilt?
    Mr. Baker: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman putting himself at the head of a middle-class march. The proposals upon which we are working in the review of student support will bear particularly upon the parental contribution, and one of the advantages of loans is that they may substantially reduce the contribution that parents have to make.
    Mr. Favell: Whatever my right hon. Friend's decision, does he agree that higher education is a great privilege that brings great opportunities later in life?
    Mr. Baker: I would agree with that. It is a considerable advantage to go to one of our universities, polytechnics or colleges. There is a growing recognition, supported by the practice in other countries, that students benefit considerably from higher education, so it is reasonable and fair to require them to make some contribution to it.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that, coming on top of all the testing times that he has had with the Prime Minister, it is a crying shame that there should be

    979
    more reports of Cabinet rows and defeats for him, this time on the issue of student loans? However, if he presses ahead with his scheme to replace grants with loans and to cut student grants, that is bound to deny educational opportunity and access to thousands of students from less well off homes, and it will be fought tooth and nail inside and outside the House. Now that he has been rolled over by his colleagues on ILEA and on student loans, will he tell the House when was the last time that he succeeded in Cabinet Committee?
    Mr. Baker: The review is being conducted by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson)—previously by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) — and myself, and any decision will be collective. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in other countries, where there is a combination of grants and loans, a higher proportion of young people go to universities, polytechnics and colleges. The review will be published in the summer, and I have a lively expectation that it will be possible to find time for the early implementation of such an important policy.

    Pupil Costs
    Mr. Hayward: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what increase has been made in real terms in the spending per pupil in primary schools in each year since 1979.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): Between 1979–80 and 1986–87 spending per pupil in primary schools in England increased, in real terms, by 26 per cent. I shall arrange for the full details to be published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Hayward: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm not only that we are improving spending per pupil, but that pupil-teacher ratios in the same schools are also improving dramatically?
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is right. The Government's strong record is supported by other objective measures. Overall, pupil-teacher ratios in January 1987 were 17·3: 1 compared with 18·9: 1 in January 1979, and as a result average class sizes have been improving in primary and secondary schools.
    Mr. Ashdown: Has not spending on primary schools taken place despite, rather than because of, Government spending? Do not the figures show that Government expenditure on primary schools has dropped one fifth, while local government expenditure, frequently in defiance of Government policy, has increased by 50 per cent.? Is it not cynical and disreputable of the Government to seek to claim the credit for expenditure which they have not made and which they frequently opposed?
    Mr. Dunn: The hon. Member ought to look at the facts. He ought to be aware that we have increased spending by £1·3 billion in the next financial year. If he looked at the facts he would realise that these changes have been brought about over nine years in succession.
    Mr. Pawsey: Can my hon. Friend say how much is being spent in primary schools on books and equipment, and how that compares with previous years? Will he tell us what his forecast is for the next financial year?
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend's question is quite appropriate. The Government's plans for increased spending of £1 billion in cash provides scope for local authorities to increase their spending per pupil on books and equipment by nearly 40 per cent. in cash compared with actual spending in 1985–86.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members to listen to questions and answers arid not to carry on private conversations?
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that, despite what he has said about an increase, which is totally insufficient, there are not enough books in the primary sector? Schools are using dog-eared books. When the members of the Select Committee went to the plushy, leafy areas in the south they found that parents could treble the capitation allowance by adding their own money to it. Rate-capped councils in downtown areas of east Sheffield could not possibly do that. Why does the Minister not admit the truth — that there is insufficient money to educate our children properly in the primary sector?
    Mr. Dunn: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was becoming moderate as time went on, but clearly that is not the case. He ought to know that how local authorities spend their money is for them to decide. They have to compare the priorities that they have to meet.
    Mr. Marland: Is my hon. Friend able to give any indication of how administrative costs in education may have risen over the same period?
    Mr. Dunn: All authorities owe it to their ratepayers to offer the best value for the substantial investment in education. They need to review their policies from time to time, first, to remove surplus school places, secondly, to cut the cost of school meals, caretaking and cleaning and, finally, to keep a tight rein on the cost of administration and bureaucracy.
    Following is the information:

    Net Institutional Recurrent Expenditure Per Pupil1 Primary Schools—England

    Year

    Expenditure Per Pupil2

    Year on Year Increases

    £

    Percentage

    1979–80

    710

    —

    —

    1980–81

    765

    55

    7·7

    1981–82

    790

    25

    3·3

    1982–83

    810

    20

    2·5

    1983–84

    830

    20

    2·5

    1984–85

    835

    5

    0·6

    1985–86

    840

    5

    0·6

    1986–87

    895

    55

    6·6

    1 Net institutional recurrent expenditure covers the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals, central administration and inspection, debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

    2 The cash prices for the earlier years have been repriced to 1986–87 prices using the gross domestic product (market prices) deflator.

    Pen Tops (Safety)
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the implications for safety in schools of the current state of pen top safety.
    Mr. Dunn: In addition to the hon. and learned Gentleman's own representations, I have received, and replied to, a letter from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs on the subject. My Department has also answered correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. Walker, who are the hon. and learned Member's constituents, and whose son, Billy, tragically died last October after accidentally swallowing a pen top at his school.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the Walker family, and thousands of people who have signed a petition calling on the Government to take action, consider that unless and until pen tops are banned from schools so that no more children unnecessarily die, as Billy did, and no more children are operated on in hospital, as so many are, there can be no hope for greater safety? What steps is the Minister proposing to take at least to encourage schools to take this basically simple safety measure?
    Mr. Dunn: I can tell the hon. and learned Member that my Department is preparing a letter giving advice to all local education authorities in the light of expert comments received on a draft consultative document. It is likely to recommend that any pens with detachable tops that are issued for use in our schools should have the tops removed before being issued to pupils, and that authorities may wish to give early consideration to changing either to pens with tops that cannot normally cause asphyxiation if swallowed or to one-piece pens that do not carry this safety risk. I undertake to keep the hon. and learned Gentleman informed of developments as they emerge.

    Equal Opportunities
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recommendations his Department has made to local education authorities to promote equal opportunities in primary and secondary schools.
    Mrs. Rumbold: No specific recommendations have been issued to local authorities to promote equal opportunities in schools. Local authorities are bound by the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and the Government are firmly committed to equality of opportunity in education, as in other fields.
    Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she concerned that equal opportunities policies are being abused by some Left-wing councils? Is she aware that a poll conducted last year among parents in Brent showed that parents felt that the council believed that its sex and race policies were more important than its teaching? Is she happy that the appalling abuses of the so-called race snoopers, so graphically shown on the BBC "Panorama" programme last year, have now been brought to an end?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Brent's development programme for race equality is currently the subject of an independent assessment by Sir David Lane. That assessment was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to help him to determine whether the local authority should receive grant under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1986 towards the salary costs of the programme.
    982
    At the same time, HMI has been conducting an inspection of the work of the development programme for race equality in Brent schools. Reports from both Sir David Lane and HMI should be available after Easter. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's query.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members sitting below the Gangway not to carry on conversations across the Chamber. It makes it very difficult to hear.
    Ms. Armstrong: I am very disappointed at the Government's response. They are not making any commitments on what they will do to ensure that in future girls, and those from racial minorities, receive an equal chance in schools. What are the Government going to do to ensure that the national curriculum and testing arc operated in a way that will enable those groups to have a fair chance?
    Mrs. Rumbold: In the remit letters to the working groups on the subjects for the national curriculum we have asked for special attention to be paid to the importance of ensuring that girls are offered exactly the same opportunities and choices in subjects as boys, to make certain that the future work force—both girls and boys—receives suitable opportunities.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that much more research is required? In some subjects, such as handicraft, metal and wood, girls do as well as boys, and they also apply themselves in other subjects such as home economics. However, although boys enjoy cooking and eating the food that they produce, they take no interest in diet and do not follow the subject to a suitable academic level
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is right. We still need to make some progress to ensure that there are equal opportunities for boys and girls in all subjects offered in schools. Equality is very important, particularly for girls. They should be encouraged to take up subjects such as engineering. We have taken particular care to examine the recommendations of organisations such as the Equal Opportunities Commission.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree that equal access to the same curriculum must be supported by in-service equal opportunities training if the Government's declared objectives are to be met? Or are the Government ready to be hauled yet again before the European Court of Justice because of breaches of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady knows that teaching institutions are required to follow the equal opportunities legislation, and also not to practise any kind of sex discrimination in their courses.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for increasing the number of places available to students in higher education; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jackson: The Government remain committed to the principle that places should be available for all who have the necessary intellectual competence, motivation and maturity to benefit from higher education and who wish to do so. We are confident that our expenditure plans provide for institutions to meet this demand.
    Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is a major pillar of his Department's policy that higher education should be made widely available to every 18-year-old or other person who wishes to seek it? Will he also confirm that major progress is being made towards the commitment to increase the numbers in higher education by 50,000 by 1990?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Important progress is being made. I have some interesting figures on student numbers and participation rates under the present Government compared with what happened under their predecessors. Between 1975 and 1979, participation fell by 9·5 per cent. and numbers rose by only 4·3 per cent. Between 1979 and 1986 participation rose by 12·9 per cent. and numbers rose by 18·9 per cent. under this Government.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister confirm that if the growing numbers of students from outside the United Kingdom want to take advantage of further education in the United Kingdom under the EEC directive, students in the United Kingdom will not be penalised and there will be enough places for them if they are qualified?
    Mr. Jackson: There is room within our system for people to come from other countries of the European Community and we benefit from reciprocal arrangements with those countries. At the moment the traffic is more or less equal.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is considerable evidence that people entering higher education at a much later age than 18 frequently get more out of it than 18-year-olds? If he does, will he confirm that he will do everything in his power to make it easier for such people to achieve access to higher education, which is so important?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend has touched on an important theme. By the middle of the next decade there will be a reduction by a third in the number of 18-year-olds in our population and it will be necessary, as well as desirable — as my hon. Friend said — to increase participation by mature people and part-time students.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to attract mature students and make it easier for them to get into higher education, instead of leaking stories about student loans, which would clearly make it difficult for them? What will he do to develop access courses and provide proper grants for mature students so as to attract them and to fulfil his policy of making a larger proportion of the student population consist of mature students?
    Mr. Jackson: I have already described the enormous expansion of higher education under the Government. On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about loans, it is interesting to make international comparisons. They are difficult to make—[Interruption]—but, comparing the United Kingdom with the Federal Republic of Germany, we see that the average value of a loan paid to a student is £2,000 a year, and roughly 15 per cent. of new entrants to universities are from manual working class backgrounds, whereas in Britain, which has no loans and the most generous grant provision in the world, only 6 per cent. come from manual working-class backgrounds—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House once again to listen to Question Time. These are important matters of great concern to hon. Members and to people outside.

    AIDS
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what support he is giving to the Medical Research Council for research into AIDS-related dementia.
    Mr. Jackson: The Medical Research Council has two sources of Government funds for AIDS research. It receives earmarked funding, starting with £3·5 million in 1987–88 and rising to £8 million in 1989–90. It supports additional AIDS research from its general grant.
    Mrs. Fyfe: The Minister's answer means not a lot. Does he realise that advances in areas such as this would be less likely to be made were it not for pure research, which the Government are curtailing? Does he realise that this is the unglamorous end of the research market, which is less likely to receive funds from voluntary bodies? The Government must therefore do much more about it.
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the importance of pure research as the basis for the good work that is being done by our scientists in this and other fields. As she will know, the matter was debated in the House last week, and I am sorry that she was not able to participate in that debate. If she reads it she will find the answer to her question contained in the speeches made by my right hon. Friend and myself.
    Mr. Galbraith: Developing the point on basic pure research, will the Minister inquire into the three-year project grants of the Medical Research Council? Why is the number of such grants that are approved but not funded increasing over the years, despite the fact that the level for approval is also rising? Will the Minister inquire into that? As he realises, this is the seedcorn of basic scientific research and it is being hampered under this Government, so may we have an inquiry into this issue within the Medical Research Council?
    Mr. Jackson: I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman after having inquired, but the administration of its funds is a matter for the Medical Research Council. It cannot be a principle that all projects for which funding is requested will be funded. The council must make some judgment and exercise discrimination.

    City Technology Colleges
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much it will cost to build the city technology college in Nottingham; how much of the cost will be met by the Government; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The cash limit for capital expenditure on the Nottingham city technology college is £9·05 million. This covers the cost of land, fixed furniture, equipment and professional fees as well as the cost of building. My right hon. Friend has agreed, exceptionally, to underwrite up to 85 per cent. of this figure. He is confident that the Nottingham CTC trust will contribute more than its minimum share of the capital costs through additional sponsorship.
    Mr. Allen: Is the hon. Lady aware that there are 565 schools in Nottinghamshire, which have a capital programme now of £2·7 million as a result of the cuts instituted by the Government, and that more than £9 million is to be spent on imposing a CTC on the city of Nottingham? Is that because the hon. Lady cannot do her arithmetic, or is it because she is putting one college above the educational needs of all the children of Nottinghamshire?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The advantages that the city technology college will bring to the city of Nottingham and its environs are immeasurable. It will produce a large number of opportunities for good education for children who apparently are not able to receive that education at present. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the expenditure is well justified.
    Mr. Hanley: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, with 20,000 unemployed in Nottingham, it will be a small price to pay for the children's future?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the education that will be received in the CTC will greatly improve the opportunities for employment for all the young people who are fortunate enough to participate in the education there.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does the Minister recall the DES document that launched the CTC initiative, which said that the promoters would meet all or a substantial part of capital costs? Why, then, in the case of Nottingham is there such a shift in policy? Why are the Government meeting 85 per cent. of capital costs?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Sadly, it is because the local authority refused point blank to be co-operative in the matter of a building. In those local authorities where there has been co-operation in the matter of a building for the technology college, it has been perfectly possible for the Secretary of State to adhere to the original proposals.

    Education Reform
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the proposed national curriculum and the feasibility of implementing and maintaining it.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: We have received over 10,000 responses to our proposals. A number of these raised questions about the implementation of the national curriculum. Our decisions on the phasing of its introduction will take account of all relevant factors.
    Dr. Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposed introduction of a national curriculum, particularly the inclusion of science as a core subject, is being widely welcomed? I acknowledge that we are producing more science graduates now than we have for many years, but is my right hon. Friend confident that there will be enough science teachers to ensure that science is properly taught as a core subject?
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is right. There are about 30,000 more students studying science in our polytechnics and universities than when we took office. But I am concernd about the shortage of science teachers, particularly in physics. We have a bursary scheme of an extra £1,250 a year for those who want to study physics
    986
    teaching, and I am glad to say that there was a sharp increase in the number of students for that scheme last year—an increase of 40 per cent. We need several years like that.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in Committee the Minister of State, his hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), undertook to provide for me the details of the teachers who would be required in each of the disciplines in order to implement the national curriculum? Will he tell me when I may expect to receive that information?
    Mr. Baker: We have in hand a review of this and we shall have the figures later this year.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern felt by some head teachers that in the preparation of pupils for scholarship at the university entrance the time taken by the core curriculum might leave too little time for some of the other specialist subjects?
    Mr. Baker: I am concerned that the foundation core curriculum should not take up too much time and exclude such important subjects as a second foreign language, a second and third science, and religious education. That is why we are not being prescriptive and saying that the curriculum should take up a particular amount of time. We think, broadly, that it will take up about 70 per cent. That leaves a day and a half a week for the other subjects.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Is the Secretary of State aware that in foreign language teaching—and in craft design and technology—there is likely to be a shortfall of teachers? Does he propose to increase funding in those areas to make sure that we have not just teachers, but suitably trained teachers, to make sure that these very difficult subjects are taught adequately to our children?
    Mr. Baker: Courses are also available for student teachers in craft and design technology. I am also concerned with the potential shortfall in foreign language teachers. Over the next two or three years we shall be using education support grants, together with our in-service training grants, to deal with some of these problems.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the religious education provisions of the Education Reform Bill; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend and I have received many representations from hon. Members, Church leaders and others about religious education and the Education Reform Bill. The Bill reinforces the existing law on religious education, reflecting the Government's determination to sustain the position of religious education in the school curriculum.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm that the provisions of the Bill, as well as strengthening religious instruction in our schools, will make it easier for parents to protect the Church voluntary aided day schools in their aims, which are under attack from councils controlled by the Opposition?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Education Reform Bill contains provisions substantially to strengthen the position of parents and will enable their voice to be heard when local authorities propose to take action against voluntary aided schools.
    Mr. Stokes: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the last resort, the effectiveness of religious education depends on the commitment of the teachers?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct in saying that the effectiveness of religious education depends very much upon the effectiveness of the teachers. I can assure him that the place of religious education in the curriculum is very secure under the provisions of the Education Reform Bill, because it continues to be a compulsory subject for all children to study.

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total number of assisted places in (a) 1980–81 and (b) 1987–88.
    Mr. Dunn: In the academic year 1981–82, when the assisted places scheme was first introduced, a total of 5,596 places were available in England and Wales for pupils entering the scheme at the various ages of entry. In 1987–88 there is a total of 34,005 places available for take-up in the scheme throughout the secondary age range.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show just how much the Government have done for parental choice in allowing children to go to schools where they will be able to have the education that they need? Will he say how many children have been given the opportunity to go to schools where they can be given special opportunities to study ballet and music?
    Mr. Dunn: I welcome my hon. Friend's endorsement of the excellent scheme. Since September 1987 some 499 pupils have gained places under the aided pupils scheme. This scheme deals with music and ballet, in which my hon. Friend is interested.
    Mr. Fatchett: How, when the Government are prepared to spend £4,000 per year on some children for some assisted places, can they regard the expenditure of 60 per cent. of that sum in ILEA schools to be overspending?
    Mr. Dunn: That comment is entirely worthy of the hon. Gentleman. It is because of the ideological hatred of the scheme that we are determined to make it work and see it extended over a period of time.

    Student Grants
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what adjustment will be made to the level of student grants, in view of the Government's poll tax proposals.
    Mr. Jackson: Students' liability to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge will be taken into account in reaching decisions on the future level of student support from public funds. Grant rates for the 1988–89 academic year have already been announced and the Government have no plans to make any adjustment to them.
    Mr. Canavan: Since students will be liable to pay at least 20 per cent. of the poll tax, which in some areas will amount to more than £100 a year, will the Minister give an absolute guarantee that students will be fully recompensed by an appropriate increase in their grant? Is he aware that, otherwise, many students will respond to the poll tax demand simply by telling the Government, "We can't pay, so we won't pay"? Who could blame them
    988
    for refusing to stump up for a blatantly unjust tax which is an attack on the living standards of students and most other people in Britain?
    Mr. Jackson: The decision to extend an 80 per cent. relief to all students for their share of expenditure from which they benefit has already been made. The question whether there should be compensation for the 20 per cent. obligation is one that remains to be dealt with. Meanwhile, in Scotland, for one term, it will be necessary for students to pay their contribution to the community charge.

    Education Reform
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding the impact of the Education Reform Bill upon Catholic schools.
    Mr. Dunn: A substantial proportion of the correspondence which my right hon. Friend has received about the Education Reform Bill has mentioned the possible impact of the Bill upon Catholic schools.
    Mr. Yeo: Can my hon. Friend clarify the position on open enrolment in Catholic schools, about which some concern has been expressed?
    Mr. Dunn: I am happy to do just that. The Education Act 1980 relieved the governors of a voluntary aided school from the requirement to admit pupils whose parents wanted them to attend the school, if such admissions would run counter to agreed arrangements designed to safeguard the school's denominational character. The Education Reform Bill does not change that position.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March 1988.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Prime Minister aware that not many days hence, in the month of April, there will be many cuts in social security, including, in particular, housing benefit? Does she realise that there are millions of people across this nation, in my constituency, and in Finchley, too, who will lose because of her Government's policies? Does she realise that many of those people are elderly and that during their working lives they made a massive contribution to the success of this nation? They were even prepared to give their lives for this country. I have a heart, and it has feelings. Has the Prime Minister a heart of stone?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to housing benefit, after the changes have been made, the money spent on housing benefit will still be considerably higher in real terms than was expenditure to help with rent and rates in 1979. May I also point out to the hon. Member and to the millions to whom he referred that expenditure on social security this year, because of the very successful running of the economy, will be as high as £46 billion?
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the new £4 million maternity unit at the Ealing hospital, to be opened on 24 March? Will she note that in the current year the caring Ealing Labour council increased the rates on Ealing hospital by £299,000, but that rate capping by this Government will reduce those rates by £175,000 next year? What effect on treatment does she think that the additional rate bill of £299,000 imposed by the Labour council would have had?
    The Prime Minister: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the development at Ealing hospital and in condemning the high-rating policy of the local authority, which has put up the rates on the hospital and placed great strains on its budget.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Government's opposition to the execution of the Sharpeville Six is long-standing and well known. In further assertion of that opposition, will the Prime Minister make a direct personal appeal to the President of South Africa, asking him to grant an indefinite stay of execution for the Sharpeville Six, who are recognised by the trial and appeal courts not to have had any causal complicity in the death of the deputy mayor of Sharpeville?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Britain and other Western Governments have already urged the South African Government to exercise clemency in the particular circumstances of this case, to which he referred. In addition, my Office saw relatives of the Sharpeville Six this morning, as I know the right hon. Gentleman did. I have also spoken to Archbishop Tutu. Although it is not our normal practice to intervene in such cases, in the particular circumstances of this one, our ambassador in South Africa is speaking this afternoon to the South African Government to express my hope that President Botha will see fit, even at this late stage, to exercise the prerogative of mercy. I have made inquiries, and I understand that Chancellor Kohl will be making a similar appeal on behalf of the 12 Governments of the European Community, and I further understand that the United States Government will be making parallel representations in President Reagan's name.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I thank the Prime Minister for that reply as a very positive step that she has taken in addition to the other actions that are afoot both at home and abroad. Could she possibly reflect further and consider the advantage of making a direct personal appeal to the President of South Africa? She need not give a final reply at this stage, although, plainly, time is tragically running out.
    The Prime Minister: No. As I indicated to the right hon. Gentleman, our ambassador is speaking to the South African Government this afternoon to express my hope that President Botha will see fit to exercise the prerogative of mercy. That is the usual way to do it, and it is the way in which other pleas have been going in. Of course, they have to go to President Botha. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that everything possible has been done. I stress that it is because of the very unusual circumstances of this particular case, which he alluded to in his initial question.
    Sir Charles Morrison: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the report in The Times this morning that the
    990
    Government are considering abolishing the county councils, or say whether the Government intend to consider such a proposition?
    The Prime Minister: Naturally, I will comment. It was news to me, but reading the newspapers gets more like a voyage of discovery of things that are not so, every day.
    Mr. Wigley: If, indeed, the South African regime goes ahead with these appalling executions, will the Prime Minister be prepared to think again on the question of sanctions?
    The Prime Minister: No. Sanctions would not help in any way. They would only make matters a great deal worse for those whom the hon. Member, and most other hon. Members in the House, are seeking to help.
    Mr. John Townend: Has my right hon.Friend had time to study the latest immigration figures, which I understand show that immigration to the United Kingdom last year was at the lowest level for decades, and is she aware that this will be warmly welcomed by the British people?
    The Prime Minister: I have not studied those figures, but I knew that they were down. I believe that that is in the interests of everyone in the United Kingdom, not least those who have previously been immigrants to this country and who now have a permanent right of abode here.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's social fund is so small that charities are being asked by the Department of Health and Social Security to prepare to give handouts to the poor and to pensioners on income support? Will the Prime Minister tell the House the level of income support for a pensioner over the age of 60; and could she live on that amount?
    The Prime Minister: The social fund is of the order of £200 million. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman said, only where there are crisis loans will social fund officers by asked to consider any help that might be forthcoming from charities.
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Field: Will my right hon. Friend find time to congratulate the Southern Vectis Bus Company on the Isle of Wight, which is the first of the privatised bus companies to purchase a municipal bus company from the Portsmouth city council? Does that not show that, like the Chancellor, the Isle of Wight is going along the route to a free enterprise culture, unlike the Opposition parties, who have either missed the bus or caught the wrong one?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate the Southern Vectis Company on its success in the private sector and I congratulate it on its enterprise. I understand that the matter of the Portsmouth purchase will be considered by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brown: Now that Mr. James Abra has been set free as part of Libya's general amnesty, thanks to individual Members here, will the Prime Minister respond in some way? Does she know, for example, that there are some 5,000 Britons working out there on all sorts of contracts and that many British companies do quite well? Does she also appreciate that Libyans are detained here and that they should be considered for parole? We know that the Prime Minister does not intervene in judicial matters, but, if that is not possible, why should not those individuals at least be given the right to serve out their sentences in their home country? Why should they not be given the right to go back to Libya to serve those sentences? [Interruption.] Even if the Prime Minister will not consider that —[Interruption.]—will she at least allow the parents of those prisoners the right to come to this country freely to visit them in prison? I say that remembering a certain individual who was lost in the desert.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has had enough time.
    The Prime Minister: In so far as I heard the hon. Gentleman's question, we welcome the release of Mr. Abra from prison as part of a general amnesty. The 5,000 British people who work in Libya do so at their own risk, knowing the circumstances in that country. Parole for prisoners here is dealt with as usual, and there are no exceptions to that rule. The possibility of serving sentences at home applies only to those countries that have signed the European convention. I do not think that that applies to Libya.
    Mr. Fallon: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fallon: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the decision of Nissan to build on its successful investment in the north-east and to locate its design centre in Britain? Does not that news and the announcement by Sanyo last week of 500 jobs in county Durham confirm the industrial revival of the northern region under the Government?
    The Prime Minister: The north-east is doing much better. I know that my hon. Friend is a staunch champion of its future. We welcome Nissan's decision to put a design
    992
    centre here. I am not quite certain where it is going, but, wherever it goes, its coming to this country will be due in large measure to the success of the Washington plant and the excellent relations between the management and the work force there.
    Mr. Meale: To ask he Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Meale: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mansfield colliery in my constituency will be closed in the near future, losing over 1,000 jobs in my constituency, despite the fact that millions of tons of coal exist in that colliery, to be dug out in the near future? Is she further aware that the colliery worked throughout the miners' strike and was loyal to her opinion on that strike? Is she aware that the closure is due to the price of coal in Britain today and to her refusal to subsidise coal prices in Britain? When will she act to subsidise coal prices on the world market so that our coal mines can compete, or at least ban the import of cheap foreign coal?
    The Prime Minister: First, I am aware that the Mansfield colliery is closing. I understand that there will be no compulsory redundancies. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about subsidies, I must tell him that the subsidies by the British taxpayer to the National Coal Board are very considerable. Investment has been enormous—of the order of £2 million a day—to ensure that the industry becomes competitive, because in a competitive future will lie its strength and the future of jobs for people in the coal industry.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend take time to ponder that under the policies of her Government we have saved £8,000 million in overseas debt interests, compared with the equivalent figure in 1979, which figure happens to be the combined budget for Scotland and Wales put together, or one third of the Health Service funding? Would she care to ponder on whether a Labour Government would have closed down Scotland and Wales and one third of the Health Service, or borrowed £8,000 million and beggared the country as a whole?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend puts his point absolutely superbly. Under the Government we have borrowed less and have far more overseas assets, and Scotland is benefiting in the process.

WAYS AND MEANS

  Budget Statement
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I remind them that at the end of the Chancellor's speech, as in past years, copies of the Budget resolutions will not be handed around in the Chamber but will be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.
  3.31 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I am reliably informed that my Budget speech last year was the shortest this century. My Budget speech this year is likely to have a different claim to a place in the history books — not, the House will be glad to learn, as the longest Budget speech this century, but as the last untelevised Budget speech.
  As I once again present the first Budget of a new Parliament, the British economy is stronger than at any time since the war. As the British people recognised last June, this has not happened by chance. It has happened because, for almost nine years now, we have followed the right policies and stuck to them. I reaffirm those policies today. In particular, there will be no letting up in our determination to defeat inflation.
  I shall begin, as usual, with the economic background to the Budget. I shall then deal with monetary policy, and with the public finances this year and next, and indeed for the remainder of this Parliament. Finally, I shall propose a number of measures designed to improve the performance of the economy still further, by changing the structure of taxation. For this will be a tax reform Budget.
  As usual, the Financial Statement and Budget Report, together with a number of press releases filling out the details of my tax proposals, will be available from the Vote Office as soon as I have sat down.

  Budget Statement

    THE ECONOMIC BACKGROUND
    I start with the economic background.
    The strength and durability of the economic upswing has now exceeded all post-war records. We are about to enter our eighth successive year of sustained growth, and the sixth in which this has been combined with low inflation. And, even without looking to 1988, the six years to 1987 have been the longest period of steady growth, at a rate averaging 3 per cent. a year, for half a century.
    This performance compares favourably not only with our own past, but also with the economic performance of other countries. During the 1960s and the 1970s, Britain's growth rate was the lowest of all the major European economies. During the 1980s, our growth rate has been the highest of all the major European economies.
    In 1987 as a whole, output grew by getting on for 4½ per cent., rather more than the rate of inflation which averaged 4·2 per cent. At the same time, unemployment fell faster than in any other year since the war, in every region of the country, and more than in any other major nation.
    The plain fact is that the British economy has been transformed. Prudent financial policies have given business and industry the confidence to expand, while supply side reforms have progressively removed the barriers to enterprise.
    994
    Nowhere has this transformation been more marked than in manufacturing, where output rose last year by 54½ per cent. This outstanding performance was founded on a further big improvement in productivity. In the 1980s, output per head in manufacturing has gone up faster in Britain than in any other major industrial country, and we led the way once again last year. This is in stark contrast to the 1960s and 1970s, when in the growth of manufacturing productivity, as in so much else, we were bottom of the league.
    The current account of the balance of payments is now estimated to have been in deficit last year by a little over £1½ billion, after seven successive years of surplus. This is well below the deficit I forecast at the time of last year's Budget, despite growth turning out stronger than forecast. The reason for the smaller deficit was the better than expected performance of visible trade, with exports of manufactures up by 84½ per cent. This continues the consistent trend of the 1980s, with British manufacturers maintaining their share of an expanding world trade—the crucial test of competitiveness—after decades during which Britain's share was steadily declining.
    Looking ahead, I expect 1988 to be yet another year of healthy growth with low inflation; and there is every prospect that unemployment will continue to fall, although probably not as rapidly as last year.
    The pace of non-oil growth is likely to ease from now on, returning to the underlying trend of the past few years. Output for 1988 as a whole is forecast to be 3 per cent. higher than in 1987, with the non-oil economy up by 3½ per cent. Business investment is forecast to grow particularly strongly, with a rise of 9 per cent.
    As last year, inflation is forecast to end the year at 4 per cent. While this is still too high, it is a testimony to the soundness of our policies that the present strong and sustained upswing, unlike almost all its predecessors, has not led to any resurgence of inflation.
    With growth in the United Kingdom economy likely to continue to outpace that of most other major countries, particularly in continental Europe, and with our oil surplus falling as North sea oil production declines, the current account of the balance of payments is forecast to remain in deficit this year, by some £4 billion, equivalent to less than 1 per cent. of GDP. Given the strength of the economy in general, and of our public finances in particular, not to mention our massive net overseas assets, I foresee no difficulty in financing a temporary current account deficit of this scale.
    But the outlook both for exports and for jobs will depend critically on employers keeping their costs firmly under control. Unit labour costs in manufacturing scarcely rose at all in 1987. It is vital that employers do not let this slip, and keep a tight grip on all their costs, not least pay.
    In my Budget speech last year, I warned that:
    "Given the continuation of present policies in this country, the biggest risk to the excellent prospect I have outlined is that of a downturn in the world economy as a whole."—[Official Report, 17 March 1987; Vol. 112, c. 817.]
    That remains the case. The dramatic collapse in the world's equity markets last October was not the second coming of 1929 or the harbinger of a 1930s-style world slump, as so many feared at the time—although it could have been a great deal nastier had the authorities in the major nations not responded in a prompt and appropriate way. It was essentially an overdue market correction which did little more than reverse the rapid rise in share prices

    995
    of the previous year. Certainly, business confidence does not seem to have been greatly affected, and growth in the seven major industrial countries as a whole this year is likely to be only slightly lower than last year.
    But Black Monday was also a warning. The world's three largest economies—the United States, Japan and Germany — have made a number of the policy adjustments necessary to reduce the imbalances which have for so long afflicted them, and there is evidence that the measures they have taken are starting to bear fruit. But there is still a long way to go; and meanwhile there is the constant danger that the process of adjustment, and with it the world economy as a whole, could be gravely damaged either by further wild gyrations in the dollar exchange rate or by a lurch into protectionism.
    Success in reducing these imbalances depends on countries putting the right fiscal and monetary policies in place, and keeping them there. But the necessary adjustments are much more likely to be achieved if the objective of greater exchange rate stability is given an explicit role in the process of international co-operation, as has been the case for well over two years now. I can assure the House that we shall continue to play our full part.

    MONETARY POLICY
    Meanwhile, the maintenance of sound money and prudent public finances will keep us in the best possible position to weather any storms we may face, either at home or abroad.
    The medium-term financial strategy, now entering its ninth year, will continue to provide the framework for reducing the growth of money GDP, and hence inflation, over the medium term. These will be achieved by maintaining firm monetary discipline, buttressed by a prudent fiscal stance.
    Achieving the gradual eradication of inflation requires a steady reduction in monetary growth in the medium term. While I shall continue to take account of broad money, or liquidity, as last year there will be no explicit target. For narrow money, M0, the target range for 1988–89 will be 1 to 5 per cent., as foreshadowed in last year's MTFS.
    Short-term interest rates remain the essential instrument of monetary policy. Within a continuous and comprehensive assessment of monetary conditions, I will continue to set interest rates at the level necessary to ensure downward pressure on inflation.
    Exchange rates play a central role in domestic monetary decisions as well as in international policy co-operation. I believe that most business men have welcomed the greater exchange rate stability over the past year. It is important that they also accept the financial discipline inherent in this policy.

    PUBLIC SECTOR FINANCES
    As I pointed out a moment ago, a sound monetary policy needs to be buttressed by a prudent fiscal stance.
    At one time, it was regarded as the hallmark of good government to maintain a balanced budget; to ensure that, in time of peace, Government spending was fully financed by revenues from taxation, with no need for Government borrowing. Over the years, this simple and beneficent rule was increasingly disregarded, culminating in the catastrophe of 1975–76, when the last Labour Government
    996
    had a budget deficit, or public sector borrowing requirement, equivalent in today's terms to some £40 billion.
    This profligacy not only brought economic disaster arid the national humiliation of a bail-out by the IMF; it also added massively to the burden of debt interest, not merely now but for a generation to come.
    Thus, one of our main objectives, when we first took office in 1979, was to bring down Government borrowing. We steadily reduced the public sector borrowing requirement from the 5¼ per cent. of GDP we inherited to only three quarters of I per cent. in 1986–87. Today, I am able to tell the House that in 1987–88, the year now ending, we are set to secure something previously achieved only on one isolated occasion since the beginning of the 1950s: a balanced budget.
    Indeed, we have gone even further. It looks as if the final outturn for 1987–88 will be a budget surplus of £3 billion. Instead of a PSBR, a PSDR: not a public sector borrowing requirement, but a public sector debt repayment. And, incidentally, even if there had been no privatisation proceeds at all, the resulting PSBR, at a half of 1 per cent. of GDP, would still have been the lowest in all but one year since the beginning of the 1950s.
    Some two thirds of this substantial undershoot of the PSBR I set at the time of last year's Budget is the result of the increased tax revenues that have flowed from a buoyant economy; while the remaining third is due to lower than expected public expenditure, again the outcome of a buoyant economy: less in benefits for the unemployed, higher receipts from council house sales, and improved trading performance by the nationalised industries.
    A balanced budget is a valuable discipline for the medium term. It represents security for the present and an investment for the future. Having achieved it, I intend to stick to it. In other words, henceforth a zero PSBR will be the norm. This provides a clear and simple rule, with a good historical pedigree.
    In the very nature of things, there are bound to be fluctuations on either side from year to year. It is in this context that I have to set the precise fiscal stance for the year ahead, 1988–89.
    I have already announced, in the Autumn Statement last November, a £2½ billion increase in public expenditure plans for 1988–89, with resources allocated to programmes up by over £4½ billion. This means that, over the coming year, we will be spending at least £1,100 million more on health than in the year now ending, at least £900 million more on education, and at least £500 million more on law and order.
    These large increases in public expenditure programmes for the coming year will be financed partly from the saving in debt interest resulting from the reduction in Government borrowing. Debt interest payments now account for about three quarters of a percentage point less of GDP than they did only three years ago. This may riot sound very much, but it implies a saving of some £3 billion a year. And the balanced budget path I have set out in this year's MTFS will help to reduce debt interest payments still further.
    We have thus secured an enviable virtuous circle in public finance: lower borrowing and lower tax rates create both the scope and the incentive for the private sector to expand. And the private sector then generates higher revenues which permit further reductions in borrowing or tax.

    997
    But even so, the increased public spending now planned for 1988–89 inevitably implies less scope for reducing taxation. Moreover, I have decided that for the year immediately ahead the path of prudence and caution is to budget for a further surplus of the same size as this year's expected outturn—that is to say, a further public sector debt repayment of some £3 billion.
    What this means is that it will not be possible in this Budget to reduce the burden of taxation; that is to say, to reduce taxation as a share of GDP. However, the House may be pleased to know that, with a strong and healthy economy, a constant burden of taxation implies a reduction in tax rates.

    TAX REFORM
    I indicated at the outset that this will be a radical, tax-reforming Budget.
    Over the past few years there has been increasing recognition, throughout the industrialised world, of the importance of tax reform in improving economic performance. And for us in this country the lesson is underlined by the success of the reform of business taxation which I announced in my first Budget, at the start of the last Parliament.
    But while tax reform is a simple matter for the armchair critic, it is very much more difficult in practice. It is difficult technically and difficult politically—since any tax system, however it arose, creates powerful vested interests in favour of the status quo.
    Nor, indeed, is it right that change should be too violent. People have a right to expect a reasonable degree of stability in the framework within which they order their affairs. But change there has to be.
    So the tax-reforming Chancellor must tread a careful path. That I have sought to do in this Budget. The proposals I shall he making today amount to a substantial and coherent package which will be of increasing benefit to the taxpayer and to the economy as a whole in the years to come.
    I have been guided by four basic principles—first, the need to reduce tax rates where they are clearly too high; second, the need to reduce or abolish unwarranted tax breaks; third, the need to make life a little simpler for the taxpayer; and, fourth, the need to remove some manifest injustices from the system.

    INDEPENDENT TAXATION AND TAX PENALTIES ON MARRIAGE
    My first reform concerns the taxation of marriage.
    The present system for the taxation of married couples goes back 180 years. It taxes the income of a married woman as if it belonged to her husband. Quite simply, that is no longer acceptable.
    This is a matter on which there has already been extensive consultation. The time has come to take action.
    I therefore propose a major reform of personal taxation, with two objectives: first, to give married women the same privacy and independence in their tax affairs as everyone else; and, second, to bring to an end the ways in which the tax system can penalise marriage.
    I have decided to introduce, at the earliest practicable date, April 1990, a completely new system of independent taxation. Under this new system, a husband and wife will
    998
    be taxed independently, on income of all kinds. All taxpayers, male or female, married or single, will be entitled to the same personal allowance, which will be available against all income, whether from earnings, pensions or savings.
    In addition, there will be a married couple's allowance, equal to the difference under the present system between the married man's allowance and the single allowance. This new allowance will go in the first instance to the husband, so that his tax threshold will not fall. But if he does not have enough income to use it in full, he will be able to transfer any unused portion to his wife, to set against her income.
    This ensures that the tax system will continue to recognise marriage, as it should do. At the same time, from 1990 married women will pay their own tax, on the basis of their own income, and have their own tax return, when one is necessary. There will, of course, be nothing to stop married women from asking their husbands to handle their tax affairs, or vice versa, as before; and many will no doubt do so. But what matters is that, for the first time ever, married women will have the right to complete independence and privacy so far as tax is concerned.
    In the same way, a husband and wife will be taxed independently on any capital gains they may have, with an annual exemption each, instead of one between them as now. But transfers of capital between husband and wife will continue to be entirely free of any liability to tax.
    As I have said, the new system will come into force in 1990. This is much sooner than would have been possible for most of the alternatives that have been canvassed. The necessary legislation will be contained in this year's Finance Bill. The cost of this historic reform, which for the first time ever gives a fair deal to married women, will be a little over £½ billion in 1990–91.
    I mentioned a few moments ago the tax penalties on marriage. It is clearly wrong that some couples should find themselves paying more tax simply because they are married. I propose to put that right.
    Independent taxation by itself will remove the most common penalty—the taxation of a married woman's income at her husband's marginal rate. But there are other tax penalties on marriage, and I propose to abolish them. These changes need not await the introduction of independent taxation.
    Under the present system an unmarried couple can get twice as much mortgage interest relief as a married couple. This has attracted increasing—and justified—criticism. I propose to put a stop to it as from August this year. Thereafter, the £30,000 limit on mortgage interest relief will be related to the house or flat, irrespective of the number of borrowers. This was the solution put forward in the 1986 Green Paper on personal taxation, and it was widely welcomed. Existing mortgages will be unaffected.
    Another anomaly is that an unmarried couple with children can each claim the additional personal allowance intended for single parents, and thus get more tax relief than a married couple in the same position. I propose to confine them to a single additional personal allowance, with effect from April 1989.
    Thus this Budget will not only, for the first time ever, give married women a fair deal from the tax system. It will also eliminate, for all practical purposes, the other tax penalties which, under the present system, can arise on marriage.

    BUSINESS TAXATION
    I turn now to business taxation. The major reform of business taxation, which I introduced in 1984 and which was completed in 1986, has given us one of the lowest corporation tax rates in the world. This has encouraged overseas companies to invest in Britain and, most important of all, has greatly improved the quality of investment by British firms. It is a crucial part of an environment in which company profitability has recovered to its highest level for some 20 years. It has succeeded in its objectives.
    I do not, therefore, propose any further changes to the structure of corporation tax. And the main corporation tax rate for 1988–89 will be unchanged at 35 per cent. But I do have some changes to propose to specific aspects of business taxation.
    British exporters have done extremely well in recent years, thanks to major improvements in efficiency and quality. But no exporter could honestly claim that his success hinges on the fact that the cost of entertaining overseas customers is tax deductible, whereas business entertainment generally is not. I therefore propose to simplify the system by making all business entertainment non-deductible for tax purposes, including for VAT.
    In conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, I propose to restructure the tax regime for the new generation of southern basin and onshore fields so as to relate tax liability more closely to profitability. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend will shortly be bringing forward legislation to abolish royalties, from 1 July, for all such fields. At the same time, I propose to reduce the petroleum revenue tax oil allowance for these fields. This will mean the end of royalties for all future fields.
    The Building Societies Act 1986 gives building societies the power to convert themselves into companies, if they so wish. At present, however, they would face a heavy, and unintended, tax charge if they did so. I propose to rectify this.
    I have two changes to propose to the tax arrangements for Lloyd's. The first meets the only point that Lloyd's have raised on last year's legislation on reinsurance to close. The second will benefit both Lloyd's and the Inland Revenue by simplifying the administrative arrangements for taxing Lloyd's members.
    I also propose to simplify the section 482 rules for companies that wish to migrate overseas, so as to bring these rules broadly into line with those of most of our major competitors. In future, companies will be resident in the United Kingdom if they are incorporated here. Subject to that, instead of having to ask for Treasury consent, companies will be free to migrate, provided only that they pay their tax first.
    I now turn to a number of proposals to give further help to small businesses and new businesses, whose encouragement is a central theme of Government policy. Since 1979, the rate of new business formation, net of failures, has averaged 500 a week. This shows beyond any doubt the continuing vigour of this sector, which is such an important source of enterprise, of innovation, and of new jobs.
    Many new businesses have been greatly assisted by the business expansion scheme, which has now been running for nearly five years. During that time, it has enabled new and expanding companies to raise equity finance
    1000
    amounting to some £150 million a year. However, the rapid growth of the venture capital market since 1983 has meant that companies seeking relatively large amounts of equity investment can now raise these readily, while smaller companies looking for more modest amounts can still find it difficult to do so.
    To improve the targeting of the BES, I therefore propose to introduce a limit of half a million pounds on the amount that any company can raise under the scheme in any one year. Investment should thus be better directed at the smaller and newer businesses, particularly those outside the south-east of England, which can still find it hard to raise equity finance in other ways. In the special circumstances of the ship chartering industry, however, the limit will be £5 million.
    I have one further proposal affecting the business expansion scheme.
    One of the key reasons for our economic transformation has been the reform of the supply side of the economy.
    The tax relief that I introduced last year for profit-related pay will, in time, help to increase pay flexibility and to improve the working of the labour market. But if successful firms are to expand further, and create still more jobs, we also have to make it easier for people to move to where the new jobs are.
    For years, the shortage of private rented accommodation has been an obstacle to labour mobility. The Government's proposals to deregulate new rents are already going through the House. Deregulation will, over time, substantially increase the supply of housing for rent. But this will not happen overnight, and there is a case for a special incentive to speed up the process in the early years.
    I therefore propose to extend the business expansion scheme to include companies specialising in the letting of residential property on the new assured tenancy basis.
    The BES is well suited to this task. Since full tax relief is given immediately, it should bring forward new investment straight away. And we will be building on success.
    The limit for this type of investment will be £5 million a year for any one company. Since the relief is specifically designed to provide an extra stimulus in the early years of deregulation, it will run only for investments made before the end of 1993.
    This change will powerfully reinforce the impact of decontrol in reviving the private rented sector of housing in Britain.
    In last year's Budget I raised the ceiling for capital gains tax retirement relief from £100,000 of gain to £125,000. But I believe it is necessary to do more to help the small business man whose wealth is tied up in his business, and who is faced with the disincentive of a heavy capital gains tax bill when he sells up on retirement. I therefore propose to extend capital gains tax retirement relief so that, on top of the total exemption, half of any gain between £125,000 and £500,000 will also be completely free of tax.
    While on the subject of capital gains tax, I propose to extend rollover relief to a group of assets whose common characteristic is that they barely existed when the present list of qualifying assets was drawn up. They are milk quotas, potato quotas, satellites and spacecraft. I know that this will be warmly welcomed in the farming and extra-terrestrial communities alike.

    1001
    Lastly, on the small business front, I propose to increase the VAT threshold to £22,100, the maximum permitted under existing European Community law.
    Throughout my time as Chancellor, I have been on the look-out for taxes to abolish. Abolition is clearly the simplest variety of reform. I have already abolished the national insurance surcharge, the investment income surcharge, development land tax and the tax on lifetime gifts.
    At present, companies have to pay a capital duty of 1 per cent. whenever they raise new capital — whenever, for example, a new company is formed, or an existing company sells new shares to the public. This is undesirable on two counts. It is a burden on companies which need to secure external finance for expansion; and it discriminates against equity capital as compared with debt finance and bank borrowing.
    Capital duty is a relatively recent impost which had to be introduced in 1973 in compliance with our obligations under European Community law. But the relevant Community directive has now been amended. Accordingly, I propose to abolish capital duty with effect from midnight tonight.
    At the same time, I propose to get rid of the unit trust instrument duty, a similar though much less substantial tax, which is levied at the rate of ¼per cent. on all assets put into a unit trust. I know that the unit trust movement will welcome this minor relief, and I trust that the benefit will be fully passed on to investors.
    The cost of abolishing these two taxes will be of the order of £100 million in 1988–89. Not counting minor imposts, the demise of capital duty brings the number of taxes that I have abolished up to five: an average of one a Budget.

    COVENANTS AND MAINTENANCE
    I now turn to an important area of personal taxation which is ripe for reform and simplification: the taxation of payments made under deeds of covenant and maintenance arrangements.
    Covenants to charity will be wholly unaffected by the changes I am about to propose.
    Other covenants, and maintenance arrangements, are essentially ways of transferring income from one individual to another, usually from one member of a family to another, whether it is a parent or grandparent covenanting to a child, or a husband paying maintenance to an ex-wife.
    Most of the financial transfers that take place within families are rightly and properly outside the scope of the tax system altogether. I propose, as far as is practicable, to take covenants and maintenance out as well. This will greatly simplify an unnecessarily complex part of the tax system.
    First, covenants. Charitable covenants apart, I propose to take all new covenants made by individuals on or after today out of the tax system altogether. In other words, people receiving payments under covenants will not be liable to tax on them, and those making the payments will not be able to claim tax relief on them. The tax treatment of existing covenants will continue unchanged.
    The largest single group of people affected by this change will be students, together with their parents, many
    1002
    of whom nowadays choose to make their contribution to the student maintenance grant by covenant. This has arisen as an unintended by-product of the reduction in 1970 of the legal age of majority from 21 to 18.
    As I have already indicated, those who have already made such covenants will continue to benefit from tax relief. But for new students the parental contribution to the maintenance grant will be assessed on a new and more generous scale, to reflect the withdrawal of tax relief on new covenants. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Scotland will be publishing the details tomorrow.
    One desirable side effect of this reform is that future students will no longer be deterred from taking vacation jobs because their covenant income has already absorbed their personal allowance.
    Student covenants apart, there will be no compensation for the loss of tax advantage arising from these proposals. But once rates of income tax are set at reasonable levels, this is precisely the sort of tax shelter it is right to dispense with.
    Next, maintenance. Here, too, we tax the recipient, only to give tax relief to the payer. The present rules can be complex and confusing for people going through separation and divorce. The tax system ought to intrude as little as possible, though it is reasonable that there should be some recognition of the fact that an ex-husband is continuing to support his ex-wife, or indeed vice versa.
    Accordingly, I propose that, for new maintenance arrangements, recipients will not be liable to any tax whatever on maintenance payments. Relief to the payer will be restricted to payments to a separated or divorced spouse, up to a limit equal to the difference between the married and single allowances.
    For existing maintenance arrangements, the present rules will continue to apply in 1988–89, except that a separated or divorced spouse will be exempt from tax on receipts up to the difference between the married and single allowances. Full relief will continue for all those who are making payments under existing court orders or agreements. The same protection will also apply to those who have already applied for court orders, provided that they are made by 30 June. From April 1989 there will be special transitional rules to continue protection for existing arrangements.
    While the transitional provisions are inevitably somewhat complex, the new system will be very much simpler than the old, for all concerned. It will reduce the tax relief that can be obtained by the better-off payers of large amounts of maintenance, but for most couples the ex-husband will continue to enjoy full tax relief while the ex-wife will not be taxed.
    The reform of the tax treatment of maintenance that I am proposing today will also remove one of the lesser known tax penalties on marriage. At present, an unmarried couple can make large payments either between themselves or to their young children, and get tax relief that would not have been available had they been married. My proposed reform will put an end to that.
    As I have said, this reform and simplification of the taxation of covenants and maintenance in no way affects covenants to charity. Indeed, I have a proposal to help charities further.
    The payroll giving scheme has now been running for nearly a year. I am glad that so many employers have already set up schemes, and I hope as many employees as

    1003
    possible will take advantage of them. In order to give further encouragement to charitable giving, and to assist the growth of the payroll giving scheme, I propose to double the annual limit on tax-allowable donations under the scheme to £240, or £20 a month.

    TAXES ON SPENDING
    I now turn to the taxation of spending.
    I have one change to propose today affecting the coverage of value added tax, which will remain at 15 per cent. Confectionery was brought in to VAT by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in 1974, and the legal definition of confectionery goes back further still to the days of purchase tax. The emergence of new products has rendered this definition, rather like the right hon. Gentleman himself, somewhat obsolete. In particular, recent legal decisions mean that some cereal bars are subject to VAT, while others are not. I propose to clarify the law so that all cereal bars are taxed.
    I propose to raise the excise duties as a whole broadly in line with inflation, but to make some modest adjustments within the total. The duty on cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco will be increased, by the equivalent, including VAT, of between threepence and fourpence for a packet of 20 cigarettes. This will take effect from midnight on Thursday. The duty on a packet of five small cigars will rise by twopence, but that on pipe tobacco will remain unchanged.
    As to the alcohol duties, I propose increases which, including VAT, will put about a penny on the price of a pint of average-strength beer and cider, fourpence on a bottle of table wine, and sixpence on a bottle of sparkling or fortified wine. There will once again be no increase in the duty on spirits. These changes will take effect from 6 o'clock tonight.
    The existing duty structure is inhibiting sales of drinks known as coolers, which are mixtures of an alcoholic drink and a soft drink. I propose to introduce new lower rates of duty for these products, so as to encourage the young, in particular, to change to drinks with a lower alcohol content. For the same reason, I propose from 1 October to abolish the minimum duty charge on beer, which will encourage the promotion of lower-strength beers.
    I propose once again to leave the main rates of vehicle excise duty unchanged. To recover the revenue forgone, I propose increases in petrol and derv duty over and above the rate of inflation, which, including VAT, will raise the price of petrol by between fivepence and sixpence a gallon, and that of derv by a little under fivepence a gallon. These changes will take effect from 6 o'clock tonight.
    In my Budget last year, I sought to promote the use of lead-free petrol, with all the environmental benefits it brings, by introducing a duty differential in its favour. As a result, the number of garages selling lead-free petrol has more than trebled. But consumption remains disappointingly low.
    Accordingly, I propose to double the duty differential in its favour by exempting unleaded petrol altogether from the duty increase I have just announced for leaded petrol. This means that, despite the higher production costs, the pump price of unleaded petrol should in future be below that of ordinary two-star petrol. I very much hope the petrol companies will now reinforce this concession by vigorously promoting the use of lead-free petrol.

    TAXES ON CAPITAL.
    I now turn to taxes on capital.
    The emergence of the capital-owning democracy has been one of the most remarkable features of the 1980s. Encouraged by Government policy, more than 2½ million families have bought their homes, bringing the total to nearly two households in three. And our proposals for personal pensions, which come into effect in July, will give a new dimension to pension ownership.
    But the most dramatic change has been in share ownership. In last year's Budget I announced the results of a joint Treasury/Stock Exchange survey of the number of shareholders in this country. This revealed that some 8½ million people—one adult in five—owned shares, about three times the number in 1979.
    A similar survey has been carried out this year. Despite all the stories of people taking quick profits on privatisation shares, and despite the stock market collapse, the results show that the number of individual shareholders has risen further over the past 12 months, to very nearly 9 million. This illustrates in a quite remarkable fashion how wider share ownership is now taking root.
    I have two proposals to encourage share ownership still further to announce today.
    First, personal equity plans are off to a successful start. Over a quarter of a million people took out PEPs in 1987 and subscribed nearly £½billion between them. To give further encouragement to this form of investment, I propose to increase the annual limit from £2,400 to £3,000. The new higher limit will apply to all plans taken out this year.
    Second, measures to encourage employee share ownership have featured in seven out of the last eight Budgets. As a result, the number of approved all-employee share schemes has risen from 30 in 1979 to over 1,400 today, involving well over 10,000 companies, and providing shares and options for well over 1½ million employees.
    Following extensive consultation, including the publication of draft clauses, I now propose to relax the provisions of section 79 of the Finance Act 1972. This will make it easier for companies to provide shares to their employees outside the approved schemes without giving rise to an undue charge to tax. This will he of particular benefit to subsidiary companies and their employees.
    In previous Budgets I have already substantially reformed the taxation of capital, with the replacement of capital transfer tax by inheritance tax. But I believe this process can and should be taken further. Last year I reduced the number of inheritance tax rates from seven to four. This year I propose to simplify the tax still further by levying it at a flat rate of 40 per cent.
    At the same time, I propose to raise the threshold from £90,000 to £110,000. The increase in the threshold will reduce the number of estates liable to tax by a quarter, allowing many more people to inherit the family home free of tax. And the flat rate of 40 per cent. means that for the family business enjoying 50 per cent. business relief the effective rate of tax can never exceed 20 per cent.—one of the lowest inheritance tax rates in the industrialised world.
    The cost of these changes will be £100 million in 1988–89.
    Lastly, capital gains tax. Strictly speaking, this should not be a tax on the original capital at all. Nor is it, so far

    1005
    as gains which have arisen since 1982 are concerned, thanks to the indexation provisions introduced by my predecessor in 1982 and extended in my 1985 Budget. But for gains that arose before 1982 the tax falls largely on purely paper profits resulting from the rampant inflation of the 1970s. In other words, it bites deeply, and capriciously, into the capital itself.
    This has long been recognised as manifestly unjust. Indeed, from the time I first entered the House I have argued that capital gains tax should fall only on real gains and not on paper gains. I have therefore looked hard to see if the indexation provisions could be applied right back to the inception of the tax in 1965. Unfortunately, they cannot. The necessary information is in many cases no longer available.
    Accordingly, I have decided to bring the base date for the tax forward from 1965 to 1982. That is to say, for all disposals on or after 6 April, that part of any capital gain which arose before April 1982 will be exempt from tax altogether for individuals and companies alike.
    This Budget thus ends once and for all the injustice of taxing purely inflationary gains. This will benefit the economy by unlocking assets which have been virtually sterilised because of the penal tax that would have arisen on any sale. And it will help many small business men and farmers in particular.
    At present, the first £6,600 a year of capital gain is tax free. The relatively high level of this threshold stems from the substantial increase my predecessor made in 1982 explicitly as rough and ready partial compensation for the continued taxation of pre-1982 paper gains. Now that I have taken pre-1982 gains out of tax altogether, I propose to reduce the capital gains tax threshold to £5,000. It should also be borne in mind that, with the introduction of independent taxation in 1990, a husband and wife will each have their own threshold for capital gains tax as well as for income tax.
    Rebasing the tax so as to produce a fully indexed system makes it possible to bring the taxation of gains closer to that of income. In principle, there is little economic difference between income and capital gains, and many people effectively have the option of choosing to a significant extent which to receive. And in so far as there is a difference, it is by no means clear why one should be taxed more heavily than the other. Taxing them at different rates distorts investment decisions and inevitably creates a major tax avoidance industry.
    Moreover, at present, with capital gains taxed at 30 per cent. for everybody, higher rate taxpayers face a lower—sometimes much lower—rate of tax on gains than on investment income, while basic rate taxpayers face a higher rate of tax on gains than on income. This contrast is hard to justify.
    I therefore propose a fundamental reform. Subject to the new base date, capital gains will continue to be worked out as now, with the present exemptions and reliefs. But the indexed gain will be taxed at the income tax rate that would apply if it were the taxpayer's marginal slice of income. In other words, I propose in future to apply the same rate of tax to income and capital gains alike.
    These changes will not take effect until 6 April.
    Taxing capital gains at income tax rates makes for greater neutrality in the tax system. It is what we now do
    1006
    for companies. And it is also the practice in the United States, with the big difference that there they have neither indexation relief nor a separate capital gains tax threshold.
    The changes I have announced represent a thoroughgoing reform of capital gains tax which will benefit the economy and eradicate a major injustice. They will sharply reduce the damaging effects of the tax, while ensuring that capital gains remain properly taxed and the yield of income tax adequately protected. They are expected to cost a little over £200 million in 1989–90.

    INCOME TAX
    I now turn to income tax.
    The way to a strong economy is to boost incentives and enterprise. And that means, among other things, keeping income tax as low as possible.
    Income tax has now been reduced in each of the last six Budgets—the first time this has ever occurred. And the strength of the economy over that period speaks for itself.
    However, reforming income tax is not simply a matter of cutting the rates. I also have to look at all the various allowances and reliefs to ensure that they are still justified. With this in mind, I have a number of proposals to announce.
    First, forestry. I accept that the tax system should recognise the special characteristics of forestry, where there can be anything up to 100 years between the costs of planting and the income from selling the felled timber.
    But the present system cannot be justified. It enables top rate taxpayers in particular to shelter other income from tax, by setting it against expenditure on forestry, while the proceeds from any eventual sale are almost tax free.
    The time has come to bring it to an end. I propose to do so by the simple expedient of taking commercial woodlands out of the income tax system altogether. That is to say, as from today, and subject to transitional provisions, expenditure on commercial woodlands will no longer be allowed as a deduction for income tax and corporation tax. But, equally, receipts from the sale of trees or felled timber will no longer be liable to tax.
    It is, perhaps, a measure of the absurdity of the present system that the total exemption of commercial woodlands from tax will, in time, actually increase tax revenues by over £10 million a year.
    At the same time, in order to further the Government's objectives for the rural areas, I have agreed with my right hon. Friends who have responsibilities for forestry and for the environment that, in parallel, there should be increases in planting grants. Full details of the new grant scheme will be announced next week.
    The net effect of these changes will be to end an unacceptable form of tax shelter; to simplify the tax system, abolishing the archaic schedule B in its entirety; and to enable the Government to secure its forestry objectives with proper regard for the environment, including a better balance between broad-leaved trees and conifers.
    One of the legacies of the years of penal top tax rates is the complicated special relief for large redundancy payments. This is no longer justified. I propose to increase the exemption limit for these payments from £25,000 to £30,000, and to abolish the additional relief for larger amounts.

    1007
    Next, benefits in kind—perhaps better known as perks. One of the biggest tax-induced distortions in the economy today is the growing tendency to provide remuneration in kind rather than in cash. It must be right to move towards a system of lower taxes all round and fewer tax breaks of this kind.
    Far and away the most widespread benefit in kind is the company car, which is substantially undertaxed. Independent studies, based on figures supplied by the AA, suggest that an employee with a typical company car may be taxed on only about a quarter of its true value.
    This discrepancy is too great to be allowed to continue. On the other hand, the scale of the undertaxation is so great that it cannot be put right in a single year. But in a Budget when I am able to reduce tax rates, there is a strong case for a substantial increase in the taxation of these benefits. I therefore propose to double the car scales for 1988–89. This increase replaces the 10 per cent. increase which I had already announced for 1988–89. The yield will be £260 million in 1988–89.
    The scales for the taxation of car fuel adequately reflect the value of the benefit, and I propose to leave them unchanged for 1988–89.
    However, the taxation of the benefit of free car parking threatens to become an administrative nightmare. I therefore propose to exempt this particular benefit from tax altogether.
    Next, mortgage interest relief.
    This Government are committed to the further spread of home ownership. Mortgage interest relief has an important role to play in achieving that aim.
    However, in addition to the decision to apply the £30,000 limit to the house or flat, which I have already announced, and which will remove the most widely-resented tax penalty on marriage, I have a further reform to propose in this area.
    This concerns the parallel tax relief for home improvement loans. Most of these loans are for fittings such as double glazing, and have played a significant part in the recent growth of consumer credit without in any way contributing to the expansion of home ownership. This may be partly due to the substantial scope for abuse, as loans ostensibly taken out for home improvements are used for other purposes, a matter which was the subject of a recent report from the Public Accounts Committee.
    I propose, therefore, to end tax relief for all new home improvement loans taken out after 5 April. Existing home improvement loans will be unaffected. This is expected to yield £80 million in 1988–89.
    Finally, I can turn to income tax itself. The statutory indexation formula means that I should increase all the principal income tax allowances and bands by the increase in the RPI over the year to last December, or 3·7 per cent. rounded up. I propose to do more than that—indeed twice as much.
    Thus the single allowance will go up not by £90, as required by indexation, but by £180, to £2,605; and the married allowance will go up not by £150 but by £300, to £4,095. The additional personal allowance and the widow's bereavement allowance will accordingly rise by £120 to £1,490. Similarly, the single age allowance will rise by £220 to £3,180 and the married age allowance by £360 to £5,035. The higher allowances for taxpayers aged 80 and over, which I introduced in the last Budget, will correspondingly be increased by £240 and £360 to £3,310
    1008
    and £5,205 respectively, and the new age allowance income limit will be £10,600. The upper limit of taxable income for the basic rate band will be increased to £19,300.
    The increases I have just announced mean that the basic tax thresholds will be fully 25 per cent. higher, in real terms, than they were in 1978–79, Labour's last year. Indeed, the married man's tax threshold will he at its highest level in real terms for nearly half a century.
    Given these substantial increases in the main allowances, I am taking the opportunity to simplify the system by abolishing three minor personal allowances which have been unchanged, in cash terms, for over 20 years: the housekeeper allowance, the dependent relative allowance, and the son's or daughter's services allowance.
    In our general election manifesto last year, we committed ourselves to reducing the basic rate of income tax to 25 pence in the pound as soon as it was prudent to do so. This pledge followed a reduction of twopence in the pound to 27 pence in last year's Budget.
    At the time, this was regarded with some scepticism, not to say cynicism, by the Opposition, who no doubt recalled that Labour Governments used to reduce tax only in front of an election, and at all other times increased it. Indeed, shortly before last year's Budget, the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), said:
    "I must advise the Chancellor of something that he already knows: whichever party wins the general election, the tax cuts that he makes in this Budget will be reversed."—[Official Report, 20 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 772.]
    The time has come to put the right hon. Gentleman out of his misery. So far from reversing the 1987 Budget tax reductions, I propose to take this, the first opportunity since the general election, to fulfil our manifesto pledge. The basic rate of income tax for 1988–89 will be 25 pence in the pound.
    The small companies' rate of corporation tax will similarily be reduced to 25 per cent. This means that the basic rate of income tax and the corporation tax rate for small companies will both be at their lowest level since the war.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: This is an obscenity. The Chancellor cannot do this. [Interruption]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Salmond: This Budget is an obscenity.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I name Mr. Alex Salmond.
    Motion made, and Question put,
    That Mr. Alex Salmond be suspended from the service of the House.—[Mr. Wakeham.]
    The House proceeded to a Division—
    Mr. Patrick Cormack(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to Standing Order No. 39, which gives the Chair the power to decide, in determining a Division, whether to ask hon. Members to rise in their places if they want a Division, and to do likewise if they do not? I think it is manifest this afternoon that this is a ridiculous spoiling tactic. I ask you to consider implementing this Standing Order in future, rather than allowing important proceedings of the House to be interrupted in order to gain notoriety for idiots.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take account of what the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) says. I think that in the circumstances the House has proceeded correctly.
    The House having divided: Ayes 354, Noes 19.

    Division No. 215]

    [4.43 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Adley, Robert

    Colvin, Michael

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Alexander, Richard

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Cormack, Patrick

    Allen, Graham

    Couchman, James

    Amess, David

    Cran, James

    Amos, Alan

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Anderson, Donald

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Arbuthnot, James

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

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Day, Stephen

    Ashby, David

    Devlin, Tim

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Dewar, Donald

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Atkins, Robert

    Dobson, Frank

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Doran, Frank

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Baldry, Tony

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Dover, Den

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Dunn, Bob

    Barron, Kevin

    Durant, Tony

    Batiste, Spencer

    Dykes, Hugh

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Eggar, Tim

    Beggs, Roy

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Beith, A. J.

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Bell, Stuart

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Evennett, David

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Fallon, Michael

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Farr, Sir John

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Faulds, Andrew

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Favell, Tony

    Blair, Tony

    Fearn, Ronald

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bottomley, Peter

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Bowis, John

    Forman, Nigel

    Boyes, Roland

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Forth, Eric

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Foster, Derek

    Brazier, Julian

    Foulkes, George

    Bright, Graham

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Franks, Cecil

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Freeman, Roger

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

    French, Douglas

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Galbraith, Sam

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Gardiner, George

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Gill, Christopher

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Burns, Simon

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Burt, Alistair

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Butcher, John

    Gow, Ian

    Butler, Chris

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Butterfill, John

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Grist, Ian

    Carrington, Matthew

    Ground, Patrick

    Cash, William

    Grylls, Michael

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Chope, Christopher

    Hanley, Jeremy

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

    Hannam, John

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

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

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Harris, David

    1010

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mans, Keith

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Maples, John

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Marland, Paul

    Hayes, Jerry

    Marlow, Tony

    Hayward, Robert

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Heddle, John

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Henderson, Doug

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Meacher, Michael

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Miller, Hal

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hill, James

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Moate, Roger

    Holland, Stuart

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Holt, Richard

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Howard, Michael

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

    Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Neubert, Michael

    Howells, Geraint

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hunter, Andrew

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Ingram, Adam

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Irvine, Michael

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Irving, Charles

    Page, Richard

    Jack, Michael

    Paice, James

    Jackson, Robert

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Janman, Tim

    Patnick, Irvine

    Jessel, Toby

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    John, Brynmor

    Pawsey, James

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Portillo, Michael

    Kennedy, Charles

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Key, Robert

    Price, Sir David

    Kilfedder, James

    Radice, Giles

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Raffan, Keith

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Randall, Stuart

    Knapman, Roger

    Rathbone, Tim

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Redwood, John

    Knowles, Michael

    Reid, Dr John

    Knox, David

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Lang, Ian

    Riddick, Graham

    Latham, Michael

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Robertson, George

    Lightbown, David

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Lilley, Peter

    Rooker, Jeff

    Livsey, Richard

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Lord, Michael

    Ryder, Richard

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Maclean, David

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Shersby, Michael

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Sims, Roger

    Madel, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Malins, Humfrey

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

    1011

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Speller, Tony

    Tredinnick, David

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Trippier, David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Viggers, Peter

    Squire, Robin

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Steen, Anthony

    Walden, George

    Stern, Michael

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Wallace, James

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Waller, Gary

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Ward, John

    Stokes, John

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Straw, Jack

    Watts, John

    Sumberg, David

    Wells, Bowen

    Summerson, Hugo

    Whitney, Ray

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Wilkinson, John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Wilshire, David

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Wood, Timothy

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Yeo, Tim

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thorne, Neil

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Canavan, Dennis

    Nellist, Dave

    Clay, Bob

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Salmond, Alex

    Cryer, Bob

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lambie, David

    Mr. Andrew Welsh and

    McGrady, Eddie

    Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

    Madden, Max

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Alex Salmond be suspended from the service of the House.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker then directed that the hon. Member withdraw from the House and he withdrew accordingly.
    Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to point out that the cretinous performance that we have just witnessed owed everything to self-publicity and nothing to social concern, as testified by the attendance record of members of the Scottish National party in the Social Security Bill Committee—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get back to the Budget.
    Mr. Lawson: To repeat, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the basic rate of income tax for 1988–89 will be 25 pence in the pound.
    The small companies' rate of corporation tax will similarly be reduced to 25 per cent. This means that the basic rate of income tax and the corporation tax rate for small companies will both be at their lowest level since the war.
    Life assurance premium relief remains in place for policies taken out before the 1984 Budget. It has traditionally been given at half the basic rate of income tax. I therefore propose to reduce it from 15 per cent. to 121 per cent. But, to give life offices time to adjust, this change will not take effect until 6 April 1989.
    1012
    I also propose to reduce the additional rate which applies to the income of discretionary trusts and for certain other purposes from 18 per cent. to 10 per cent.
    It is now nine years since my predecessor, in his first Budget in 1979, reduced the top rate of income lax from the absurd 83 per cent. that prevailed under Labour to 60 per cent. where it has remained ever since. At that time, this was broadly in line with the European average for the top rate of tax. It is now one of the highest. And not only do the majority of European countries now have a top rate of tax below 60 per cent. but in the English-speaking countries outside Europe—not only the United States and Canada, but in Labour Australia and New Zealand, too—the top rate is now below 50 per cent., sometimes well below.
    The reason for the worldwide trend towards lower top rates of tax is clear. Excessive rates of income tax destroy enterprise, encourage avoidance, and drive talent to more hospitable shores overseas. As a result, so far from raising additional revenue, over time they actually raise less.
    By contrast, a reduction in the top rates of income tax can over time result in a higher, not a lower, yield to the Exchequer. Despite the substantial reduction in the top rate of tax in 1979, and the subsequent abolition of the investment income surcharge in 1984, the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers today contribute a third as much again in real terms as they did in 1978–79, Labour's last year; while the remaining 95 per cent. of taxpayers pay about the same in real terms as they did in 1978–79.
    After nine years at 60 per cent., I believe the time has come to make a further reduction in the top rate of income tax. At present there are no fewer than five higher rates of income tax; 40 per cent., 45 per cent., 50 per cent., 55 per cent. and 60 per cent. I propose to abolish all the higher rates of tax above 40 per cent.
    This major reform will leave us with one of the simplest systems of income tax in the world, consisting—
    Mr. Dave Nellist rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Lawson: This major reform will leave us—
    Mr. Nellist: Will the Chancellor give way?
    Mr. Lawson: This major reform—
    Mr. Nellist: Will the Chancellor give way?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that, if he persists, I shall have no option but to use the disciplinary power.
    Mr. Nellist: Mr. Deputy Speaker—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There will be plenty of time and opportunity to debate these matters in the days ahead.
    Mr. Lawson: This major reform—
    Mr. Nellist: What about the National Health Service?
    Hon. Members: Shame.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Grave disorder having arisen in the House, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45 (Power of Mr. Speaker to adjourn House or suspend sitting), suspended the sitting for 10 minutes.
    Sitting suspended at 5.1 pm.
    5.11 pm
    Mr. Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
    Mr. Lawson: This major reform will leave us with one of the simplest systems of income tax in the world, consisting of a basic rate of 25 per cent. and a single higher rate of 40 per cent. And, indeed, a system of personal taxation in which there is no rate anywhere in excess of 40 per cent.
    I believe that 40 per cent. is an acceptable top rate of tax. But, bearing in mind that the basic rate of income tax is also the starting rate, 25 per cent. is still too high.
    Since we first took office in 1979, we have reduced the basic rate of income tax from 33 per cent.—one third—to 25 per cent. —a quarter. Our aim should now be to get it down to a fifth—a rate of 20 pence in the pound —as soon as we prudently and sensibly can.
    Meanwhile, I have today been able to reduce income tax at all levels, with increases in both the personal allowances and the basic rate limit, and reductions in both the basic and higher rates. The tax reduction for a married man on average earnings will be worth nearly £5 a week. The changes will take effect under PAYE on the first pay day after 14 June. They will cost £4¼ billion in 1988–89 over and above statutory indexation, of which three quarters represents the cost of increasing tax thresholds and reducing the basic rate.
    The total cost of all the measures in this year's budget, again on an indexed basis, is a shade under £4 billion.

    PERORATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this Budget, I have reaffirmed the prudent polices which have brought us unprecedented economic strength. I have announced a radical reform of the taxation of marriage, which for the first time ever will give married women a fair deal from the tax system. I have eliminated the long-standing injustice of taxing inflationary gains, and abolished a fifth tax. I have radically reformed the structure of personal taxation, so that there is no rate anywhere in the system in excess of 40 per cent.
    After an Autumn Statement which substantially increased public spending in priority areas, I have once again cut the basic rate of income tax, fulfilling our manifesto pledge of a basic rate of 25 pence in the pound and setting a new target of 20 pence in the pound.
    And I have balanced the Budget.
    I commend this Budget to the House.

    PERORATION

      PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES
      Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50 (Ways and Means motions),
      That, pursuant to section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, provisional statutory effect shall be given to the following motions:—

      (a) Beer (motion No. 2)

      (b) Wine and made-wine (motion No. 3)

      (c) Cider (motion No. 4)

      (d) Tobacco Products (motion No. 5)

      (e) Hydrocarbon oil (motion No. 6)

      (f) Vehicles excise duty (motion No. 7)

      (g) Vehicles excise duty (exceptional loads, etc) (motion No. 8).—[Mr. Lawson.]

      The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 4.

      Division No. 216]

      [5.15 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Amess, David

      Alexander, Richard

      Amos, Alan

      1014

      Arbuthnot, James

      Franks, Cecil

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Freeman, Roger

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      French, Douglas

      Ashby, David

      Gardiner, George

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Gill, Christopher

      Atkins, Robert

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Batiste, Spencer

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Gow, Ian

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Bendall, Vivian

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gregory, Conal

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Grist, Ian

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Ground, Patrick

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bowis, John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hannam, John

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

      Brazier, Julian

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Bright, Graham

      Harris, David

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hawkins, Christopher

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

      Hayes, Jerry

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hayward, Robert

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Heddle, John

      Burns, Simon

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Butcher, John

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Butler, Chris

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Butterfill, John

      Hill, James

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Cash, William

      Holt, Richard

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Chapman, Sydney

      Howard, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

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

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

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclifie)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cormack, Patrick

      Irvine, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Irving, Charles

      Cran, James

      Jack, Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jackson, Robert

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

      Janman, Tim

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jessel, Toby

      Day, Stephen

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dover, Den

      Key, Robert

      Dunn, Bob

      Kilfedder, James

      Durant, Tony

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knapman, Roger

      Eggar, Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Knowles, Michael

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Knox, David

      Evennett, David

      Lang, Ian

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Latham, Michael

      Farr, Sir John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Favell, Tony

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Forman, Nigel

      Lightbown, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lilley, Peter

      Forth, Eric

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Lord, Michael

      1015

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Pawsey, James

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Maclean, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Portillo, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Price, Sir David

      Madel, David

      Raffan, Keith

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Malins, Humfrey

      Rathbone, Tim

      Mans, Keith

      Redwood, John

      Maples, John

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Marland, Paul

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Marlow, Tony

      Riddick, Graham

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Miller, Hal

      Rowe, Andrew

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Ryder, Richard

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Neale, Gerrard

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Neubert, Michael

      Shersby, Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Sims, Roger

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Speller, Tony

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Page, Richard

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Paice, James

      Squire, Robin

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Patnick, Irvine

      Steen, Anthony

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Stern, Michael

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Stevens, Lewis

      1016

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Walden, George

      Stokes, John

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Sumberg, David

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Waller, Gary

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Ward, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Watts, John

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Wells, Bowen

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Whitney, Ray

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Wilkinson, John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wilshire, David

      Thorne, Neil

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Wood, Timothy

      Thurnham, Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Tredinnick, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Trippier, David

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      NOES

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      McGrady, Eddie

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Nellist, Dave

      Mr. Dafydd Wigley and

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Mrs. Margaret Ewing.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall now call the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the motion entitled "Amendment of the Law". It is on that motion that the Budget debate will take place today and on succeeding days. The remaining motions will not be put until the end of the Budget debate next week, and they will then be decided without debate.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

    (a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply;

    (b) for refunding any amount of tax;

    (c) for varying the rate of that tax otherwise than in relation to all supplies and importations; or

    (d) for relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description. —[Mr. Lawson.]

    [Relevant documents: European Community Document No. 9561/87, Annual Economic Report 1987–88 and the unnumbered document, Annual Economic Report 1987–88 (final version as adopted by the Council).]
    5.27 pm
    Mr. Neil Kinnock rose—
    Mr. Michael Jopling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. After this afternoon's demonstrations, is it too much to hope that the House will at last take a grip of itself and, when people get themselves named in the way in which it happened this afternoon, we shall suspend them for six months without pay?
    Mr. Kinnock: The Budget that we have heard this afternoon, especially the latter part of it, generated anger and resentment against the immense injustice of the attitude taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his view of the best off people in our society and the gift, in excess of £2 billion a year, awarded to them in tax concessions. We compare that with the fact that he offered nothing at all to the National Health Service. We compare his handout to the richest in Britain with his offer of a puny, marginal and negligible amount to those who constitute the average people of our society.
    In those circumstances, the anger generated is understandable. However, I believe that, faced with that situation, I, my comrades and my hon. Friends should take the view: do not get mad, get even. I assert again that in this House and everywhere else in this democracy argument is always superior to the form of action that we have seen this afternoon.
    When the Chancellor reached that monumental concession to the best off, I noticed that the cheering from the Conservative Benches was even louder than when he made the concession on the standard rate. That is the system of values that is facing us. Those Conservative Members are the people who back the idea of making awards in the form of tax concessions that are worth 48p per week to those whose income totals £100, including various benefits, who offer £3·98 per week to somebody on £200 per week, such as a married man with two children, but who give £82·96 per week to someone who earns £1,000 per week. That cannot be right. It cannot be right in terms of incentives, because over the past eight years we have seen additional tax reliefs for the best off, but we have not seen a consequent increase in investment in this
    1018
    country — [Interruption.] Manufacturing investment is still 14 per cent. lower today than it was in 1979, despite the concessions.
    I often wonder why Conservative Members feel that to get the rich to work harder they must give them more, but to make the poor work harder they will give them less. This afternoon we have seen a Budget upon which we shall have to rely on St. Matthew for apt, accurate and adequate comment, because literally, to a degree that has never been known before in this Chamber, "To them that hath shall be given even unto abundance, and from them that hath not, shall be taken away, even that which they have." That is what is happening. That is the only judgment that can adequately be offered on a Government who, in March, can offer immense tax relief to the richest, and in April will take away housing and social security benefits from those who are the poorest in our country.
    We are constantly and rightly reminded that Governments do not have any money of their own—they have only the people's money. Against that background, which must enjoy universal support as a proposition, it can be said with absolute certainty that an overwhelming majority of the British people wanted their money to be dedicated to the National Health Service. They wanted that because they realise that the National Health Service is grievously under-funded. They wanted it because they value that service above all other priorities, even above immediate personal gain. They wanted it because they know that tax cuts do not buy treatment, that tax cuts do not pay nurses, that tax cuts do not open hospital wards or operating theatres and that tax cuts do not shorten waiting lists — [Interruption.] I hear Conservative Members saying that tax cuts do pay the nurses. Well, those hon. Members will have to face the nurses in their constituencies and say why a staff nurse, at the top of the current pay scale, gets £3·40 per week out of today's tax concessions, but even that will he eaten away when charges are made on nurses working in hospital.
    There is no balance of justice in a Government who make such awards and at the same time deny the resources that are demanded by an overwhelming majority of people — people of all politics and of no politics, from every part of the country; people inside the Health Service, and those outside it; those who use the Health Service and those who do not. All those people have gathered together in a massive consensus, saying that today should have been National Health Service day.
    In disregarding the emphatic preference of the British public the Chancellor has shown that while some people give their lives to the National Health Service, and some people owe their lives to the National Health Service, he does not give tuppence for the National Health Service. In refusing to listen to the priorities of the people — including, to their credit, many in his own party — the Chancellor earns public disdain that will not be repaired even if the Government meet the nurses' and health workers' pay award in a couple of months' time. Even if that were to occur—we can only hope that it will—it would still leave an immense amount to do to try to bring the Health Service out of crisis.
    I make an appeal to the Chancellor even now. As a start, when he replies to the debate next Monday, he could seek to redeem himself to some extent by giving an undertaking that the deficits currently being carried by the health authorities will be financed so that they do not have to carry them over into the next year, thus ensuring that

    1019
    they begin the next financial year with disadvantage and undermining any award that is made to the nurses and health workers. The Chancellor could give that undertaking. If health authorities carry over those deficits, they start the year in disadvantage. The crisis of under-funding is then a disaster that is waiting to happen, as it most surely will without adequate funding before the end of this year.
    To govern is to choose. It is a tragedy that even though the Chancellor has the means, and even though there is the most urgent need, the Chancellor has deliberately chosen not to make today National Health Service day. Then again he has not chosen to make it national anything day —[Interruption.] Not for 15 million people — [HON. MEMBERS: "It is Budget day."] All right, but it is Budget day also for those 15 million people—more than one in four of the British people—who will not benefit from the Chancellor's income tax cuts, some of them because they are too poor to pay income tax, others whose pay is so low that the Chancellor may be giving them a few pence or even a pound or so with one hand, but after 11 April the Department of Health and Social Security will take it away with the other.
    This is not a "national anything" Budget, because there is nothing in this Budget to blunt the cutting edge of the changes that are to be made to the social security and housing benefit regulations next month. Some of the poorest people will lose up to 96p in any pound of gain that they make from tax concessions. We hear about the incentive effect of making tax cuts. Indeed, the Chancellor told us about it again today. He said, "There is a strong economy because of initiatives and enterprise and the incentives that come from tax cuts."
    How would the right hon. Gentleman feel if he earned £105 or £110 per week and the marginal rate of tax on his income was 96p on what is already a poverty income? What about standing on one's own feet? What about incentives? What about the spur to go to work? I know what will happen when people decide that they cannot afford that disadvantage and retreat from work because they are being fined for going to work. The Chancellor and his colleagues will come here next year and give us further lectures about "scroungers". We will hear the Secretary of State for Social Services talking about the "dependency culture". How dare the Government say such things when they are doing this to our people and our country.
    On top of that, a pensioner couple with modest savings automatically become disqualified from support from housing benefit as a consequence of having those savings. Where is the reward for thrift, or — to use the Chancellor's favourite word — "prudence", when such people are fined by the loss of their weekly help because they have taken care and have had the thrift to put a little bit aside to help them through their retirement?
    It is not only the poor and the low-paid that the Budget does not serve. It does almost nothing to help those who are trying to export from Britain, but it does give some real help to those who are trying to import into Britain. There is hardly anything in the Budget for jobs in Britain, but there is a fair bit in it for jobs abroad. There may be some prospect for short-term growth, dependent upon credit and consumption in such an approach—there just might be—but there is no prospect of dependable, sustainable growth. That is the problem. The Chancellor's priorities never extend to encouraging investment in productive capacity, in research and development, in the training for
    1020
    skills and in the development of those skills. What we have had today is the extension of the business extension scheme — [HON. MEMBERS: "Expansion scheme."] Well, we shall see how much it will expand business.
    That scheme offers an inducement to buy up houses and blocks of houses, and offers subsidies to the landlord at the same time as the Housing Bill, which is going through the House, will hammer tenants in both the private and public sectors. What an imbalance. It is not a business expansion scheme, but a Rachman expansion scheme. That is what will happen.
    There is nothing in the Budget to lay or build the foundations for sustainable economic growth and for future strength in the British economy. That is the major reason why, after eight oil-rich years, our exporters' share of world markets in manufactures is down by 20 per cent. and our producers' share of the domestic market is down by 30 per cent. If we were gaining in the way that the Chancellor has sought to suggest, those figures would be reversed. We would be gaining substantial shares in the world and domestic markets.
    In the eight oil-rich years, which have meant enormous bonuses to the Government and the Chancellor at a rate of at least £5 billion a year—sometimes twice or nearly three times that figure—they have never developed the economy, never sponsored production and never given us that extra competitive edge that would reverse the current position. That refusal to follow any systematic strategy to strengthen our industry is the major reason why our exports have gone up by 30 per cent.—yes, to record levels—while our imports, in the Tory years, have gone up by 50 per cent. This nation of modern makers and traders cannot sustain that continuing divergence between increasing imports and increasing exports at a much slower rate. Surely the Chancellor can see the rationale of that. Surely he must want to sustain our industry and to give our industrialists, the workers in the industries—the inventive people — a real fighting chance in the world market.
    That chance has not come so far. That is why we can measure our trade deficit in this oil-rich country as £9·6 billion. That sum is too big to be balanced by the combined sale of oil and services. The Government have had this marvellous, unsolicited bonus of oil and what a judgment of them it is that they should he carrying a balance of payments deficit of any size when they are oil-rich, energy-rich and do not have to depend on the importation of those essential commodities.
    The Chancellor has spoken about the gains in productivity and in competitiveness, and any improvements are obviously welcome. When we consider the international trade figures, the domestic market share and the balance in manufactured trade deficit, we may say that the Chancellor, in balancing his Budget, deserves the name "Lucky Lawson". However, in terms of balancing the trade of our country he must be known as "Loser Lawson"— that is the only name that fits.
    What about the Budget surplus? That surplus has come from three major sources. The first is oil revenues—the £6 billion a year about which the Government have spoken. The second is the upsurge in VAT receipts. VAT has been substantially levied on the massive increase in imports. They have been bought with credit and have therefore added immensely to the general problems faced by the Chancellor in dealing with the economy. Indeed, the extent to which credit and debt have increased for British

    1021
    households under this prudent Government, this non-borrowing Government, has meant that domestic debt has increased from £80 billion a year—less than a third in equivalent value to GNP—to £280 billion a year—two thirds in equivalent value to GNP.
    I am sure that the Prime Minister would say:
    "Neither a borrower, nor a lender be".
    That represents the old-fashioned Grantham prudence that the right hon. Lady learnt. Well, she does not recommend it to the rest of the economy, because the stimulus to growth about which the Chancellor has been proud to talk has been sponsored and substantially sustained, not by any virile developments in the economy or a new competitiveness, but as a result of a massive expansion of household debt in our country. A bill must be paid.
    The third area from which Budget surplus has come is the once-and-for-all sale of national assets at the rate of about £5 billion a year. On that basis, anyone who has a house could make a budget surplus. All that he has to do is sell his house and move into rented accommodation. For a few years he would have a budget surplus, but he would not have a house to go back to. He would have lots of money, but no security. That is how the Chancellor has money to spare. The sell-offs cannot be sustained, any more than the VAT revenues or the oil revenues can be sustained. They are all short-term bonuses bringing short-term benefits from someone who is now becoming a short-term Chancellor.
    Our country must succeed in the long-term, and that is why the priorities in this Budget should have been investment in production, investment in export and sales, in research and development, in health and social justice. Such an approach would have meant not only that the Government were making proper provision for our strength in the future, but that, in the present, they would be increasing competitiveness, combating the expansion of debt, using national resources in a way that does not significantly add to imports or inflation, generating employment—full-time, properly paid jobs, not schemes that offer half-time, quarter paid jobs that are part of the repair outfit employed by the Government. That approach would have represented real prudence and real profit to our country and our people. The Budget does not offer that. This Chancellor has again, put the wealth of the very few before the wealth of the nation, and always before the health of the people.
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the course of the Chancellor's speech—[nterruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.
    Mr. Heffer: During the course of his speech, the Chancellor, in a snide comment, referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) as being "obsolete". That is in line with the comment made by the Prime Minister the other day that Labour has no guts. I will now point out to the House, to those few Members on the Conservative Benches, that my right hon. Friend had a distinguished war record and was a beach master at Anzio. Some of us who were in the forces during the second world war resent such statements.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I did hear the expression and, discourteous and offensive as it might have been, I do not think that it was unparliamentary.
    5.49 pm
    Mr. David Knox: If hon. Members consider the last hour, some will conclude that the House has not covered itself with glory. I hope that in the next 10 minutes I shall be able to reduce the temperature a little and deal with some of the issues raised in the Budget.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will those hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quickly and quietly, please?
    Mr. Knox: I want first to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his fifth Budget speech. His previous four Budget speeches were well constructed, to the point, and commendably brief. Today, my right hon. Friend has maintained the high standards that he established on those occasions and produced an interesting and skilful Budget. Hon. Members should be grateful for that at least, even if they do not necessarily agree with the provisions in the Budget.
    My right hon. Friend has presented a complicated package this afternoon which requires and deserves deep study rather than too much instant reaction and comment. Let me warmly welcome some of the Budget's features.
    I warmly welcome the changes in what my right hon. Friend called the taxation of marriage. I am pleased that husbands and wives are to be taxed separately in future. I would only say that I suspect that not all married women will wish to take advantage of that when they come up against the problems of dealing with their own taxation.
    I also welcome the increase in the VAT threshold to £22,000. I do not complain too much about the increases in the duty on alcohol and, as a whisky drinker, I am pleased that there is to be no increase in that area. The Scottish nationalists can at least take some consolation from that.
    I welcome the changes in capital gains tax. There will certainly be much more equity in its operation in future. But I must confess that, probably like most hon. Members, I was surprised that it was possible to make such changes at such low cost to the Exchequer.
    I welcome, too, the change in the thresholds and the increase in income tax allowances. That was double the necessary rate on the basis of the Rooker-Wise-Lawson amendment in the late 1970s. It is noteworthy that personal allowances are now worth 25 per cent. more in real terms than in 1978–79.
    As a Member of Parliament representing a largely rural seat I was not quite so keen — and I know that my constituents will not be quite so keen—on the increase in petrol duty. However, we have been used to such increases from both Labour and Conservative Chancellors for some considerable time.
    The specific measures in any Budget are usually quickly forgotten, and, rightly or wrongly, I have no reason to believe that that will be any different on this occasion. But the consequences of the measures in this Budget, as in other Budgets, and of other decisions in the economic sphere will be with us for a long time.
    Of course, we are not complete masters of our own destiny. Our economy is influenced by international

    1023
    economics and decisions taken by other Governments. However, I have noticed that that tends to be exaggerated by Governments when things go wrong and under-estimated when things go right. Nevertheless, a balance must be maintained and we should be careful not to pretend that we have no control over what happens in Britain.
    My right hon. Friend has been faced today with much more difficult decisions in the Budget than most commentators have acknowledged. It is too simplistic to suggest that, because of the buoyancy of revenue, it was merely a matter of determining the size of the tax cuts. The current state of the balance of payments placed substantial constraints on his freedom of manoeuvre. At the same time, it was important to maintain and increase the level of domestic demand to ensure a continuation of the high rate of growth of the past few years and the consequent fall in unemployment. Therefore, my right hon. Friend was right to use some of the substantial surplus to maintain growth, and his Budget judgment, although generally cautious, was probably about right. However, I am not so sure about the make-up of his package.
    After having had a sizeable balance of payments surplus for some years, there has been a deterioration in the past two years. Although last Friday's revised figures showed that the situation in 1986–87 had not been as bad as had been assumed, the situation is far from satisfactory. The revised figures show that we had a small surplus of £46 million in 1986 but that that had deteriorated into a deficit of £1·68 billion in 1987.
    In the current year, as my right hon. Friend warned us this afternoon, there is likely to be a further deterioration in the balance of payments. It may be true that we can afford to run a deficit in the short term, but we cannot afford to do so indefinitely. In any event, it would be folly to dissipate the massive capital investments overseas that have been built up as a result of North sea oil over the last few years by consumer spending.
    Unfortunately, that may be one of the consequences of today's tax cuts. Although I am sure that the tax cuts will be popular with the recipients, they will generate more consumer expenditure. In recent years there has been a strong tendency for additional consumer expenditure to find its way into an increased demand for imports rather than merely for the product of our domestic industry.
    Therefore, my right hon. Friend's tax cuts involve a risk that some of the extra money released will find its way into imports. Since we are already in deficit on the balance of payments, and are heavily in deficit in trade in manufactured goods, it was unwise at this time to introduce tax cuts and so risk imposing further strains on an already weak balance of payments.
    In the particular circumstances that obtain at present, I would have preferred my right hon. Friend to dispense his largesse in the form of public expenditure projects where import potential would be low or non-existent. In that respect, the N H S obviously comes to mind. Unlike the Opposition, I do not complain that there has been a reduction in expenditure in the Health Service over the last few years. That is not true. We all know that the only cuts in the Health Service that have taken place in the past 20 years took place under a Labour Government. None the less, it is possible further to increase expenditure in the Health Service and I would have preferred to see that done today. Apart from anything else, an increase in public expenditure would have enabled us to maintain a buoyant
    1024
    domestic demand and so protect the balance of payments. To me, it would have seemed a safer choice in the current conditions.
    Having said that, I want to emphasise my support for my right hon. Friend's Budget judgment because of the importance of maintaining a high level of demand. Over the past 18 months the buoyancy of demand has enabled Britain to achieve a high growth rate, and, as a consequence of that, unemployment has fallen from 3·25 million to about 2·5 million—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxtor) thinks that this is funny, but the 750,000 people who are no longer out of work, but who were 18 months ago, welcome that warmly. The Budget will maintain that buoyant demand.
    Of late I have detected an increasing complacency about unemployment, and there have been some rather silly suggestions in some quarters that our economy is becoming over-heated. As long as 2·5 million people are out of work that complacency is unwarranted and the idea that there is over-heating is nonsensical. Between 1945 and 1974 we had almost full employment. It is true that the level fluctuated a little, but throughout that period we managed to maintain employment at a high level. Twice, briefly, unemployment exceeded 1 million and twice, also briefly, it was as low as 1·1 per cent. of the working population. That was in 1955 and in 1965.
    When we look at what was possible during the 30 years after the war, we can see that we have a long way to go to get unemployment down from 2·5 million to a level that is acceptable to our people. To achieve this, an essential prerequisite is the continuation of a high rate of growth, and I believe that my right hon. Friend's Budget will achieve that. However, as I have explained, I would have preferred the public expenditure route to have been taken rather than the tax-cut route.
    Another prerequisite for reducing unemployment is that sterling should not be overvalued. We all remember the dreadful damage done to British manufacturing industry and employment in the early 1980s when sterling was overvalued. The recent increase in the value of sterling is deeply worrying, although I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said about that this afternoon. I hope that he will continue to do everything that he can to reduce the value of sterling to a more sensible level, and that he will do that by reducing interest rates and taking whatever other measures are necessary. I hope also that he will continue to pursue the highly successful policy of exchange rate stability that he has pursued for the last 12 months.
    Among other things, that means that Britain should join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, because that would give us much greater stability for more than 60 per cent. of our trade. This is long overdue. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not let ideological obsessions divert him from exchange rate stability and from British membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS. This would be greatly in the interests of our economy and of the economy of Europe, and ultimately it would be greatly in the interests of the world economy.
    6.2 pm
    Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to be called by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so early in this debate. In my five years in the House this is the most important

    1025
    Budget statement that I have heard. I came into the House in 1983 when the Chancellor made his first Budget speech. This is one of the most tempestuous Budget speeches that we have heard. The reason for saying that is clear, because the speech demonstrated the divide in philosophy between the Government and the Opposition. That was most precisely marked when we discussed the reduction in the top rate of income tax to 40 per cent. That showed the divide between the Opposition and the Government.
    If anything, this is the most capitalist Budget that we have seen in the House this century. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury nods his head in approval. It is an offensive Budget to all our people. It is wrong to believe that our people wish to have tax cuts at any price—cuts that will benefit their pocket to the detriment of people as a whole. It is also wrong to suppose that we can ignore the spontaneous clamour in the National Health Service about the cuts that have taken place there.
    The Chancellor gave a series of figures about the increases in public expenditure, and at Prime Minister's Question Time the Prime Minister also gave those figures. Those are the normal increases that we see in society year in, year out, and they are a reflection of inflation and pressure on the economy. They do not reflect real spending in the economy.
    Hon. Members should consider what the Government have been doing in the Health Service. In Middlesbrough a hospital was closed because the health authority had to save £1 million. It made that saving by closing the Carter Bequest hospital.
    It was wrong of the Government to give the nurses their pay increase before the last election and then to say to health authorities that they had to fund it out of savings. Obviously, it was right to give the nurses the benefit of an increase, but the way in which the Government funded it was wrong, and that has been the cause of the disruption and spontaneous protest in the Health Service. The Budget has not done anything to rectify the imbalance that is creeping into our economy. The public services are being starved of money, but a wide range of people will do well out of this Budget.
    The Chancellor said that by reducing the top rate of income tax to 40 per cent. those on top incomes will work harder. That simply repeats the shibboleth that we have heard for many decades that people will work harder if they are given such an incentive. In this leisure world it is more probable that people will use the extra money to improve the quality of their life and to enjoy the leisure facilities that are available to them. In any event, there is no evidence whatever that people in business, those with responsibility, will be prepared for financial gain to work harder than they work now. That is one of the great shibboleths of our time and it is certainly one of the shibboleths of the Government.
    People who are not so well off will gain nothing from the Budget. In 1979, I remember sharing a platform in Newcastle with Jack Jones, the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union. Mr. Jones told the audience that if the Conservatives were elected they would cut the benefit link between earnings and price rises, whichever was the higher. That was the basis upon which benefits were based. That was our philosophy, and we aimed to protect people who could not protect themselves by giving them the benefit of an increase either on the basis of increased
    1026
    earnings or increased prices. The Conservatives said that they would cut that link, and that was the first thing that the then Chancellor in the 1979 Conservative Government did. He based the increase in benefits not upon earnings but upon price increases. Inflation has come down and earnings have risen above inflation, and we have seen the gap between those who have and those who have not growing steadily. That is a direct consequence of Government policy and philosophy, and it is creating tensions and pressures in our society.
    The argument has often been advanced that there is a link between violence on our streets and unemployment and that it is between those who have hope and those who have not. The Budget will do less for those who do not believe that they have a place in our society than it will do for the better off. The essential philosophy of the Opposition is that we want to see an egalitarian society. The priorities that we have had since the 1970s are not the priorities of the Government. One of our priorities is to keep people in work.
    The Chancellor said that the Budget surplus was £3,000 million. It is perhaps no coincidence that we have 3 million unemployed, because it means that for every £1,000 of surplus there is a person unemployed. That is wrong. This is a financial Budget, not an industrial Budget. It will do nothing for our trade or industry and it will not lead to more investment in industry. We would like to see interest rates coming down. That would help industry, because the cost of borrowing would be lower and investment would go up. The Budget placed no emphasis on jobs or on the investment that we want to see in industry. It does nothing to encourage investment in manufacturing to offset the balance of payments crisis that is coming on our manufactured goods.
    That brings us back to Tory philosophy. Getting rid of the exchange rate in 1979 led to massive investment in the United States, and now in Europe, by British investors. In the last Parliament I asked what was the return on that investment, and a Conservative Back Bencher, Mr. Stefan Terlezki, who is no longer a Member, said that it was £5,000 million a year. That is a return to Victorian values. In the last century, that was how our economy worked. Our balance of payments deficit on manufactured goods was covered by the invisible earnings of the City of London.
    Why has that investment not taken place here? Why was it more fit and proper to invest in real estate in the United States, Germany, France and Belgium than to invest in our own industry? That philosophy has turned out to be not simply anti-worker, but anti-British. It has reduced our future status as a nation state.
    The Chancellor is storing up many troubles and difficulties for the years to come. As was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), our economy was based on the oil revenues, which went up again after Sheikh Yamani resigned in Saudi Arabia. The figures are clear: the public sector borrowing requirement has gone down as the oil revenues have gone up. Those revenues have simply been used to ensure that we, as a nation state, do not borrow money.
    As the nation, under the present Government, does not borrow the money, where does the money go? It does not crowd out any more the private sector; it goes straight from the Treasury to the City of London. Over the past few years, the alliance between the Treasury and the City has supervised the sale of national assets. When the

    1027
    Conservatives came to power, they wished to sell those assets on the basis of a doctrine: they did not believe in natonalisation.
    The concept of privatisation is legitimate. It was an ideological commitment that the Conservative party made at the time of the 1979 general election. But, as the public sector borrowing requirement came down, the City of London was able to take up more and more public assets. Now the Secretary of State for Energy is about to privatise the electricity industry for £28,000 million, and the money is there because the Government have ensured that it should be.
    As well as the sale of assets and North sea oil, there is the massive consumer boom referred to by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. That boom is based on plastic money. Although interest rates are at 28 or 30 per cent., people are prepared to indulge in the consumer society as long as they can use plastic money and the payment is made later. They do not look at the 28 per cent. interest rate. That, too, will be a problem for the Government, but it is a house that they have builded over the past five years.
    Having sat through five Budget speeches, I feel that we, as a nation, have been set up for the launch of a capitalist society. The Government do not mind a man standing on his own two feet, as long as he stands on the backs of those poorer than himself. The moral lesson that they wish to teach is: "Stand on your own two feet, but stand on the back of someone poorer than yourself who has not got and will never have your advantages."
    The divisions in our society are getting deeper and deeper. This is a financial Budget, but it is also a political Budget, cynically aimed at those who are doing well in society in the hope that those who are poorer will not understand it, and that those who are doing well will be seduced into not caring for their fellow man. That is the wrong philosophy, and it will backfire. The day will come when there will be a backlash against the Government's principles — against the idea that money is all that counts, and that people do not count. When that backlash comes, there will be a significant turning of public opinion away from this Government.
    6.13 pm
    Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I am grateful for the opportunity to make an early contribution to the Budget debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do so with some diffidence, however, because of the penalty faced by those fortunate enough to catch your eye so soon after the Chancellor has sat down. They deny themselves the opportunity to read a more careful analysis of the Budget in the press the following day, when those who are expert at analysing such a major and complex financial statement are able to present it in perspective. We, who may have missed subtle details, can then understand the full implications of the statement for various aspects of national life. Inevitably, my own contribution will not be aided by that expert opinion. It will be based merely on immediate reaction.
    It may not surprise some of my hon. Friends to hear that I find much with which to agree in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox). I shall not repeat his observations line by line, but I shall start, as he did, by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. His speech was most impressive.
    1028
    This is a positive Budget, and, like my hon. Friend, I believe that my right hon. Friend's judgment is about right. I welcome the Budget's reforming aspects.
    If my right hon. Friend can be said to have risen to the occasion, the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour party certainly have not. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to insist, both today and before the event, that this was meant to be a Budget for the National Health Service. Apart from misreading what the Budget is about, as opposed to the Autumn Statement on public expenditure—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) wishes to gain a reputation in the House for making sedentary comments, so be it, but I am not prepared to give way.
    The Budget is not about making decisions on extra public expenditure. The public have been considerably misled by the Opposition campaign in that respect. I am wholly committed to the success of the National Health Service, and I believe that the Government's record is much better than Opposition Members allow. They conveniently forget their own record on the NHS. Of course it is wrong that people should be kept waiting for such an important state service, but it has always been true that the list of things that we want to do—in health, in education or in any other regard—remains long, and lengthens as our expectations increase. That is bound to continue. The test of the Budget is whether it will control the economy in such a way as to ensure that more resources are generated for the Government to sustain such services.
    I believe that the record of the present Government, and the present Chancellor, is very good. Certainly it is superior to anything done by previous Labour Chancellors.
    Mr. David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Haselhurst: Not in the short time that remains. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand.
    The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) would have done better to listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell)—whose maiden speech I once had the pleasure of following—and to consider the Budget from the point of view of the success of British industry. That success is also tied up with the amount of resources to be generated for my right hon. Friend and his successors to fund services such as the NHS. The real test of the Budget is what it will do to sustain the economy, and industry within the economy.
    My right hon. Friend said that there was a need for industry to keep firm control of its costs, and I agree with that. However, he has an opportunity to help industry to control its costs. I applaud the effort to retain a stable currency. Many industrialists have told me that they are prepared to settle for an exchange rate with either the dollar or the deutschmark, which may not be ideal for their businesses, if they can at least reckon on its being stable and continuing for a year or more. It is the constant change that is disruptive and makes business planning so difficult. A Budget that can help ensure currency stability as far as is possible is to be welcomed, and I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands, who said that the Government should take the decision to join the exchange rate

    1029
    mechanism of the EMS. That would help the Government to manage the exchange rate for the benefit of our industry.
    I also hope the Budget will help to reduce interest rates, which is also crucial to industrial development in many sections of industry. Such a reduction is not the only thing that affects investment decisions, but in certain industries it has an effect, so it is important to reduce interest rates to achieve an overall improvement in our investment rate.
    It is also important that there should be enough resources for industry to engage in a faster rate of research and development. It is truly alarming that there is a widening gap between us and some of our competitor countries in Europe in this area. I do not need to be associated, as I am, with a number of industrial companies to be able to make that point in a purely generic way. It is vital to remedy Britain's backlog in research and development, and I had hoped that the Chancellor might have found an extra 1 or 2 per cent. to take off corporation tax. I know that the Chancellor is proud of his record on corporate tax, but any further margin that could have been found to encourage industry to invest more in research and development would have been welcome.
    The Leader of the Opposition is also wrong to make the NHS the criterion by which to measure the Budget as opposed to the need to move towards the creation of a single European market within the Community. I should not be averse to moves towards tax harmonisation, which will surely come upon us. I am probably a lone voice in the House in not being prepared to say that some of the rather difficult political decisions that will be involved in tax harmonisation for the British Government should be seen as obstacles to the creation of a single European market, which would benefit this country enormously. I am prepared to take as objective a view as possible of the Government's negotiations on that. If the Chancellor had wanted to chance his arm with one or two moves in that direction today, I would not have grumbled.
    On the other hand, the Chancellor has moved independently on petrol and cigarette duty. I welcome the further boost that he has given to "clean" cars through widening the differential between unleaded and leaded petrol—and he could have widened it still further. That would have been a further help. He remarked on the number of stations that now supply unleaded petrol, and it shows a gratifying rate of increase, but there are still not enough of them for customers to be able to rely on unleaded petrol being available at their local stations. I have counted only one in my constituency so far. So I welcome what my right hon. Friend did, but he could have gone further—perhaps at the expense of imposing a greater tax on cigarettes. If taxation can be used to emphasise the need to be environmentally sound, that is good.
    I particularly welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has doubled the rate of increase in the tax threshold —doubled what it would have been if it had been kept at the rate of inflation. That must help many people in the country, especially prudent elderly people who have put money by. So, although some of them may suffer from changes in housing benefit, this may be a way of compensating them, because probably quite a large number of them are taxpayers.
    1030
    I am glad that the Chancellor emphasised improving thresholds as much as he did. In some ways, I am surprised that his reforms did not go further on mortgage tax relief. He would find that many of us are prepared to think the unthinkable and tackle some of the special exemptions to which he referred, so that a lower rate of personal tax could be achieved in due course. He will have to return to this issue if he is to achieve a standard rate of 20 per cent.
    Unlike the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, I did not find this an offensive Budget. It is designed to maintain economic growth in the country, which is the best guarantee of improving the living standards of its people. I hope that the Government's policies will be designed to improve the living standards of all our people, and I believe that the Budget will help to maintain that prospect this year and in the future.
    6.25 pm
    Mr. James Wallace: Having now heard five Budget speeches from this Chancellor, I would not mark them high for technical merit, but he has a well-crafted method of putting them over and gets high marks for artistic impression. His speech today was subject to disturbances, and, however much one understands the strong reaction to some of the Chancellor's proposals, it is a sad day for free speech in the House of Commons if unpalatable views have to give way to the tactics of the terraces. I hope that that was a passing aberration that will not become a more regular feature of our debates.
    The background to the Budget has been canvassed in the press over many weeks. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) said that he despised any comments to the effect that the economy was overheating. While I agree in a general sense, he would probably accept that, in the more prosperous parts of the country, there are bottlenecks, with localised overheating and inflationary pressures. The credit boom is evidence of that. At the same time we have an increasing balance of payments problem. Today, the Chancellor minimised that when he said that there would be a £4 billion current account deficit by the end of the year—but that was only about 1 per cent. of GNP. If he had been sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, he would have made rather more of that.
    I fear that the Budget's approach will not help these problems. The Chancellor had an opportunity to do something constructive with the revenues that he has, but he seems to have missed it. The bulk of them will go on tax cuts for the rich. I generally welcome the increase in thresholds that has been mentioned. It will take many people out of tax, but there is nothing in the Budget for those who are not in employment and whose income will possibly fall as a result of social security changes at the beginning of next month. They never even get to the present thresholds, let alone the higher ones. Even those who will benefit to some extent from the increase in tax thresholds may find themselves disadvantaged by the interaction of the tax system and employee's national insurance contributions which, for some, can produce high marginal rates of tax as they move into taxable wage levels.
    Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Wallace: There is little time, and other hon. Members want to speak.

    1031
    I doubt whether the tax cuts that have been proposed will take the heat out of the economy in the parts of the country that appear to be overheated. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said, there is no substantive body of evidence to show that if highly-paid people are taxed less they will produce more and their enterprise will be stimulated. I suspect that the vast majority of people who have been paying the high levels of tax are not in the sort of wage structure in which they are paid for doing overtime. It may be suggested that if people have more money they will use it to increase their leisure facilities and possibly buy more luxury consumer goods. So, although the Budget may well be a vehicle for growth, it may prove to be a vehicle for growth in some of the countries that export to us. It is more likely to add to our balance of payments problem than to solve it. The balance of payments problem could be exacerbated further if the value of the pound were allowed to go up and our exports became less competitive.
    With regard to our competitiveness, the Chancellor's comments were interesting. He said that the onus would always be on employers to keep down unit costs and wages in order to make their goods more competitive. That comes rather oddly from a Government who, when they started out in 1979 totally hooked on monetary policy, saw little role for cost-push inflation; it was all subject to the money supply. Wage rates, on their theoretical analysis, had little to do with it. There now seems to be some appreciation that labour costs are a factor, as indeed would be an increasing value of the pound.
    I agree with the hon. Members for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) and for Staffordshire, Moorlands on the importance of a stable exchange rate. We on this Bench have for many years advocated membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS. One suspects in one's heart of hearts that that is what the Chancellor would have loved to announce today, but it would appear that 10 Downing street is the one thing that stands between Britain and membership of the EMS.
    Equally important, and related to this, is interest rate policy. Many would like to see interest rates come down in order to stimulate investment. The Chancellor is caught in a dilemma. He is worried, as he indicated at one stage in his speech, that by reducing interest rates he might give a further twist to the credit boom. Perhaps we have used interest rates for too long as a sledgehammer. If they are increased, this affects companies' willingness to invest and has an effect on young couples who are thinking of buying a house but are looking at the mortgage payments. It may well be time for us to start looking again at the introduction of credit controls. Hire purchase controls would perhaps have been a better way of controlling that side of the economy, without having to resort to the use of interest rates, which have so many other ramifications.
    Just as fundamentally, this Budget strategy is wrong in the long term. The Chancellor has boasted about the receipts from the sales of capital assets, but it is quite clear from what he said to the House, in terms of his strategy, that the receipts from sales of capital assets are not going to be reinvested in the economy. We have argued for a long time that the prudent use of receipts from these asset sales would be investment in the fabric of our infrastructure; for example, in our housing. Far more could be done about the housing problem and the problems of the homeless if some of the receipts from the sales of council houses were
    1032
    used in a housebuilding programme rather than as tax relief for Rachmanism which the Chancellor announced in the context of reforms to the business expansion scheme.
    We also want to see investment in a proper training programme which will enable our work force to be reskilled, and, as indicated by most Opposition speakers, investment in the National Health Service. The Select Committee on Social Services has indicated that a sum of £1·9 billion is needed by the National Health Service to meet its current crisis. I believe that it is increasingly being realised that the proposal that we put forward as a party at the last election for a 2 per cent. real increase in National Health spending showed very sound judgment. That is the sum of money that is needed to meet the ever-growing challenges to the Health Service of people living longer and of modern techniques in medicine which open up the range of opportunities and of services which the NHS can provide. There is no point in having a wealthy nation if we do not also have a healthy nation. Growth in this country and our long-term economic prospects depend to a very important extent on our having a well-educated, healthy nation. To squander oil revenues and receipts from the sales of assets in current expenditure and not invest in our people and our infrastructure is to be very short-sighted indeed.
    The Chancellor identified the advantages which flowed from his reform of corporation tax in 1984, and pointed out how it had stimulated investment, particularly from companies outside the United Kingdom, and brought about a better quality of investment. We very much regret that he did not follow through the logic of that argument and, as his predecessor did in 1982, announce a staged reduction in corporation tax down to the rate that he has now set for the basic rate of income tax. That would have been a further welcome boost to our manufacturing industry.
    It certainly rankles in a constituency such as mine, with a very large number of small business men and small businesses which are unincorporated, that the abolition of capital allowances, which went hand in hand with the reduction of corporation tax some four years ago, brought no benefits to many small business men and self-employed people. I know that the share fishermen in the Scottish fishing industry have made many representations to the Treasury on this and the effect that it has had on industries such as theirs. I hope that in the course of the passage of the Finance Bill further sympathetic consideration will be given to that.
    On the subject of excise duties, I welcome the differential for beer of a lower strength, but I wonder about the Government's commitment to trying to discourage young people from taking to drink when they do not propose to increase the duties on spirits. There are two distilleries in my constituency and in the short term it might be seen as a welcome relief that there has been no increase. But I think that the whisky industry would much prefer a statutory maturing allowance, which, indeed, it has called for on a number of occasions, to a short-term break in the inflation-linked increase of exise duty. After all, people in my constituency who are dependent on cars might wonder why they have got to pay more for their petrol, above the rate of inflation, while those who drink whisky and gin are going to get off scot-free, if not Scotch-free.
    Generally, we welcome the reforms which have been announced with regard to the taxation of married couples,

    1033
    but the detail of those proposals will merit close examination. The allowances which are being given to both husband and wife in terms of capital gains tax provide yet another example of the way that this Budget is very much slanted towards the rich — the haves —rather than to the have-nots. The principle of equal treatment is one that we would accept, but we shall wish to pay serious attention to the small detail.
    I know that many other hon. Members want to speak, so I will not go into any further details. Generally, I think that the impact and overall impression of this Budget will be that the Chancellor has missed an opportunity. He has looked at the short term and given to those who have; he has not looked to the long-term interest of building up the education, health and infrastructure of our country and, in particular, the need to pay attention to those most in need.
    6.36 pm
    Mr. John Stokes: I am sure that I am not alone in feeling very sorry indeed that this debate, which is not a very long one, has been shortened by over half an hour owing to two completely unnecessary Divisions and because of a disgraceful scene which led to the sitting being suspended. I feel that I am not alone in believing that that scene was very damaging indeed to the House. I am only grateful that we did not have television cameras here, because what would the British public think of us?
    I always look forward to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's speech because he is a professional, and he enjoys his professionalism. He has played a vital part in the success of the Government in setting the scene for the policies which have created widespread prosperity among all classes. Also, we owe a great deal to him for our triumph in the last general election.
    I thought that the Budget was ably thought out and most ably presented. It was, as I expected it to be, both reformist and prudent. What a long time it seems now since we had that long series of doleful Labour Budgets in the 1970s. The tide was turned by the stern Budget of the Conservative Government in 1981, which started to squeeze out inflation from the system. From that time, progress has been steady and all kinds of severe difficulties have been overcome: for instance, the cost of the Falklands war, the expense of the very long coal strike and the loss of revenue through the collapse of oil prices. Public expenditure has been contained and people's energies are being harnessed for the good of the country.
    There is, I know, a cry from the do-gooders—and I hear it also in the General Synod of the Church of England—that more taxpayers' money is the answer to almost every problem in this country. In fact, experience shows that far too much taxpayers' money has been spent in the past in, for instance, propping up dud companies, trying to force companies away from their natural places of business to places where they do not want to go, and all kinds of rather spurious public works.
    The intellectual progressives have a puritanical attitude to reductions in taxation. They believe that the state should think for us. I believe that the individual should think for himself. He is the best person to decide what to do with his own money, some of which the Chancellor has
    1034
    given back to him. He can decide whether to spend the money, whether to save it or whether to give it away. How glad we all are that so much more is being given to charity.
    Certainly my constituents in the industrial heart of England will be pleased with the Budget, because, contrary to many Opposition Members, I am glad to say that many of those skilled men and women are in work and will be very pleased to be paying less tax this summer and to be getting more of what they earn.
    Mr. Doug Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Stokes: No; time is short.
    In the bad times, when factory after factory was closing in my constituency, and the situation was worse than it was in Scotland and elsewhere, people never complained, and now they do not like industrialists and the CBI constantly moaning. They have never held out a begging bowl and they have never expected a handout. They picked themselves up, and paid more attention to marketing and sales. They greatly improved the performance of their companies and many new businesses were started. My constituency is now enjoying prosperity which the people have richly deserved. Confidence is returning, not only in my constituency, but throughout the west midlands. The amount of export trade, particularly for small companies, is staggering. I wish only that that good news would get into newspapers, in particular the local newspapers.
    However, I am still not satisfied that enough financial help is being given to those who start up new businesses, either in the form of grants or loans from the Government, or through loans from the banks. When I visit new businesses, I find that all too often the criteria for loans seem not to fit many individual cases. It is curious that the banks should be so prodigal in lending to the Third world where they have lost billions of pounds, yet so Scrooge-like in lending to English companies where the risk is obviously very much less.
    The cuts in personal taxation at all levels are bold and sensible. Contrary to what some Opposition Members say, they will encourage good, hard-working people to work even harder. I certainly do not object to the new arrangements for the curtailment of perks. The main benefits to a person in work should be in his earnings, which should be taxed at the lowest rate possible.
    I very much welcome the long overdue improvement for married women.
    I accept the increases in taxation on cigarettes, but I am sorry that tax has been placed on petrol and not on whisky and gin, and I hope that the Chancellor will think again about that.
    The country is now starting to believe in its own success and the success of Government policies. In Britain, we have such brains and such ability that there is nothing that we cannot do if we turn our minds to it. Foreigners look with envy to our economy and to our Prime Minister. The only small cloud on the horizon is the amount of money and credit which perhaps is slopping about a bit too much in the economy, and whether the present rate of growth can be sustained. I hope that it can.
    I believe that the situation can be contained if the Government maintain the strictest control on the supply of money, and if industry can increase productivity, control wage costs, and, above all, can manufacture more

    1035
    of the products which are still flooding in from countries such as Germany and Japan. However, this is a problem of success and not of failure.
    In freeing individuals from the burden of too high taxation, we must not forget the public enterprises which are still in the hands of the state, such as the railways, the coal industry and the National Health Service, about which we have heard so much. I believe that to run those services more efficiently does not necessarily mean, as the Opposition say every day, spending more money. It means better leadership, organisation and management, and, above all, the recruitment of higher calibre men and women. Many of our towns are still dirty, filthy and untidy and surely public works should be carried out by voluntary and by state-controlled labour.
    Unfortunately, there is still great waste in several Government Departments and inefficiency in some public services. The Public Accounts Committee, a Select Committee of which I wholeheartedly approve, does a marvelous job in exposing such waste. I suspect the Ministry of Defence's buying policies. As the House is aware, I wholeheartedly support Her Majesty's forces, but the size of the Ministry of Defence and some of its actions, particularly on the commercial side, worry me, and I believe that they leave a lot to be desired.
    The country has had so many years of economic failure in the past that we cannot get used to success. Industry must now take off and put the years of defeatism behind it. The answer to exporting depends not so much on the level of the pound sterling but on the research, development, design, production, marketing and sales of the products which customers want to buy. The unions have still to be weaned away from expecting automatic wage increases every year, and must look more to wage levels tied to productivity, which I know the Government are trying to encourage. Above all, there is a vital need for more training in industry and commerce. We have to worry about the flesh and blood, as much as money and fiscal assets. We must worry in the Budget about ordinary Britons, and we must get better value for money from the colossal amount of public expenditure.
    The Government's enemies say that the Government are producing a greedy society. I believe that they are not. They are trying to create a more responsible society in which the head of the family will look to himself to look after his family and not, as in the years of the welfare state, to the state. Last year, during the cold weather, we heard about old people who were suffering. I should like to know what their families were doing. We hear about crime being committed by young people. What are their families doing? The state is not the answer to everything. It is often very harmful—[Interruption.] Before I was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), I was about to say, and I am sure that the Whips will agree, that responsibility is the essence of what the Government are doing. Thank goodness the years when people's initiative and conscientiousness were warped by the welfare state are now over. I believe that, as a result of the Budget, we are making a healthier and more responsible society.
    6.49 pm
    Mr. Roy Hughes: The late Mr. J. H. Thomas, or Jimmy Thomas as he was more popularly known, was a famous, but rather notorious, son of Newport who, back in 1936, was hounded out of public
    1036
    life, allegedly for leaking Budget secrets. Then there was the late Hugh Dalton, Chancellor of the Exchequer in the post-war Labour Government, who in 1948 was forced to resign because a casual conversation with a journalist immediately before the delivery of his Budget might, it was supposed, have sparked off certain developments on the stock market.
    In those days, not only did the Chancellor go into purdah for weeks before his Budget, but there was very little official speculation about the contents of the Budget. Today, things have very much changed, and the process has accelerated during the period of the office of the present Chancellor. For weeks we have been regaled with tales of the vast surplus held by the Chancellor, and the suggestion has repeatedly been made that he intended to dispose of a good deal of it through tax cuts. Much of the speculation would seem to have been officially inspired, a sort of exercise in kite-flying, to see what the reaction of the public would be.
    What we all realise now, however, is that this is essentially an unusual Budget, which is not so much about raising taxation as about distributing several billion pounds. Windfall increases have, of course, accrued to the Chancellor: more value added tax than expected, due to increased consumer spending; £2·5 billion more than expected in North sea oil revenues; and the rake-off from the sale of the family silver, which has continued.
    The present state of affairs does not point to a healthy economy. We are living in what I would describe essentially as a "candy floss society", for the Government are failing to tackle the real problems that are building up for the future. Superficiality and window dressing seem to be the operative words. For example, in 1979 our manufacturing surplus was £5 billion, but by 1987 we had a deficit of £8 billion. Even when we take into consideration invisible earnings from the City and from tourism, we are left with a £1,679 million deficit on the balance of payments for 1987.
    The Chancellor has announced an increase in the tax on petrol. For a start, this will put up the price of just about everything. It would be far better to increase the taxation on spirits. Then there are the cuts in personal taxation, with the basic rate down to 25 per cent. and the top rate reduced to 40 per cent. This latter proposal is simply a disgrace, and this afternoon Opposition Members spontaneously displayed their indignation. Their reaction was perfectly understandable.
    With concessions to higher rate taxpayers—and we must remember that the south-east already has the highest spending power — it is people living there who will receive the lion's share of these new handouts. It is another example of the creation of inequality, not only between the south-east and the other regions, but between the haves and the have nots. It is another instance of what Robbie Burns would have described as
    "Man's inhumanity to man, making countless thousands mourn!"
    Cuts in income tax will also mean more consumer spending. I do not wish to be a killjoy, but we must face the fact that a good deal more will be spent on foreign imports, and this is bound to aggravate our deteriorating balance of payments deficit.
    Much of the surplus should have been spent on rebuilding British industry. The north-south divide is getting worse. Areas such as Scotland, the north of England and Wales urgently need help to provide the jobs

    1037
    of which they are so desperately short. The amount spent on regional aid, far from being drastically cut, should have been increased to encourage new businesses and new industries to move into those areas to try to iron out the differences between the regions. Tourism is important, but an economy cannot be securely based on service industries. Historic castles linked to Coca-Cola and hamburgers are just not good enough. We need to increase our manufacturing industry by stimulating investment and growth.
    Our education system has deteriorated in recent years and is badly under-funded. Teachers' morale is at an all-time low. It is wrong that our children should be penalised by these cuts, for the future is with the young. Our education system should be properly funded.
    Perhaps the greatest scandal of all is the rundown of the National Health Service. I support the contention that the health of the people is the highest law. There have been protests all over the country, and in Wales even Her Majesty The Queen Mother felt impelled to intervene over a ward closure in Merthyr Tydfil. A fortnight ago the Conservative-dominated Select Committee on Social Services recommended an extra £1 billion for the National Health Service. The ink was hardly dry on the report before it was rejected by the Government. Since then the Committee has accused the Prime Minister of appearing to misrepresent its recommendations. What a way for a Government to treat their own Back Benchers.
    The three presidents of the royal medical colleges have told us that, despite the efforts of doctors, nurses and other hospital staff, patient care is deteriorating and acute hospital services have reached breaking point, but instead of tackling these fundamental problems the Government have been engaged in an exercise in deception. Figures in the White Paper on public expenditure purport to show dramatic increases in spending on hospitals, with current spending up by 26 per cent., it is suggested, since 1982. However, adjustment of the figures to reflect the rise in National Health Service pay and prices shows the increase to be only 0·6 per cent.
    The basic question needs to he asked: why all this skimping and saving on essential public services which is so detrimental to the interests of millions of people? The massive accumulated surplus should have been spent on providing the services that people are crying out for. The Chancellor had a clear choice. He could, for example, have supported the National Health Service, reopened wards and provided for the nurses and the low-paid ancillary workers, besides providing better care for the elderly. All the opinion polls have indicated that this is the wish of the majority. Instead, he has opted to give handouts to the better off. This measure, together with the new social security regulations, will mean that the poor are poorer and the rich richer. In that sense, the Chancellor has failed the nation. When people come to consider more soberly what he has said today, they will realise that what they voted for at the last general election is highly detrimental to their own long-term interests.

    Royal Assent
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

    1. Consolidated Fund Act 1988

    2. Land Registration Act 1988

    3. Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988

    4. Welsh Development Agency Act 1988

    5. Social Security Act 1988

    6. Keble College Oxford Act 1988

    7. Selwyn College Cambridge Act 1988

    8. Whitchurch Bridge Act 1988

    9. Hastings Borough Council Act 1988

    10. City of Westminster Act 1988

    11. Liverpool Exchange Act 1988

    12. Corn Exchange Act 1988

  British Railways (London) Bill
  Order for Third Reading read.
  7 pm
  Mr. Sydney Chapman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Hon. Members will be aware that we had a very full Second Reading debate on 20 January, since when I am glad to report that considerable progress has been made. First, British Rail has reached agreement with the three remaining petitioners, and as a result the Bill was examined upstairs by an Unopposed Private Bill Committee. The Bill started in the other place. I hope very much that the House will give it a Third Reading so that it may go on to the statute book.
  The House will remember that this small but very important measure provides for works on British Railways new Thames link route, which will join the rail networks of north and south London, through the City. The Bill comprises three different sets of works. The first is the realignment of the railway between Blackfriars and Farringdon, which will also involve closing Holborn Viaduct station, at the end of a short spur. There will he a new St. Paul's station on the through line. The realignment includes the creation of a shallow tunnel instead of the viaduct and bridge. Hon. Members will know that the existing bridge near Ludgate circus blocks the great prospect of St. Paul's cathedral from Ludgate circus, and indeed from the east end of Fleet street.
  I am also glad to report to the House that, since Second Reading, the Corporation of London has given planning permission for the redevelopment proposals on the old Holborn Viaduct site, which will pay for these works entirely. The latest estimate of the cost for Work No. 1 of the Bill is about £46·5 million.
  The second section of works involves the reinstatement of tracks and equipment in two short abandoned tunnels that are just to the north of King's Cross station, thus connecting the Thames link with the east coast main line. That part of the works will cost £3 million. British Rail believes that the cost can be justified because of the increase in passenger receipts.
  The third section of works detailed in the Bill—
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Before my hon. Friend leaves Works Nos. 3A and 3B, which he is about to do, will he deal with one of the difficulties that was revealed on Second Reading—that the connections that would allow through trains to operate from the south would allow them to go only as far north as Stevenage, Royston, Cambridge or Peterborough, but no further? I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that we are talking of a yuppie Bill and yuppie works for London commuters, rather than of through connections that hon. Members would like between the south-east and the north.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), when replying, will remember that we are on Third Reading of the Bill, and that remarks must be directly related to the content of the Bill.
  Mr. Chapman: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that reminder. I shall try to answer my hon. Friend within the provisions of the Bill.
  The reason why InterCity trains cannot go directly from Darlington, to choose just one place that comes
  1040
  readily to mind, to Brighton, to pick another place out of the air, is that tunnels are not high enough to permit the large InterCity carriages arid engines to use them. Although the tunnels have the standard 4 ft 84½ in gauge, the tunnel routes are 18 in lower than usual. Therefore, only the shorter carriages, which are like underground trains, can be used.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: That is a disgrace.
  Mr. Chapman: It may be a disgrace, but I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that it would cost about £100 million to alter the tunnels to provide for an InterCity through connection. The scheme would then fall. I hope that that deals with the problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) raised a separate point relating to long-distance trains from the north to the south. The reason why trains will not go further than Peterborough is that the carriages would not be economic to run when carrying fast services further towards the north-east. I hope that I have dealt with my hon. Friend's query.
  Mr. Fallon rose—
  Mr. Chapman: I see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my answer does not satisfy my hon. Friend, so I shall give way to him, and try to explain it again later.
  Mr. Fallon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. As I understand it, he is explaining the limitations of clause 10(1) and the definition of the bore. As I understand the Bill's promoters, the bore is 18 in narrower than is necessary to allow for the movement of trains from the north to the south, or the south to the north. Is that the position?
  Mr. Chapman: I think that my hon. Friend understands it, but I shall try again.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but as the tunnel is in London, it is not really relevant to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon).
  Mr. Fallon rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are dealing with Third Reading. I recognise that there are links in the Bill, in relation to the hon. Gentleman's question, but it is not in order to have such a wide-ranging debate as on Second Reading.
  Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We all respect your rulings, of course, and we will adhere to them. The only matter that I would point out to you, with great respect, is that, as the tunnel will be built to a certain size, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) has said, the size of the tunnels is surely relevant to our discussions about the size of the rolling stock passing through them. As the size of that rolling stock has implications for the routes that the trains will take in future, surely it is relevant for us to discuss the routing of those trains, insofar as that is affected by the width of tunnels through which they pass.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We must not spill over our debate to the north of England, or anywhere else. I am sure that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who has moved the Third Reading, well understands that.
  Mr. Chapman: I am most grateful.
  Mr. Fallon: On a point of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think it would be very much better if the hon. Gentleman were allowed to proceed with his speech. I will listen carefully to him, and I am sure he will not stray out of order.
  Mr. Chapman: Within the provisions of the Bill, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that it is a question not of building new tunnels but of reopening the existing tunnels. Those tunnels are built to a certain size, and that size will not take the InterCity carriages.
  The third major section of works is to provide escalator sections at King's Cross, affording direct pedestrian access for people using the new Thames link service, connecting them conveniently to the main line station and the three LRT underground lines of Victoria, Piccadilly and Northern at King's Cross.
  Sir John Farr: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the new escalator connections which are to be constructed as a result of the Bill will have stricter protection in case of fire?
  Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend raises a vital point. He would have heard the full explanation given in the Second Reading debate. The new escalator connections will be supplementary to the existing ones at King's Cross, which were the subject of that terrible and tragic conflagration last November, but they will not be constructed until the report of Mr. Desmond Fennell QC, who is inquiring into the King' Cross disaster, is published. The new escalators will incorporate any recommendations made by him and will be constructed to the highest possible safety standards. Access and egress in the area will be made easier as there will be more escalators, which will be to the highest safety standards.
  That part of the project is estimated, on the latest figures, to cost some £3·75 million, and the principal works will be financed entirely through the receipts from the development of the Holborn Viaduct station site, which will become obsolete. The provisions of the Bill represent great improvements to the public transport system in that part of London. The improvements will benefit Londoners using the public transport system, as well as people moving from north to south and vice versa. The principal works will be of no cost to the taxpayer.
  I commend the Bill to the House. If points are raised which I can answer, I shall seek, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to catch your eye at an appropriate time in the debate.
  Mr. Fallon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not want to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), but I would like clarification of the ruling you gave. As I understand it, you have confined the debate to the application of the tunnels to London. Whilst the tunnels are in London, they are being rebored for the purpose of traffic to and from London, which originates and terminates well outside London. There may be debate as to how far outside London that traffic should be facilitated, but, as I understand your ruling, you wish to confine the debate to London traffic, which places us in some difficulty.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be easier if we were to get on with the debate. I am reminding the House that on Third Reading we can debate only what is in the Bill. I
  1042
  realise that whether tunnels can take traffic from the north-east is relevant, but on Third Reading we cannot have the wide-ranging debate that I remember we had on Second Reading, which was then in order. The Bill is somewhat complicated and it is difficult to control what is in order, but it would be better if we proceeded with the debate. I shall listen carefully, and I feel sure that all hon. Members will co-operate by keeping in order.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I will, of course, abide by your helpful ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the House would like to have further details on one or two questions which relate directly to the Bill and which were discussed in Committee. I am sure that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) will be as helpful on Third Reading as he was on Second Reading in trying to answer the questions. I should then like to turn to the implications of the new, redeveloped terminal at King's Cross on services at the station.
  The hon. Member said that the Corporation of London has taken decisions on some of the proposals for redevelopment of the area around the station. I may have misheard him, but I thought he related those decisions to the financial implications of the redevelopment. Perhaps, in winding up, he will confirm whether attempts have been made to consult the planning department of Camden borough council, which I think is the relevant planning authority, and the London Regional Passenger Committee, which has a locus in the argument.
  On Second Reading, some hon. Members referred to the wider implications of the private legislation getting round some of the planning procedures and strict planning requirements. Perhaps the hon. Member could deal with that question and my previous question together.
  On Second Reading we were told of a time scale of two to three years. I ask the hon. Member to confirm that time scale, because on Second Reading he was labouring under some difficulty, but I am sure that he would have taken advantage of the time between Second Reading and Third Reading to get more detail from the British Railways Board.
  The hon. Member has substantially assuaged some of the doubts raised about the Fennell inquiry, but I ask him to confirm that neither British Rail nor anyone else will be required to come up with amending legislation if the inquiry were to make drastic recommendations about the escalators. Are there any circumstances where it would be necessary to introduce amending legislation or additional private powers? The House would be concerned if that were the case. I understand from what the hon. Member said that there are no circumstances in which British Rail would be required to make amendments as a result of the inquiry, but it is important for us to hear what British Rail has to say about that.
  The estimated cost of widening the tunnels was said by the hon. Member to be £1 million, which is a substantial sum. If that figure is correct, it would probably rule out the prospect of a direct link, for commercial reasons. Has the hon. Member gone into that in any detail? Neither he nor I have any economic expertise in costing railways, so for him to give a figure of £1 million is a little bit casual. I should like to know how that figure was made up and satisfy myself that someone has not simply worked it out on the back of a fag packet.

  1043
  The question whether that £100 million is the right figure should sit cheek by jowl with an analysis of the cost benefits that would accrue, if the line was capable of taking wider gauge traffic. From my experience of using London and making frequent journeys through King's Cross, I have concluded that there would be a substantial benefit. I would take every opportunity to go round London, if I could avoid King's Cross, and I am sure that that would apply to many people travelling from the north.
  I wonder whether British Rail has undertaken any survey to see what traffic would be generated by, and the additional benefit that would accrue from, wider tunnels, even if the proposal cost a substantial sum of money. If the Bill receives its Third Reading, I assume that British Rail will consider co-ordinating timetables so that trains which can go through the Thames link will be used and people will be encouraged to use the link. I understand that there are now no outstanding petitioners. That is a substantial improvement on Second Reading.
  There has been some controversy about some of the redevelopment schemes envisaged in the works covered by the Bill. That is a constituency matter, and I do not wish to interfere in it. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who represents the constituency concerned and is quite rightly in his place, can make his own arguments. However, the scale of the developments also makes this an important national issue, and I hope that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will comment on that.
  Many hon. Members have spent a great deal of time on the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) have all been assiduous in giving it thorough scrutiny. There has been a substantial change of attitude in the way that British Rail has handled the matter. There is now a much more positive attitude towards considering the worries and fears of hon. Members on both sides of the House and of all parts of the country in respect of the issues underlying the Bill.
  The Bill could have long-lasting repercussions for the scale and nature of the services provided on the east coast route from King's Cross. As a result of the alterations in the Bill, after two or three years of rebuilding, new levels of service will be provided. For example, the longer platforms that will result from the redevelopment will allow the use of larger and electrified trains, and services which were due for closure in two months' time may become profitable after redevelopment.
  My fears about the Bill will he substantially assuaged if British Rail makes it clear that the opportunities provided by the Bill will be seized with vigour and enthusiasm. My fears will be assuaged if British Rail discusses with local Members of Parliament and local authorities the opportunities that will arise from the redevelopment of King's Cross. My fears will be assuaged because British Rail now gives me the impression that it will do everything possible to minimise inconvenience to east coast day and night passengers using King's Cross during redevelopment and that it will carry out a detailed study of the possibility of bringing back at least one night service when the King's Cross redevelopment is complete.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: The passage of the Bill through the House has shown that it cannot be
  1044
  regarded simply as a London Bill and that debate cannot be restricted to London Members. The financing of the works contained in clause 5 and the purpose of those works can he broadly described as national.
  Let us consider the money required to facilitate the works in clause 5. Rather unusually for such a Bill, the money is being raised through a substantial property development in the heart of London, but it would he wrong to assume that Londoners alone have contributed to the asset sales from which the new resources are to be released. Indeed, the overall subsidy to the London and south-east area of British Rail from the taxpayer is the largest for any British Rail region. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) says that the figure of £100 million is too expensive, he should bear in mind that the overall subsidy each successive year is about £300 million from the taxpayers of the rest of the country to services and developments in the south-east.
  We all have a financial interest in the Bill, because, as taxpayers, we have all contributed to the development and operation of Holborn Viaduct, whose redevelopment will finance the works in the Bill. For that reason alone, we are entitled to ask whether works Nos. 3A and 3B are sufficient for the national interest in linking up the respective regions.
  Mr. Chapman: It may be helpful if I intervene now to deal with that point. I shall obtain justification for the figure of £100 million, which would be the cost of redesigning and rebuilding the tunnels and the bends and curves of the line to accommodate InterCity trains. My hon. Friend may have a point when he says that the additional money should be spent if it would provide a through link from the north to the Channel tunnel, but that can, and no doubt will, be provided by using the existing lines via Olympia to the west of London, rather than through the City. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied on that point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must deal with the link in the Bill. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) is in order at present, but a slight temptation was opening up that he might widen the debate to include another link which is not in the Bill.
  Mr. Fallon: I was going to make the point that we can examine only this link and not any proposed future link that might be part of the arrangements for the Channel tunnel.
  The Bill does something unique, as it links up two parts of the network. We are entitled to ask whether it does so satisfactorily, bearing in mind British Rail's national obligations laid down by statute.
  Before giving the Bill a Third Reading we have to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet whether the promoters are justified in constructing a link in such a restrictive way. We have to ask whether, for the sake of l8in, the tunnel is being rebored and reopened in a way that limits the passage of traffic through it to certain parts of the rail network and to passengers from certain parts of the United Kingdom. I submit to my hon. Friends that we would be unwise to give a Third Reading to such a restrictive Bill at the first opportunity presented to us to link the southern, midlands and northern networks of British Rail.
  If my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet can satisfy us on that point, if he can reassure those of us who

  1045
  are concerned to ensure that the new opportunities opened up by the development of the cross-Channel link, which we cannot discuss tonight, will be fully taken into account in all parts of the United Kingdom, and if he can show that the costs involved in satisfying us far outweigh any benefit to be gained to the midlands and the north, we shall all be much keener to get the Bill on to the statute book and proceed with the next business before us.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: To myself and my constituents, many of whom live in the immediate environs of King's Cross, the proposals in the Bill are relatively unobjectionable. The reopening of the two tunnels that curve round either side of King's Cross station underground, the putting-through of new traffic to carry the Thames link services that will link places such as Bedford and Peterborough to the south of the river with no additional disruption of the surface, the construction of new subway links between the London Midland rail station, the underground and the main line stations at King's Cross are benefits. Therefore, we must give a cautious welcome to them. However, as hon. Members have already said, they are severely limited benefits.
  The height of the existing two tunnels around King's Cross and the slope of the curve mean that it will be possible only for trains of a limited size and capacity to travel along the newly reopened lines. That is something about which my colleagues from the north-east and Scotland will undoubtedly wish to express considerable regret. The benefit of reopening the tunnels will be limited by those factors.
  Having said all that, it is important to say that if the Bill were coming before us without anything else happening at King's Cross, it would be a welcome exercise. However, that is not the case. Only three weeks ago, after this Bill received its Second Reading and shortly before it was considered in Committee, the British Railways Board announced the public consultation exercise, which is now under way, in connection with major and dramatic redevelopment to the north of King's Cross and St. Pancras stations. Those redevelopments throw this Bill into a completely new light. I believe that it is important for us to ask some questions as the result of that announcement.
  Part of the redevelopment packages to the north of King's Cross, which are being put before the public for potential selection as the consultation exercise proceeds, is the construction of what is called in the press handout of British Rail, a major new international railway terminus underground at King's Cross. The construction of an international terminus at King's Cross must entail the construction of new tunnels to carry InterCity traffic from King's Cross and areas to the north of London through to areas to the south of London and, potentially, through to the Channel tunnel.
  I mention that simply because proposals of that sort, which form part of the consultation exercise that British Rail is currently undertaking for land and railway redevelopment around King's Cross, are completely incompatible with the measures proposed in the Bill. If major redevelopment takes place with a new international terminus at King's Cross and InterCity traffic travelling from the Channel tunnel to the north of London via new
  1046
  tunnels in the King's Cross area, the work to reopen the two tunnels in this Bill cannot possibly be cost-effective. Indeed, the line of new tunnels is likely to cross the line of the tunnels that are proposed to be reopened by the Bill. Therefore, the current major redevelopment proposals for the King's Cross area throw the provisions of this Bill into a new light.
  The time scale is a long one. It may be up to 10 years before the line to the north of King's Cross is fully redeveloped. However, we are entitled to ask which of two things will happen in the event of that major redevelopment going ahead. Will all the work to reopen the two tunnels around King's Cross be instituted but only for a short time, and then be replaced by much more major development work? If that is to happen, we are entitled to ask whether British Rail will get value for money.
  Alternatively, will the proposals never get off the starting block? Will we find that, we having passed the Bill, British Rail will decide in six months or a year, when it decides on the basic principles of its major redevelopment exercise, that it does not want to go ahead with the works in this Bill? If so, why is British Rail wasting valuable parliamentary time in bringing this Bill before us? I believe that important questions such as that need to be asked as a result of the new position that has been created by British Rail's recent announcements.
  My constituents have expressed some concern about the impact of this Bill in the light of their general concern about the future of the King's Cross area as a whole. I do not want to trespass on the rules of debate, but I should like to put down four markers on issues which trouble my constituents and which I believe, in the context of the general redevelopment of King's Cross, British Rail ought to take on board.
  First, if any new international underground terminus is to be contemplated, there should be the minimum disruption to the surface. Many homes and businesses are thriving in the immediate hinterland of King's Cross, especially along York road and Caledonian road, in my constituency. It is important that people's livelihoods and homes are not disrupted or destroyed.
  Secondly, the impact of traffic coming to any new development at King's Cross and to the north of King's Cross will weigh heavily on the residents of Islington, rather than on those of Camden, although any such development will be situated principally in Camden. The flow of traffic must be watched carefully.
  Thirdly, because any such development will be located in Camden, it is principally the people of Camden who are likely to benefit from any planning gain from such a development. I put British Rail on notice that I shall be looking for gains for the people of Islington as well.
  Fourthly, the consultation exercises that are being undertaken at present by British Rail and by its prospective developers concentrate on consultation with the people of Camden. Again, I put British Rail on notice that it must include in its consultation exercises the people of Islington as they will be affected almost as much as the people of Camden.
  I mention those four issues because they are of considerable concern to my constituents. As I have said, the basic provisions of this relatively minor Bill are of themselves fairly unobjectionable. However, in the context of British Rail's proposals for overall development at King's Cross, and the prospect that much more major work might be envisaged at, around or underneath King's,

  1047
  Cross, and with the prospect of further private Bills relating to such matters coming forward in the next year or the next year and a half, we are entitled to ask British Rail what precisely it is up to, and how this Bill meshes in with its overall and further proposals for much more widespread developments at King's Cross, which will have a much greater impact on my constituents and those of many of my colleagues.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: I rise to speak briefly to give the official Opposition view of the Bill. I am not attempting to wind up the debate in any way, so I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the Minister with responsibility for roads and traffic, will not think that I am seeking to pre-empt the spot that he seeks to occupy.
  I should like to put two points about the Bill to the representative of the promoter, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), and to the Minister. My first point has not been raised so far. It refers to clause 9 in part II. It arises as a result of representations made by the London Cycling Campaign to one of its more famous cyclists, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) who—
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Tebbit.
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Member for Acton is perhaps not quite as famous as the right hon. Gentleman, but he is a well-known cyclist and, for obviously understandable reasons, he cannot be here to put these points tonight. I am asked to advise the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, who represents the promoters, that the London Cycling Campaign has expressed concern about the closure of Pilgrim and Apothecary streets and their replacement by footpaths. The campaign makes the point:
  "Cyclists cannot legally use a footpath. If these two roads are cut off to cyclists use, there will be no east to west route between Ludgate Hill and Queen Victoria Street".
  The campaign then makes the point that Queen Victoria street has fast-moving traffic and is perceived as dangerous.
  The campaign makes two suggestions arising from the difficulties that cyclists would encounter as a result of the Bill. It suggests that the two footpaths to which I have referred should be for "shared use" by pedestrians and cyclists, with a minimum laid-down width and segregation between the two users. The campaign also suggests—the Minister will be aware of this—that the policy of the former Greater London council, now adopted by the boroughs, is that where road closures are proposed, there should be an exemption for cyclists, unless there are overwhelming reasons against that. Shared footpaths are not that unusual and are neither expensive nor dangerous. There are at least two other such schemes in London at present, in which such sharing works successfully.
  I should like to put another point to the Minister and the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, relating to the vexed question, if I might so refer to it, of Works Nos. 3A and 3B. We understand the ire of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), who is not in his place at the moment, but who intervened a couple of times during the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet.
  Without rehearsing the arguments, and possibly provoking your ire, Madam Deputy Speaker, by straying
  1048
  outside the terms of the Third Reading, it appears strange, to say the least, that we should be discussing these works at the same time as British Rail is talking about the complete redevelopment of King's Cross and St. Pancras stations. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has referred to that. My hon. Friend asked, "Exactly what is British Rail up to?" If the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet can answer that, good luck to him, because he will surprise us all. British Rail frequently gives the impression that the left hand is not only unaware of what the right hand is doing, but, if it found out, it would object anyway.
  The contradiction in terms that arises from the proposals relating to Works Nos. 3A and 3B and the reality of the development at those two main line stations is pretty obvious. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, even if the Bill receives its Third Reading tonight we are not ensuring that the works can go ahead. British Rail often seeks permission for such works but does not proceed with them for a considerable time. For perfectly understandable constituency reasons, my hon. Friend and those of us who take an interest in railway matters generally are entitled to ask exactly what British Rail is up to.
  I have here a statement on behalf of the promoters referring specifically to Works Nos. 3A and 3B, which states:
  "Works 3a and 3b would not be physically compatible with any realigned route capable of taking InterCity trains. If it were subsequently decided to proceed with an InterCity route, works 3a and 3b would not be undertaken, unless the costs could be recovered before the larger scheme were implemented."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is entitled to ask questions about British Rail's intentions. Understandably, if there is to be widespread dislocation in and around his constituency, to no apparent purpose, he is entitled to ask some straight questions of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, who represents the promoters of the Bill. However, I readily repeat that if the hon. Gentleman is unable to provide answers to those questions, I for one will well understand.
  Returning to the vexed question raised by the hon. Member for Darlington of why original Works Nos. 3A and 3B are suitable only for suburban trains rather than for InterCity trains, and without rehearsing once again their various destinations, it is true that there is nothing to stop an electrical multiple unit train from travelling as far as is necessary, once the east coast main line is electrified; indeed all the way to Edinburgh if so desired. I hope that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will agree.
  I do not believe that the most comfortable way of making the journey to Edinburgh would be from somewhere south of the river, whether from Blackfriars, St. Paul's or even further south. However, I do not believe that British Rail's financial policy would stop such a journey from being embarked upon. Nobody knows what its financial policy is, least of all British Rail's management. What would stop it would be the uncomfortable nature of the journey, given the fact that suburban trains, as their name implies, are built merely for short, suburban journeys.
  The difficulty in which the BR management finds itself as a result of the statement to which I have just referred is amplified by the difficulties that have arisen over the years with cross-London traffic, north to south London

  1049
  traffic and traffic from the east and west coast main lines to the south of England. There was a perfectly adequate route — albeit sparsely used — through Kensington Olympia. Some time ago BR decided to dispense with that line and considerably reduced facilities at Kensington Olympia station. BR then decided to boost north-south traffic by routing it through that station—albeit that facilities had been reduced. It then realised that the trains that it had provided to run via Olympia were not particularly popular—principally because their average speed was about 40 miles an hour.
  I have sought to amplify the confusion that is found, all too often, in the minds of those who run BR. I confidently predict that if the current management of BR had been responsible for Napoleon's retreat from Moscow, the French army would have been lucky to pass through the outer suburbs of that city.
  7.52 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I had intended to withdraw the insult that I had offered to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) on Friday during "Any Questions". We had been talking to a wider audience until the line was cut as a result of the hon. Gentleman upsetting someone by something that he said. However, having heard him offer to amplify any confusion that there might be on the part of British Rail, I am not sure whether he has found his true role. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the left hand not knowing what the right hand does, I believe that he is talking about the Labour party rather than British Rail. If anyone wishes to pick up on the remarks that he passed on from the bicycling baronet, I should say that my Department has some extremely good leaflets on the shared use of footpaths by cyclists and pedestrians.
  It may be helpful if, at this point, I briefly restate the Government's view on the Bill. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection to the powers sought by the British Railways Board. Indeed we support the aims of the Bill. The Bill will enable the board to provide a new modern station on the Thames link line over which, starting later this year, commuter services will run directly between north and south London, for the first time since the first world war. The Department approved the necessary investment for the scheme in December that will enhance the quality of service to the passenger.
  The proposed new station will be funded by redevelopment with the private sector of the Holborn Viaduct site. We are pleased that the board is involving the private sector in this way. I hope that this House will be able to give its support to the Bill to enable the board to carry out this exciting and worthwhile development.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: A number of hon. Members from various parts of the country are rather reluctant to see this Bill go through, given the withdrawal of services to and from King's Cross. This matter has been of considerable concern to the north-east of England and the south-east of Scotland. Indeed, BR has announced the withdrawal of overnight services from King's Cross to those areas.
  1050
  I recognise that the Bill is relatively narrow, and it is right that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) should concentrate upon its local impact on his constituency and the surrounding areas. Obviously, a development of this nature has a national significance and I am sure that the promoter of the Bill will not object if hon. Members from further afield contribute to the debate.
  Hon. Members have suggested their reluctance to sanction such developments in the context of the reduction in services to and from the capital through King's Cross. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) may be aware that discussions have taken place between BR, a number of my hon. Friends and myself who represent constituencies in the south-east of Scotland and the north-east of England. I was happy when BR issued a public statement stating:
  "passengers will be able to travel via alternative routes at no additional charge with appropriate connectional arrangements … InterCity therefore undertakes to review the situation on the East Coast route and will restore at least one overnight service on that line in 1991".
  The electrification of the east coast main line will be completed in 1991.
  With that understanding, and in the knowledge that my constituents will be able to enjoy the new facilities provided as a result of the Bill, I am happy that it should receive its Third Reading.
  7.55 pm
  Sir John Farr: I wish to give a hesitant welcome to the Bill. However, as a result of what I heard on Second Reading, what I read in subsequent Committee proceedings and what I have heard today, I believe that it would be better if the Bill were completely withdrawn.
  It is unbelievable to me that the House should be considering the passage of an important Bill, involving the expenditure of a great deal of money, without being able to apply the results of the inquiry into the King's Cross tragedy. On Second Reading, several hon. Members asked my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) about that. He said that nothing would be undertaken until the King's Cross inquiry had reported. Tonight, when I rather rudely interrupted when he was speaking, he said that the findings of that inquiry will be incorporated in the Bill.
  The King's Cross tragedy was a major event, but the Bill was framed and finalised—down to crossing the last "t" and dotting the last "i"—long before that fire. It is inconceivable to me that it can go through without major surgery. In view of the significance of the works that are being included in the Bill, I believe that the best thing to do is to scrap it until the inquiry has reported. Indeed, I believe that its findings are bound to be most significant to any railway operator and that those findings should be incorporated in this measure.
  Mr. Chapman: Perhaps this is a vain hope, but I might be able to avoid the confusion between my hon. Friend and myself. First, I hope that I am correct in saying that the undertaking that I gave on Second Reading was that the escalators would not be constructed until any recommendations made by Mr. Desmond Fennell, as a result of his inquiries, were made known to BR. That commitment stands. Whatever Mr. Fennell recommends will be taken on board—if I may use that phrase—by BR.

  1051
  I believe that only Works No. 4 in the Bill, the escalator connection at King's Cross, has any relevance to the inquiry. However, if Mr. Fennell makes more wide-ranging recommendations about approaches to overground and underground stations and so on, presumably they will be incorporated in the new St. Paul's station and any other relevant works. Presumably those recommendations will also be incorporated by any other urban station in the country. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend's fears can be allayed on that point.
  Sir John Farr: My hon. Friend always deals with these matters in a conscientious way, but he has not satisfied me at all. There is far more in the inquiry which is now taking place than the type of escalator used. As my hon. Friend will know, serious questions have been raised about the position of fire-fighting points at King's Cross. They were not concealed, but grave doubts have been expressed about whether they were in the best position.
  Even more significant is the length of the access passage. In Work No. 4 it is 82 m. In that regard, statements made by the London fire brigade about the length of hoses and the abilities of men in smoke-laden atmospheres to travel more than a few yards are significant. I believe that I am right in saying that the passageway at King's Cross where the tragedy took place was considerably less than 82 m. The inquiry may make stringent recommendations on the length of underground or enclosed passageways. It will certainly make special recommendations on the access of fire brigades and firefighting crews, as well as on instructions to make sure that any future fire-fighting points are not only known but centralised, and so on.
  Many other matters are coming out of the King's Cross inquiry which do not affect the Bill so much, such as the training of staff, which will no doubt be acted upon. As I have already said, the inspector may well conclude that sprinklers should be provided. The evidence of senior fire officers who were at the scene shortly afterwards was that, if sprinklers had been provided—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The subject is the rebuilding of King's Cross. The hon. Gentleman is going into the inquiry. Will he bring himself back to the Bill?
  Sir John Farr: I was trying to point out that it will be difficult to proceed with the construction in the most effective way. If sprinklers are to be provided, that should be done when the building is being constructed.
  In Work No. 4, there is to be a passageway of 82 m and the provision of escalators is included in the Bill. The King's Cross inquiry should give a ruling on the exact cause of the fire and we should see whether it is possible to incorporate an escalator which does not accumulate litter, is of a certain length, and so on.
  Mr. Greg Knight: There is a motion on the Order Paper which suggests that the Bill should not be proceeded with until the British Railways Board gives an undertaking to electrify the London midland main line as far as Leicester. Has he received—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating that at the moment. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.
  Sir John Farr: The Bill should be delayed until we have the benefit of the inspector's findings, so that we can
  1052
  proceed with confidence with these works, which otherwise might have to be radically altered as soon as they are constructed.
  Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) likely to be debated this evening? Some of us are interested in the electrification of the main line, particularly as far as Derby.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) has not been selected this evening, but the points raised by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) earlier will be relevant to our forthcoming debate.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: This is an important debate and I want to take up some of the points so skilfully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). I pay tribute to the careful and assiduous way in which my hon. Friend has studied the Bill. The House will be grateful to him for what he has said this evening. He highlighted what must be apparent not just to London Members of Parliament but to northern Members such as myself.
  I represent the constituency of Gainsborough and Horncastle, in the county of Lincolnshire. Although the Bill concerns London, it is of interest and concern to everybody, whether they represent constituencies in London or Lincolnshire. We are talking about the expenditure of £100 million—a large sum of money—and the House will want to debate the matter in some detail. There is a feeling of vexation and irritation among northern Members about the way in which British Rail is promoting the Bill.
  The Bill will undoubtedly be of benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington referred to it as the yuppies' Bill. I would not be so disrespectful as to append such a name to it, but there is a feeling among county and northern Members that British Rail is placing too much emphasis on investment in the London region and not enough in the provinces.
  I do not want to stray from the narrow remit that you have set for our debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, by talking about the fact that British Rail has failed to invest anything in Market Rasen station in the past 10 years. Therefore, I shall pass on rapidly to deal with the Bill.
  We have heard about Works Nos. 3A and 3B. I do not claim to be an expert—[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) thinks that I am making a brave attempt to look after the interests of my constituents.
  I was most impressed by the comment of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that we may be spending a large sum of money, but for just a little more we might be able to do very much more to make InterCity services truly inter-city, not just, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington said, a yuppies' service. I am not convinced by what my hon. Friend the Member for—I cannot think of his constituency—
  Mr. Chapman: Chipping Barnet.
  Mr. Leigh: —Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the works at King's Cross enable those of us who travel on InterCity from Scotland to England to go on the east coast

  1053
  route so that we do not have to go on the west coast route, which is such an inconvenience for those of us who live in the east?
  Mr. Leigh: I should like to take up that interesting point.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to do so, as the intervention was quite out of order.
  Mr. Leigh: As usual, I am impressed by the concern and eloquence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). I hope that he will forgive me if I do not reply to his interesting point because I wish to remain in order. I am glad to see that my hon. and learned Friend has a copy of the Bill. He may like to look at it in some detail because, like me, he is a lawyer. It is important that Parliament should consider these matters in great detail because to do so is in the public interest.
  If my hon. and learned Friend turns to page 7 of the Bill, he will see provisions relating to a new ticket hall at King's Cross. I appreciate that I am touching on a sensitive area, but there is concern in the nation following the recent tragedy at King's Cross that the utmost consideration should be given to safety.
  Clause 10(11) of the Bill provides:
  "the Board may on any part of the land numbered on the deposited plans 10 in the London borough of Camden construct and maintain a ticket hall at concourse level within the Board's King's Cross station with all necessary works and conveniences connected therewith."
  I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet sums up he will give the House assurances about the ticket hall works.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made an interesting speech and I tried to make careful notes of what he said. Quite rightly, he spoke about the interests of his constituents. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has just entered the Chamber because he also takes a great interest in these matters. I am sure that he will want to talk not about Market Rasen station but about the new ticket hall in King's Cross that is mentioned in page 7 of the Bill.
  As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, there is great concern among the residents of Islington that there should be consultation not just for the people of Camden, but for his constituents because they will be affected by these works. We want full consultation. British Rail is nationalised, and I am afraid that the record of nationalised industries on certain matters of consultation is not always what it should be.
  Mr. Snape: It is different in the private sector then?
  Mr. Leigh: If the hon. Member wishes to intervene, I shall give way. I am sure that the House will welcome his intervention.
  The House would welcome true consultation. I have dealt with the new ticket hall at King's Cross. Clause 10(12) talks about York way. Those of us who have knowledge of the environs of King's Cross will know that York way is a busy thoroughfare. We will want assurances from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet that traffic will not be unduly disrupted. While we welcome the British Rail proposals, we want to be
  1054
  reassured that during the course of these works undue irritation or inconvenience will not be caused to the people of London or to the residents of Islington.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I understand that part of the construction work for the new ticket hall in the King's Cross concourse will involve the relocation of the present exit for royal mail vans going from King's Cross station on to York way. That in itself will mean the relocation of the bus stops alongside King's Cross station in York way. It is a dangerous enough place at the moment, and if the stops are pushed further up York way it is likely to become much more dangerous and less convenient for people who have to wait for buses. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concern himself not just with the amount of traffic in general on York way, but with the impact on bus passengers interchanging on the rail and underground links at King's Cross, which are also important.
  Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has admirable local knowledge and we all respect him as a good constituency Member. He makes a point that I could not have made as strongly as he has.
  Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend surprises and disappoints me because, like me, he uses the service into King's Cross. I am horrified at what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has just told my hon. Friend, because when I alight from my train at King's Cross I come to the House by means of a 77 or 77A bus and, on average, I have to wait about 20 minutes from the time I get off the train until I get the bus.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The Bill is not concerned with the number of the red bus that the hon. Gentleman takes.
  Mr. Brown: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point that I was trying to make is that if what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has told us about bus stops happens as a result of the relocation of the ticket office and the exit of the royal mail vans—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order I have heard the hon. Gentleman's intervention and it is not at all relevant.
  Mr. Leigh: I think that it will be in order to say that if Work No. 4 on page 7 of the Bill—and I shall stick to what is written there—results in what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury reports, it will cause inconvenience not just to his constituents but to mine. In that sense my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes was right to intervene because those of us who represent northern constituencies have a perfect right to be interested in these matters, because I and my constituents regularly use King's Cross. Incidentally, we are dissatisfied with the possibility that the 125 service may be withdrawn, but I do not want to go into that in any detail. I am sure that the people in British Rail who follow debates such as this will look at that matter.
  I should like to return to the question of the construction of the new ticket hall at King's Cross. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury spoke about the London Cycling Campaign. That is of concern to the House. Clause 10(14) talks about stoppage. If there is to be a temporary or permanent stoppage—and it is not entirely clear from the Bill whether it will be temporary or permanent—the London Cycling Campaign has a bone fide interest and is right to make its view known to the House. Clause 10(14) provides:

  1055
  "The Board during and for the purpose of the execution of the works may temporarily stop up and divert, and interfere with, any road or footpath and may for any reasonable time divert the traffic therefrom."
  The Bill therefore gives considerable powers to British Rail and we should be concerned about that.
  Clause 10(14) goes on to say that the board will
  "prevent all persons other than those bone fide going to or from any land".
  We should ask ourselves what is meant by "bone fide".
  Will British Rail inspectors stop innocent members of the public using public roads and footpaths? The clause says:
  "The Board shall provide reasonable access for persons on foot bone fide going to or from any such land".
  Mr. Michael Brown: The point with which my hon. Friend should concern himself in clause 14(2) is that it specifically excludes bicycles.
  Mr. Snape: If the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) wishes to enlighten us further, he should encourage a few more interventions so that he can read the Bill before he makes such a fool of himself.
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman may think that I am making a fool of myself. I assure him that this is a matter of great importance. If the hon. Gentleman knew what was worrying my constituents, he would know that these matters are of great importance to them. I am determined to make my point, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. We shall do so, and we shall go on doing so, until British Rail realises that investment in the north-east and the north and east midlands is as important as investment in London. We are perfectly entitled to use Parliament to make our point, and we shall do so.
  I am not in the business of making a fool of myself; I am in the business of making British Rail aware of my concern. In my experience, the only way to do that is to speak at some length on Bills such as this. Otherwise, British Rail will steamroller over us, which is not good enough.
  This is no joke. It is a serious matter for my constituents and for me. We are determined that there should be a truly national inter-city service, and we shall fight for that every inch of the way. We shall not be steamrollered by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East or anyone else.
  Clause 14(4) states:
  "The Board shall not exercise the powers of this section with respect to any road unless they have given not less than 28 days' notice in writing of their intention so to do to … the traffic commissioner".
  It seems that 28 days' notice may not be adequate. I know not. I am not sure whether it is the period normally laid down in Bills of this sort. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us whether it is a normal provision, or whether on occasion more, or fewer, than 28 days are allowed.
  Clause 14(4)(a) mentions
  "the traffic commissioner, constituted for the purposes of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, in whose area the road is situate".
  We should like to know who is the traffic commissioner, and whether he is aware of all the local problems that might he involved in blocking a road, or not blocking it. These are matters of serious concern, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has made plain.
  Clause 14(5) states:
  "The exercise by the Board of the powers of this section in relation to any road or footpath shall not prejudice or affect the rights of the operator of any telecommunications code system".
  1056
  We should like to know exactly what is meant by that. After all, telecommunications are vital to all of us. We should like an assurance that the Bill will not result in any undue interference with such a vital national and local service.
  I do not wish to delay the debate unduly. I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes the chance to speak—to make the same points that I have made—
  Mr. Snape: Better, I hope.
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East is a past master at speaking at some length. I do not claim to have his skill, but I am prepared, if necessary, to do it for the sake of my constituents.
  Clause 15(2) relates to works involving
  "any available stream or watercourse, or any sewer or drain of a relevant authority".
  This will be a matter of some concern to the public, who will want to receive reassurances about flooding and such like. After all, clause 15(2)(a) states:
  "the Board shall not discharge any water into any sewer or drain".
  We should like to know how they can be sure that that will not happen.
  Clause 15(2)(b) provides that
  "the Board shall not make any opening into any such sewer or drain save in accordance with plans approved by, and under the superintendence (if given) of, the relevant authority in whom the sewer or drain shall be vested and approval of those plans by the relevant authority shall not be unreasonably withheld."
  That, in my view, gives draconian powers to the board. In saying that approval of the plans
  "shall not be unreasonably withheld",
  the Bill is really saying that British Rail can do what it likes.
  The clause continues:
  "Section 31 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 shall apply to, or the consequence of, a discharge under the powers of this section into any relevant waters for the purposes of the said section 31".
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East may understand that, but I certainly do not.
  Clause 15(3)(b) provides that
  "the Board shall not damage or interfere with the bed of any watercourse forming part of the main river of the Thames Water Authority or the banks thereof within the meaning of section 116 of the Land Drainage Act 1976".
  We should like an assurance that there would indeed be no such damage. Obviously the matter is of some concern to the people of London.
  Part III of the Bill deals with the purchase of land. Clause 23(1) lays down that
  "the Board may purchase compulsorily and use such of the land delineated on the deposited plans".
  Here again, we are giving considerable powers to the board. We are effectively giving it compulsory purchase powers, which must be a matter of some concern to Parliament. [Interruption.] I shall sit down shortly, but. I am determined to make the point.
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman is making the same point.
  Mr. Leigh: No. I am going through the Bill, and I am in order. I will make my point so that British Rail is aware of the worries of people who live in the provinces.
  Mr. Snape: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member who has

  1057
  obviously not read the Bill before coming to the House to keep reading chunks from it, and then to say that either his constituents or Members of the House are concerned that the provisions are abided by? If we all do that, the debate will not get very far.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. However, I remind the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that we are all capable of reading the Bill, and it is therefore not necessary to quote great chunks of it.
  Mr. Leigh: I shall not quote great chunks of it, Madam Deputy Speaker. I feel that I have made my point.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I think that my hon. Friend should bear in mind—I am speaking as one who has served on Committees on many private Bills affecting British Rail and the London railways—that deposited plans have an uncanny nack of changing. It is all very well when a deposited plan is put before a Committee, but we often find that it has changed significantly by the time that powers have been given for the enactment of the legislation sought by the promoter. That is why it is so important to beware of the phrase "deposited plans".
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman has not read those either.
  Mr. Leigh: As my hon. Friend says, whatever the present plans may be, we are not sure whether they will change. But I see that I am irritating the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, so I shall draw my remarks to a close.
  Let me say this to the hon. Gentleman, and to British Rail representatives who are following the Bill. We are talking about a £100 million investment. It may be an excellent investment for the people of London, and I do not wish to hold up the Bill's passage for that reason. Having said that, however, I feel that my constituents will want to know why, although we have asked repeatedly for an assurance that a through-train service to King's Cross will be retained, British Rail has been unable to give that assurance. Why is it necessary for provincial Members to come to the House and speak on London Bills to make British Rail aware of their problems?
  We shall go on speaking, and we shall go on fighting for our constituents' interests. We shall do it any way that we possibly can.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I am sorry that I was unable to attend the earlier part of the debate, because of matters arising from the Budget. I was, however, very much involved in the Second Reading debate on the Bill.
  I am happy to be able to support the Third Reading of the Bill. The Second Reading debate was very useful, identifying a number of problems—some arising directly from the Bill, and others arising less directly from it. We discovered something to which I hope that British Rail will give more attention: that the works provided for in the Bill, particularly the opening of the tunnel, will not solve the problem of direct access to the Channel tunnel. We still await a definitive statement from British Rail about how
  1058
  direct rail links from the north-east of England to the Channel tunnel will be achieved. That is an important issue for the north-east, and we want answers to it soon.
  The Second Reading debate concentrated the mind wonderfully. It also made British Rail realise that the improvements at King's Cross which the Bill will secure go naturally alongside the use of the newly electrified line in 1991 to restore overnight services from Scotland and the north-east down the east coast main line to King's Cross, from which passengers could then take advantage of the services provided by the Bill. I am glad that British Rail has made a statement showing its desire to do that, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of the study. I am grateful to my hon. Friends and hon. Members in other parties who helped to secure that happy outcome, and I wish the Bill success.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: I did not speak on Second Reading, but I was here for the debate and voted to give the Bill a Second Reading because I was impressed with the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) presented his case. To my regret, I failed then to recognise how the powers in the Bill will adversely interfere with my constituents who use trains into King's Cross and then make onward journeys to central or southern London.
  I speak particularly of the period during which the works foreshadowed in the Bill will be under construction. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) touched on the powers that are given in clause 11, and I want to deal in some detail with the way in which they will affect my constituents who use King's Cross station.
  Many of my constituents come down to the station on the train from Cleethorpes that arrives at 9.20 am, and I cannot imagine what life will be like during the construction of Work No. 4. In the deposited plan No. 10, it is proposed that in the London borough of Camden there should be a new ticket hall at the concourse level. We have heard this evening, and on Second Reading, that the period during which the works are under construction may be from two to three years. It is likely that revamping a station and reciting a ticket hall could occupy a large amount of the total construction period. I am trying to envisage what life will be like on that concourse when the works are under way.
  I have the fortune—or misfortune—to have to use King's Cross ticket office and concourse now. I use it at rush hour when I go to catch the 18.04 train on Thursday or Friday nights from King's Cross to Cleethorpes, and I have to queue there with many other people. Even without the works, it is a small concourse. Between 17.45 and 18.30 about six or seven InterCity high-speed trains depart from King's Cross to destinations in South Humberside, Yorkshire, Newcastle and Lincolnshire.
  At that time, about 400 or 500 people are queuing for their trains and using the services of the ticket office and concourse. What will life be like for the departing passengers when the new concourse is under construction—not to mention the fact that in the earlier part of the week many passengers arrive at that time on long-distance trains? If no provision is made during the transitional period for some improved access to a temporary ticket and concourse facility, things will be even worse.

  1059
  I hope that British Rail and my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell us what discussions have taken place in British Rail management about temporary ticket and concourse arrangements. We already know what life is like when temporary work is going on at King's Cross. For example, on Monday of this week I alighted from the train that brings me from Cleethorpes to King's Cross—I had had to change at Newark — at 4.30 in the afternoon. I tried to get to the Victoria line underground by means of the escalator, but could not, for understandable reasons.
  British Rail and London Underground have failed to establish a temporary ticket concourse and queuing area to cope with the emergency. I accept that that was an unplanned-for emergency, so one can forgive British Rail and London Underground for failing to take appropriate action, because the emergency was nothing to do with them, but I was prevented by British Rail and London Underground personnel from gaining access from the King's Cross concourse area to the Victoria line underground station, so I could not catch a Victoria line train.
  Unless British Rail is prepared to guarantee that its understanding of clause 11 will ensure arrangements being made for a temporary ticket office during the construction period, there will be a tremendous passenger traffic jam of people arriving at, and departing from, King's Cross, particularly at rush hour.
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is quite rightly dealing with the problems of congestion around ticket offices. Does he accept that at one particular part of the day there is heavy congestion — when people queue up to take the 18.04 direct train to Market Rasen and Cleethorpes?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. He and I experience those problems. I am concerned about the problems for passengers departing on the 18.04 train and other trains at or around that time. At rush hour, people will arrive and possibly purchase tickets in a non-existent ticket hall or, at best, some sort of temporary ticket hall. We do not know what the arrangements for that will be. We do know that there is limited space even without the works envisaged in clause 11. We know that there is tremendous congestion at present. When the two-year period of the works arrives, the congestion will be horrendous.
  British Rail needs to be a little more forthcoming about what it will do to deal with this problem. I have not yet touched on the problem of the purchase of tickets. Often, passengers departing for Lincolnshire, Humberside, Newcastle, Sunderland and Yorkshire have to go to the ticket hall to alter their tickets, especially on Fridays in the summer months, when they are not aware that they cannot use their blue saver ticket and must obtain white saver tickets. There is already tremendous congestion on a Friday — it is worse in the summer — when departing passengers are reminded over the intercom that their blue saver tickets are not valid. There is a mass rush to the ticket area as they seek to upgrade their tickets from blue to white savers.
  I know that, because I use those tickets on various occasions— [Interruption.] Yes, I do. I do not always use the first-class facilities provided for me by the Fees Office. I use blue and white saver tickets, and if the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) doubts
  1060
  that, I have here in my pocket the blue saver ticket that I purchased — through the Fees Office — to travel from Barnaby to King's Cross yesterday. That is my contribution to keeping public expenditure down.
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman could stay at home and save us all this nonsense.
  Mr. Brown: It is not nonsense, because we are talking about many passengers who do not always recognise when they get to King's Cross on a Friday that they are not allowed to use the blue saver tickets that they have purchased from the railway station of departure perhaps a day or two earlier. They then go to that ticket concourse, causing, even at the moment, the most tremendous congestion, to upgrade their tickets to white saver tickets.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be under a misapprehension. Loth as I sometimes am to give the benefit of the doubt to British Rail, it seems to me from a careful study of the plans and this Bill that the existing ticket sale, exchange and provision facilities at King's Cross station will not be affected at all by any of the provisions in the Bill.
  Mr. Brown: Of course, the hon. Gentleman knows more about his constituency than I do. All I can say is that I fail to understand how it is going to be possible to enact the provisions of clause 11 without some disruption to passengers arriving at and departing from King's Cross. I have had experience of works undertaken by British Rail in my own constituency. It says that there is no problem and that the temporary provisions will ensure that there will be no queueing problems. It says that, while the major works are going on, passengers will be able to purchase their tickets and there will be no failure of service at ticket halls. I simply do not believe the assurances that have been given to the hon. Gentleman, who is not a gullible Member of this House and would, I am sure, have pressed British Rail on that point. I am very surprised that British Rail has been able to give him that assurance.
  One only has to look at the way in which British Rail and London Underground, even some three months after the tragic fire, have been unable to establish proper facilities that do not prevent passengers from using the underground ticket concourse area. As I have explained, yesterday, when I came off the train at King's Cross, I was forbidden by British Rail and London Underground personnel to use the ticketing facilities underground. We have had three months' experience since the fire, during which British Rail has failed to establish any temporary provision. If that experience is anything to go by, we cannot believe what British Rail has told the hon. Gentleman.
  This is something that we must be concerned about. Passengers departing for Lincolnshire and South Humberside have only one train that they can catch. If they are caught up in passenger congestion, they may miss that train. The hon. Gentleman says that there is going to be no problem. I do not accept that. There will be a delay to any passenger departing from King's Cross at 18.04 pm while those works are going on. There is a risk that, when passengers are told over the intercom that they will have to upgrade their tickets, there will be delay. In my opinion, that delay will cause some of them to miss their trains.
  If they miss their trains to Leeds, York or Newcastle, there is no problem; they can catch another train half an

  1061
  hour later. They cannot do that if they wish to travel on the 18.04. If they are caught in massive passenger congestion and miss that train, they have had it until the next day; they will have to wait 24 hours—unless they are prepared to go and cool their heels on Newark station for an hour or two, which people sometimes do.
  I simply do not have confidence that clause 11 gives British Rail the power to maintain and construct a new ticket hall without the most massive disruption of service to the customers of British Rail who live in Lincolnshire and South Humberside, in particular.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. Would he not concede, however, that for British Rail to make any sort of improvement of necessity means temporary disruption to passengers? Is my hon. Friend not being entirely unreasonable in criticising British Rail in this respect? In complaining that its efforts to improve its service to his constituents mean that for a temporary period there might be a certain amount of disruption or that his constituents might have to make alternative arrangements for a short period to bring about in the longer term a genuine improvement in service, he is surely being somewhat unreasonable.
  Mr. Brown: No, I will not concede that, because in the long run, as a famous economist once said, we are all dead. I do not accept that a two-year period is temporary. It is a lifetime of eternity, particularly for constituents such as mine, who already see the writing on the wall for the present service. I do not think that the long-term arrangements will be of benefit to my constituents. My experience tells me that, in the case of many road or rail improvements, it is not worth putting up with the temporary disruption because the service at the end is not always improved. I would dearly love British Rail to give me an assurance that, if my constituents are prepared to put up with the temporary arrangements that will arise from clause 11, two years afterwards we shall have better facilities for getting from King's Cross to my constituency. It has not done so.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is now making quite a serious allegation against British Rail. I have to ask him whether he has done British Rail the courtesy of asking that question and getting an answer. If he has not, I think he should withdraw what he has said.
  Mr. Brown: I have, Madam Deputy Speaker. In order to answer my hon. Friend, I am running the risk of going out of order. I have asked British Rail whether it can guarantee that there will be a high-speed 125 service from King's Cross to—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is totally out of order. Will the hon. Gentleman now come to the clause in the Bill to which he was referring?
  Mr. Brown: I feared that you would say that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I regret that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because you are absolutely right. The point is that disruption is going to be caused to departing passengers.
  Clause 14 gives British Rail the power to divert traffic and to stop up footpaths and roads because it is undertaking works. Under clause 14(4), the board is going to give 28 days' notice of its intention to stop up a road
  1062
  or a footpath to the traffic commissioner and the operator over the road as defined in the Transport Act 1985. It is not prepared—I am surprised that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) did not pick up this point—to give notice, as it is prepared to do under clause 26 when it comes to protecting the highway authorities, to the London borough of Camden.
  Clause 26 specifically says that British Rail is prepared to give the mayor and burgesses of the London borough of Camden some 28 days' notice of any intention to stop up a highway, yet it does not seek the power in clause 14 to give any such notice to the local authority. That is something which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury should certainly be very concerned about. It is prepared to give a protective provision to the local authority of Camden when it comes to any public highway — for example, the A501 and the A41 — yet it is not prepared to give the same protective provision when it comes to general works. Surely that is something that we ought to be concerned about.
  Stopping up roads causes great inconvenience to local residents. I do not live in that part of London, but I come into it on the train. Over the last half mile into King's Cross, one is immediately aware of the congestion in that part of London, the number of private dwellings, and how many of them are older properties. If British Rail stops up roads without giving any notice to local authorities, and if it insists on those powers, it could be taking a slightly cavalier attitude.
  In one clause, BR seeks powers that the local authority should be given notice, yet clause 14 does not seek powers to give that notice. That is very unfair, because if a road or a footpath is closed and no provision is made except for those who are going directly to their places of abode, quite severe inconvenience can be caused to a large number of residents.
  There must be thousands of people who live in the area of King's Cross. When I come into King's Cross on the train, I am aware of the large number of properties. It is likely that a large number of people will not realise the inconvenience to which they will be put. After all, private Bills are often enacted without individual constituents knowing exactly what will happen.
  I should not like to be the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury or a councillor for any of the wards that are to be affected under clause 14(4). When many constituents find out that they cannot go about their normal daily business, they will start to shower their councils with complaints. If they are delivery men, they may not have access by many of their usual routes. I can see a large number of councillors and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury being inundated with many complaints from constituents when they are told what is to happen.
  It is the responsibility of British Rail to be a little more forthcoming about the way in which people are to be affected. I speak with some feeling on the matter, because I have served on a large number of private Bills promoted by British Rail and by the London Docklands development corporation. I have seen how petitioners who have been alive to what the promoters have suggested have not taken on board what is to happen. Only under cross-examination have they become aware of some of the detrimental effects of private Bills.
  Ordinary constituents are often not aware of the existence of such Bills, and do not petition against them.

  1063
  This Bill was not petitioned against—or if it was, the petitioners have been sorted out and discussions have taken place. In any case, the Bill went through the private Bill procedure unopposed.
  I can guarantee that individual constituents of the hon. Gentleman and individual electors will press their councils and ask, "How is it that suddenly I am inconvenienced and cannot go about my normal business and do not have access to roads where I have made deliveries for a number of years?" They will be told, "It was private business. You had the opportunity to petition against the Bill, but you did not do so. You lost the opportunity, and now you will have to put up with all the inconvenience."
  We should not expect ordinary citizens to rely solely upon the House of Commons to make sure that all is well when it comes to their rights. British Rail has a duty to advertise more widely before it seeks such legislation and to make clear exactly how inconvenience will be caused by such private legislation.
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend will see that
  "the board may purchase compulsorily and use such of the land delineated on the deposited plans."
  Is my hon. Friend convinced that all those who are potentially affected, whose land is covered by those plans, have already been informed?
  Mr. Brown: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall come to the question of compulsory purchase in a moment, as that issue gives rise to concern in its own right.
  I wish to address myself to the way in which British Rail uses powers that it has been given in private legislation to bamboozle the general public. It can say, "We have these powers. They were presented to Parliament and debated in Parliament, and people have to put up with those powers. We are giving you 28 days' notice. We do not have to advise local councils in the case of general works provisions, and we are doing everything legally." Of course it is doing everything legally. If the Bill is passed tonight, as it might well be, British Rail will have the right to defend itself and acquit itself of any need to consult the local populace. However, the local populace have some rights which transcend the enactment of private legislation.
  British Rail should have given an undertaking that it would ensure that a leaflet would be sent to every resident in the area affected by clause 14(4) and that it would provide a leaflet, with more than 28 days' notice, detailing the way in which it will use its powers to construct the necessary work.
  I have had experience of a highway authority exercising powers that have been legislated for in this House. In 1981, I took a great interest in the private Bill promoted by Humberside county council, which was given powers by this House. It used the minimum legal powers to use stop-up works orders. The local population were told simply, "We are exercising powers given to us under private legislation. We do not have to give you any notice, and even if we did, it would be only 28 days. There is nothing that you can do about it." That is wrong.
  Ordinary people seeking access and egress to and from their homes, going about their business and going to and from work in the rush hour in heavily congested areas of London with a high concentration of people moving about during the rush hour should have the right to more than 28 days' notice. If it is to be only 28 days' notice, it should be given specifically to each householder. There is nothing worse than a householder, a tenant or a landlord being
  1064
  confronted with "access only" signs to the street that he normally uses when he might have made arrangements for tradesmen, and when tradesmen cannot seek access—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been tedious in his repetition. Will he now move on to another clause in the Bill?
  Mr. Brown: It may be tedious, but I am simply trying to suggest—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made a number of suggestions about clause 14, which we have heard very carefully. He is being very tedious. I am absolutely serious in suggesting that he should move on to another clause.
  Mr. Brown: I shall now move on to clause 26, under which the highway authorities and the local councils are to be given notice that the A501 and the A41 trunk roads may be affected by works which are to take place. The clause says that it is for the protection of the highway authorities. I am not sure that, it will be for the protection of the highway authorities. What will happen is that the A41 trunk road, a major road into London, carrying traffic from the A1—
  Mr. Leigh: And from Lincolnshire.
  Mr. Brown: —and from Lincolnshire, will be affected by the works that will take place.
  I should like to know what kind of assessment British Rail has given or is likely to give to the London boroughs of Camden and Islington of the transitional arrangements that will be made for the works taking place there.
  Mr. Chapman: Perhaps it will be helpful if I tell my hon. Friend that the London boroughs of Camden and Islington were of course consulted on all aspects of the provisions of the Bill and fully consent to what is in it.
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but it is interesting that British Rail seeks to give notice only to Camden and Islington when it intends to carry out works that affect the A501 or the A41 but will not give that notice, except for the general 28 days to which I referred, when it comes to clause 14(4). So I am very unhappy about clause 26 and the fact that there is likely to be severe traffic congestion.
  I do not know what assessment has been made of the likely effect of traffic congestion. My hon. Friend says that the boroughs of Islington and Camden have been fully consulted and that they are, I assume—I am prepared to accept his assurance — happy with the likely consequences of any traffic congestion that may arise. I can only suggest to my hon. Friend, with regard to those of my constituents who are worried about the pedestrian congestion arising out of the works under clause 11, that those who might otherwise have used British Rail to come into King's Cross may, during the enactment of the provisions of the Bill, decide instead to use their cars. They will come in on the A1 and use the A41 into London.
  I am not sure that my hon. Friend will be able to give the same assurance that he has just given, that the London boroughs were consulted, when it comes to those who do not live there but who will be affected by the traffic congestion that is bound to arise on the A41. It does not take much for traffic congestion to arise on the A41 now, and there will clearly be more, because powers will be sought to protect the highway authority.

  1065
  I do not think, therefore, that my hon. Friend can give an assurance that will cover all the people who will be adversely affected by the provisions of clause 26 when it comes to the certain congestion that will arise on the A41.
  Mr. Forth: If I may say so, my hon. Friend is on to an important issue here. He is touching on whether the traffic implications of the works which are envisaged will spread beyond the authorities mentioned in the Bill. It would help the House if he could suggest to us which other authorities might be affected and perhaps suggest in what way the Bill is defective—because this could be a serious defect in the Bill and one which may affect the constituents of many hon. Members other than those already mentioned. Does my hon. Friend not agree that, in that case, the Bill is seriously defective?
  Mr. Brown: The point that my hon. Friend has just made is that the Bill gives the local authorities in which is situated the A41 trunk road the right to be consulted in the event of highway work. That is perfectly reasonable. What my hon. Friend draws attention to is the fact that large numbers of people make their journeys from all parts of the United Kingdom, certainly from eastern England and a large number of counties elsewhere. They come into London on the A41 trunk road. One cannot get into London without using it. I know, because occasionally I use it myself. What British Rail has failed to do is make any provision in the Bill for other local authorities or people who live in other local authority areas and who use the A41 to be given notice that there is likely to be traffic congestion.
  A large number of people in Lincolnshire and South Humberside might decide to come to London by road. They will not know, when they set out on their journey, that when they get to the other end there is likely to be trouble on the A41. How can they be helped to know? It will be said that 28 days' notice will have been given to the London borough of Camden and 28 days' notice will have been given under clause 26(1) to the London borough of Islington. These boroughs know that there will be problems, but I will not know, and nor will my constituents. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle will not know.
  Mr. Leigh: If, of course, the through service to King's Cross from Cleethorpes and Market Rasen is done away with, there may be many more people on the A41 and they will suffer double inconvenience because of British Rail.
  Mr. Brown: I have a horrible suspicion that my hon. Friend is tempting me to stray out of order, but one of the things that I try to do when I am speaking in the House is to keep within the rules of order.
  Of course, if fewer passengers come into King's Cross station, there are likely to be more people using their motor cars to come into London. We all wish to discourage that practice. If commuters come to London by car, they have to pass along the road for which British Rail seeks the power in the Bill. The use of that power will disrupt the highway. That can only mean traffic jams and congestion in the boroughs of Camden and Islington. It is highly likely that traffic congestion will be caused throughout central London.
  I recall that, just before Christmas, a water main burst at Swiss Cottage. That isolated event caused the roads of
  1066
  central London to seize up. The point is that, if traffic congestion is likely to result from works undertaken by British Rail that disrupt traffic on the A41 trunk road in Islington and Camden, there are inevitable consequences for traffic flow in central London as a whole. We cannot escape that. It does not matter where the traffic comes from, whether from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) or anywhere else.
  Mr. Forth: I must press my hon. Friend to answer me. I think he has edged towards the point, although he has not conceded it yet. Is he suggesting that the Bill is defective because it does not refer explicitly to other local authorities that might be affected, directly or indirectly, by the sort of traffic problems that my hon. Friend describes?
  I hope that my hon. Friend agrees with me that the Bill is defective in this way. Indeed, I believe that the House should have serious reservations about the Bill generally, and the fact that other local authorities that might be affected are not mentioned in the Bill. Will my hon. Friend concede that point?
  Mr. Brown: Yes, I concede that point. Equally, I accept that it would be unreasonable for British Rail to be forced to give legislative notice, in relation to a Bill of this sort, that there is likely to be traffic congestion on, say, the A41 trunk road. It would be unreasonable to expect British Rail to advise all local authorities whose residents travel by road to the A41 that road works are likely to be undertaken there. It would be unreasonable for British Rail to give legislative notice to, say, the borough of Cleethorpes, or West Lindsey, or East Lindsey. However, I believe that British Rail should ensure that notice is given in some way, as it is by the Department of Transport when major road works are expected on motorways. In that case, notices are displayed clearly in national newspapers saying that there will be road works in a certain part of the United Kingdom, or in London.
  Only the other day, notices were put in The Times by my right hon. Friend's Department. As a result of such notices, sensible people will read about road works and likely congestion on the M1, M6, or M25. They will make decisions about journeys accordingly. Such notice is given without resort to legislation.
  The Bill does not require British Rail to do the same thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) suggests that the Bill might be defective and should contain a power to notify the public. That is unreasonable. However, British Rail should be required to give some indication of works to be undertaken in a hub of central London—whether it is a hub for motorists or railway travellers. For example, it might say that there is likely to be traffic congestion on the A41 or severe congestion because of construction of the new ticket hall at King's Cross station, which is referred to in clause 11.
  The Bill should ensure that British Rail takes the general public into its confidence. I am not referring just to, say, the constituents of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. British Rail should not simply give 28 days' notice to the mayor, burgesses and corporation of the borough of Camden. Surely there should be a requirement to give notice to the travelling public of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulty caused by a burst sewer on the A41, which is used by his

  1067
  constituents and mine. Clause 15(1) gives very wide powers to the British Railways Board to discharge water from any works carried out. That may also cause problems, and perhaps my hon. Friend will deal with that matter.
  Mr. Brown: I will deal with that point in time. I am dealing with the need for British Rail to give notice to the wider travelling public, which does not stop at the boundaries of the two London boroughs mentioned in the Bill. The travelling public are those people who use trains running into King's Cross, not just those people who travel in London. Some people think that the only people who should he consulted about transport in London are London constituents, London Members and London authorities. That is not the case.
  Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, who is steering the Bill on behalf of British Rail, almost all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate represent constituencies outside London. I resent the charge from the Opposition Front Bench and some other hon. Members that only London Members have the right to be concerned about the Bill. What happens at the King's Cross railway station affects hon. Members from the north-east, the east and Lincolnshire, and affects all constituents who drive into London on the A41.
  British Rail must ensure that the travelling public are made aware, with more than 28 days' notice, of temporary construction work. The powers given to British Rail in clause 26 are not sufficient to protect the interests of the wider travelling public, so British Rail has a duty to be less than cavalier in giving notice about undertaking works.
  British Rail has a bad habit of undertaking work without giving notice. Recently a Minister was in my constituency and wanted to travel back to London on a Sunday. British Rail failed to give more than 24 hours' notice of a major works, for which it must have made provision long before it decided to embark on it. No notice of the work was given, and my hon. Friend the Minister found that he could not catch a train to London. With that experience, I am sceptical of British Rail's power under clause 26 to give adequate notice to the travelling public.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury may have received assurances that satisfied their constituents, but I have not received assurances that satisfy my constituents. The many people who travel on public transport in and around London, particularly on Fridays and at weekends, are not confined to people who live in London. Many people are affected by works at King's Cross or on the A41, and they have reason to be concerned about British Rail's cavalier attitude.
  I am not confident that British Rail will give adequate notice of the work. Why should the period of notice be 28 days, when four weeks' notice is given to local authorities? Most local authorities have cyclical council meetings to consider matters such as this, so that they can make objections if they wish.
  I know why British Rail has selected 28 days. It is obvious. It knows that the average local authority will not sit between one meeting of the transportation committee and the next. It will tell the London borough of Islington, "We're exercising our powers as laid down in section 26 of the Act. We're going to do this work and we're giving you the required 28 days' notice." The local authority will not necessarily have the chance to comment on British Rail's intention. 'The local authority will work on a cycle
  1068
  of 35 to 45 days. It will receive notice of British Rail's intention, saying, "We're going to undertake the works which the Act has empowered us to do, and we are giving you 28 days' notice."
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is dealing with an important point, and I hope that he will expand on it. Does he accept that two different sorts of works may be involved? One sort of works could be long foreseen and may be part of a major new project which must be planned months, if not years, ahead. However, there may be other works which could come up at short notice. Has my hon. Friend made any distinction between those two sorts of works? Does he think that the Bill deals adequately with both kinds of works?
  Mr. Brown: I should like to comment on the point raised by my hon. Friend, but you, Mr. Speaker, would call me to order. I can comment only on the specified works in the Bill. In fairness to British Rail, it is reasonable to assume that it will have set out in deposited plans what the specified works will be. If I were to speculate idly on my hon. Friend's comments, I would be outside the terms of the debate.
  British Rail is seeking powers to give notice to the London boroughs of Camden and Islington about when it intends to undertake specified works. Specified works, which will be detailed in the deposited plans, will need to have been drafted, planned and trailed for a long time in advance. The Bill is not concerned with matters that might suddenly arise during construction. In all fairness, British Rail could not anticipate those and is not seeking powers in respect of such matters. We are concerned about specified works and about the intention in the Bill to provide a new highway.
  Twenty-eight days' notice is unreasonable, because British Rail knows well in advance what those plans will be. It could tell the House now what those plans are. We know what British Rail's intention will be. However, at a time of British Rail's choice, within the two years' estimate of construction, British Rail can suddenly say, "Now we're going to exercise the powers to undertake the specified works in the Bill. Now we're going to bounce Islington council and Camden council. Now we're going to bounce the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. Now we're going to give them all 28 days' notice. We've kept this lot up our sleeve for a year or 18 months."
  I do not know the London borough council scene as well as I know county council structures. In a county council, we have a transport policies and planning committee. I assume that, since the demise of the GLC, London boroughs must have an equivalent committee that would consider anything of this sort from British Rail. That is why 28 days is unreasonable. I would have thought that at least 56 days or even three months would be a much more reasonable period of time for giving notice.
  I am not suggesting that no work should be undertaken by British Rail simply because there is a risk of disrupting someone at some time. I accept that it has the right arid the duty to improve its services in such a way as will lead to the long-term future benefit of passengers. However, I do not believe that within 28 days it is possible for local residents to put their affairs in order without disruption. In my view, we have to give serious consideration to clause 26. We cannot amend it now, and that is one reason why I am not happy about the Bill.

  1069
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle tempted me to talk about sewers and watercourses. That is not my speciality, and I shall rest my case on that basis.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Chapman: With the leave of the House, I shall seek to reply to the points that have been raised by 11 hon. Members in a wide-ranging debate. I must confess that there are 14 significant and separate points with which to deal, some of which I did not anticipate. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) warned me that, whatever my answer to one of the points, he would not be satisfied. I shall do my best. I am immensely grateful to the hon. Members who have raised points, many of which have been raised by more than one hon. Member. I shall deal with them in the order in which they were raised.
  When I referred to the fact that between the Second and Third Readings of the Bill planning permission had been granted by the Corporation of London, I was referring to the redevelopment proposals in the area of Holborn Viaduct station. It is the realisation of that redevelopment scheme that will pay for the Work No. 1 part of the Bill. I shall come to the exact amount involved in a minute.
  I should like to confirm that the London boroughs of Camden and Islington, wherein some of the works are taking place, were fully consulted and expressed themselves content with the arrangements. It may be helpful for the House to know that the London Regional Passengers Committee and the Transport Users Consultative Committee have been consulted about all the provisions of the Bill and have said that they are content. The unions have also been consulted. I hope that that deals with that point.
  The next significant point raised was the time for completing the project. Hon. Members who were present on Second Reading will recall that I did not have an opportunity to reply to many of the points that had been raised. I should like to confirm that it is expected that the Holborn Viaduct area works could take about two and a half years, and that the works at King's Cross could take up to two years. Again, I shall come to the detail of that shortly.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked whether there would be any circumstances whereby British Rail would have to come back to change the provisions of the Bill. The answer is that neither British Rail nor I can anticipate any circumstances in which that might happen. However, there is one minor qualification, and I shall deal with that when I seek to deal with the point about the latest redevelopment proposals at King's Cross. This was raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and by one or two others.
  Another significant point is that some hon. Members want justification for the £100 million estimate that I gave the House for, in effect, rebuilding the tunnels so that InterCity trains can use the new Thames link, and especially the two presently disused tunnels north of King's Cross. The cost of modifying the existing tunnels to take InterCity trains was investigated most carefully and a detailed study was made by civil engineers at the instigation of British Rail. That is where British Rail got that figure from, although perhaps it should be added to
  1070
  a little to allow for inflation. However, the figure was carefully worked out. At the same time, detailed studies of cross-London train demand were made. The inescapable conclusion of British Rail was that the significant extra work and extra cost involved could not be justified on a financial cost-analysis basis.
  There was also the question whether any petitions remain outstanding. Originally, when the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, there were 17 petitioners. Sixteen of those 17 were completely satisfied before the Bill was examined in Committee in the other place. When the Bill came to this House, there was one outstanding petition, plus three others. All those four have now been completely satisfied and that is why the Bill was examined upstairs in this House by the Unopposed Bills Committee.
  A major and significant point that has been raised is the possible redevelopment of King's Cross station. The point was made eloquently by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. This is an ambitious project and will involve a larger lower-level station capable of accommodating InterCity and possibly even international trains. As I understand it, the proposal relates to the redevelopment of derelict and unused land in the ownership of British Rail and other agencies, and could remedy the present inadequacies at King's Cross and St. Pancras main line stations.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who, as always in these matters, is dealing generously and fully with all the points that have been raised. However, if a new international terminus is to be created at underground level at King's Cross, as I understand it from the layout of tunnels and existing Tube tracks in the area — we must remember that five Tube lines converge on the King's Cross area, so the underground topography is complex—only one location could be used for such an international terminus, and that is not under existing derelict land; it is under existing used buildings.
  Mr. Chapman: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I shall try to satisfy him. This project is at the very earliest stages and, as he knows, the ideas of two groups of developers have been presented for public consultation. As I understand it, that is the position at the moment. If powers are required for railway works associated with that development—if that development comes to fruition—clearly British Rail will have to deposit a Bill for parliamentary consideration. A low-level station capable of accommodating InterCity trains is not part of a fully developed plan. As I understand it, it is only a possibility at the moment and, in that sense, it is not even an idea. Where the links would go, what services would use that station and whether it could be financially justified are questions that cannot yet be answered. Indeed, they may not be answered for several years.
  If the terminus development went ahead, Works Nos. 3A and 3B could be affected. I do not seek to hide that fact in any way. I ask the House to consider the fact—I am satisfied about this—that the reinstatement of the tracks and electrification of the lines in the two short, disused tunnels forming Works Nos. 3A and 3B are relatively cheap to provide and are short-term proposals. They provide the basic, needed link to plug in the suburban services from the east coast main line, St. Albans and so on, through the Thames link to the south.

  1071
  If we knew at this stage that the more ambitious proposals regarding the new underground terminus were to go ahead — given that British Rail is satisfied that Works Nos. 3A and 3B can be justified on a cost basis — those developments may not prove to be worthy of investment. Nevertheless, it is still worth undertaking Works Nos. 3A and 3B. That is the best way in which I can deal with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, (Mr. Fallon) rather unfairly suggested that this was a yuppies' Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has said that there is a need to prove that the Bill will be of benefit to people other than Londoners. That is precisely the argument that I made in my contributions today and on Second Reading. The Bill will be of convenience to Londoners, but it will also be of convenience to many other people outside London. As a London Member, I do not regard the word "yuppie" as a description of a Londoner. I do not believe that this good, beneficial Bill can be described in such derogatory terms—if "yuppies' Bill" is a derogatory term. When I leave the Chamber I shall look up that word in my copy of "The Concise Oxford Dictionary".
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has great experience and knowledge of BR matters. He mentioned the access points for the new St. Paul's station. The accesses to and egresses from that station, replacing the old Holborn Viaduct station, will represent an improvement. There will be entrances on Holborn Viaduct, Ludgate hill — Pilgrim's court to be precise — and Farringdon road. Incidentally, the new station will have a taxi rank—the old station did not—and will be fully accessible to disabled passengers.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised—quite fairly—the question of facilities for cyclists. I know that BR will seriously consider the arguments that he has drawn to the attention of the House. My initial reaction is that this is not only a matter for BR, but is also for the local authorities. They should work in concert with BR.
  I note that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury put down four markers of a wider context regarding the future possible, more ambitious redevelopment proposals for King's Cross. I am sure that B R will note those points.
  I am grateful to the Front Benches for their support for the Bill. I hope that I might, at least partially, reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). He kindly allowed me to intervene during his contribution, and in addition to what I said then he should know that the escalators will not be constructed before the Fennell inquiry has reported. He is right to say that the Fennell inquiry is not confined to escalators, but, in fairness, I hope he will consider that this could affect every other station, not just this new one. The works at King's Cross, and, indeed, the new St. Paul's station, should not be inhibited while waiting for the Fennell inquiry report. The new escalators will be additional escalators, so they can perfectly honestly be described as an additional emergency exit. That can only be good news. The sooner those escalators can be constructed and provided, the better and safer for people using the station.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) could not remember my constituency. I was tempted to refer to him as my hon.
  1072
  Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Hardcastle, but I shall resist that temptation. In addition, Chipping Barnet does not nestle in the Cotswolds, but sits in north London.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Hordcastle and for Brigg and Cleethorpes mentioned the amount of British Rail investment in London as represented by the Bill. Works No. 1, which represents about 95 per cent. of the total cost of the provisions in the Bill, is being made possible by the redevelopment of the old Holborn Viaduct station. As I said on Second Reading, the asset cannot be realised until the new station is built, and vice versa, because Holborn Viaduct is at the end of a short spur that will become obsolete. It is impossible to transfer that £46·5 million — the latest figure, which I gave earlier—to any other British Rail project outside London or elsewhere inside London, simply because it cannot be realised unless the station is closed and the new St. Paul's station is provided.
  Mr. Leigh: This is a serious and important point, so my hon. Friend will forgive my asking whether he appreciates that I am constantly told by British Rail that stations in my constituency are falling into dereliction because it does not have the money to refurbish them, yet we are discussing this kind of investment in London. That is what is worrying.
  Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend should carry back to the burghers of Gainsborough and Horncastle the good news that this development cannot be provided unless Holborn Viaduct station is closed. Therefore, if the Bill is not proceeded with, that £46·5 million estimate cannot be realised for any project. That puts the matter in its context.
  My hon. Friend inadvertently said that the provisions of the Bill came to £100 million. That is not so. The provisions of the Bill, according to the latest estimate, come to just under £53 million, and 95 per cent. of that is on realising an asset.
  Mr. Leigh: I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and I could, had we wanted, have sought to talk out the Bill. We purposely did not do so.
  Mr. Chapman: I am most grateful indeed. I can only assume that support for the Bill now becomes near unanimous.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Just to confirm why it is so unanimous, will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that an important part of the package has been British Rail's clear undertaking that one of the facilities that will be provided in the refurbishment scheme will be a platform for sleeper services right up the east coast after electrification has been completed?
  Mr. Chapman: I am glad to hear that news transmitted to the House by the hon. Gentleman. However, that matter is completely without the Bill, so I shall be careful not to be drawn into it.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle and for Brigg and Cleethorpes asked about clauses 14, 15 and 26. I can only say that clauses 14 and 15 are general works provisions and are entirely normal. As far as I can see, British Rail is not trying to put in other conditions that may be more restrictive to the public.
  In relation to clause 26, I repeat that the local borough councils were consulted and that they consented. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to

  1073
  keep a sense of proportion. He rightly said that if British Rail was required to consult other boroughs whose citizens might be inconvenienced if the roads were temporarily blocked, where does one stop? If my borough council, whose territory is close to the A41, was consulted, I could claim that British Rail may have consulted my borough council, but that it did not consult me. Thanks to the media co-operating and giving public information, more and more motorists can be made aware of where traffic works are being undertaken. I am confident that British Rail will co-operate with the media to deal with that problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes talked about the inconvenience that would perhaps be caused to some of his constituents and to many other people when the works were taking place at King's Cross. I have two points to make about that. First, British Rail is determined that if there is any inconvenience it will be kept to a minimum. It is interesting to note that these works will generally be at the eastern corner of the present concourse and will not be right in the middle. That will be partially helpful. Secondly, when the works are completed they will be of benefit to my hon. Friend's constituents and to many other people, not only because there will be additional access and egress, but because the whole system will work more smoothly.
  Mr. Michael Brown: In his usual charming and very helpful way my hon. Friend has successfully sought to reassure me. I accept that there will be long-term benefits, which is the point he is trying to make, with some degree of success. The only thing that I should like to put on record is that I sincerely hope that when these works are completed there will still be a train from King's Cross to Cleethorpes.
  Mr. Chapman: I am sure that the British Rail authorities will pay attention to what my hon. Friend has said.
  I do not think that these works will deleteriously affect the passenger concourse. I know that British Rail is anxious to see that any inconvenience that there may be is kept to a minimum.
  I apologise to the House for taking so long to deal with 14 significant points raised by 11 hon. Members. I am delighted at the widespread support for the Bill and to see that the fears of some hon. Members have been allayed between the Second and Third Readings. The Bill started its journey exactly a year ago in the other place. It deals with work that is badly needed in this part of our great metropolitan city. It will bring benefits, in some cases substantial benefits, to many people, not just to Londoners. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  British Railways (No. 2) Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.43 pm
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: I have not been able to select the instruction on the Order Paper.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: The Bill is the 25th in a long series of general purpose Bills introduced by the British Railways Board since its reconstitution under the Transport Act 1962. As on previous occasions, it will provide the House with an opportunity to discuss some of the many matters affecting our railway system. It also gives an opportunity to me and to others to draw attention to the real improvements that are being made to the service throughout England, Scotland and Wales.
  Those who live in my lovely part of the world—the south-west — may be provided with an important improvement to which we shall all thoroughly look forward. Brand-new 100 mph trains, with extra seats for commuters and faster journey times, are all contained in a package of improvements being introduced on the Bournemouth main line. The recently completed electrification of the line between Bournemouth and Weymouth and the introduction of the Wessex electrics have provided a springboard to launch the new schedules.
  The network manager for South Western services said:
  "There is something for everybody travelling on the main line between Waterloo, Southampton, Bournemouth and Weymouth. Apart from the all-electric service and new trains, the timetable has been reconstructed to meet changing customer needs."
  Indeed, the new trains will provide more seats from May, and, when the whole fleet is running, there will be 8,329 seats in the peak periods—8,772 on Fridays—compared with the current total of 6,227. Services will be very much improved for my constituents.
  There will be a 5.15 am departure from Poole serving the principal stations, including Bournemouth, Southampton and Winchester, and arriving at Waterloo at 7.20 am. That will be especially useful for passengers wishing to catch early InterCity departures from King's Cross and Euston, in which many hon. Members have expressed interest.
  A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about some of the Bill's many provisions, and, indeed, about some of the matters outside its narrow scope. It may be convenient for the House if I describe the board's response to some of the concerns that have been expressed.
  The hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) earlier mentioned east-coast sleeper services. The announcement in the south-west relates to May of this year. That date is likely to be significant in this respect as well. InterCity is making major changes in May to the Anglo-Scottish sleeper service, to reduce costs and provide a more attractive service for the important Scottish market. Fewer, longer trains will be run, and all will operate from Euston via the west coast line, where they can be electrically hauled for most of their journey. The longer sleeper trains will have fewer intermediate stops to avoid disturbing passengers' sleep, and will be limited to 80 mph. They will include a lounge car, open all night, and

  1075
  breakfast in the morning. This strategy involves the withdrawal of the London-Newcastle sleeper away from Alnmouth and Berwick.
  Newcastle is now only two hours and 50 minutes from London by the fastest train, with the first south-bound train arriving in London before 9 am, and the last train back at 10 pm. Demand for the sleepers has fallen, and is now below 20 a night south-bound and 10 north-bound. Berwick is used by an average of only two passengers a night, and Alnmouth by only one a week.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), together with the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), have also expressed concern to the board about main line midland electrification. The board's position is that there has been increasing pressure recently to electrify the line from St. Pancras to Leicester and Sheffield. At present, the route is electrified as far as Bedford, and Network SouthEast has modest plans to extend to Kettering and Corby, in connection with a proposed theme park called Wonderworld at Corby. However, the financial case for electrifying the whole line is poor. The service is now entirely operated by InterCity 125 trains, whose journey times are almost as good as could be offered by electric services. A £25 million electrification scheme has just been completed covering the Bedford-Leicester-Loughborough area, and the new timetable from 16 May will offer InterCity trains between London and Leicester every half hour.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend said that the cost of the scheme was £25 million. That places the House in the quandary that I attempted to articulate on Second Reading of the previous Bill some weeks ago. These Bills have no financial memoranda attached to them. At some stage when a Bill is deposited, some estimate is laid in the Private Bill Office, but such an estimate is not attached to the Bill. We cannot, therefore, compare the estimated cost for these works with those of other works, and we cannot judge the whole. I know that there is a Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, but could some memorandum containing the estimated costs of the work be attached to the Bill so that we can all see—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an intervention, not a speech.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I understand what my hon. Friend has said. He referred to the Joint Select Committee, of which I happen to have the honour to be Chairman.
  Whenever general purpose Bills are debated, it has been the practice to discuss the problems of the rail networks in general to allay concerns expressed by hon. Members who are not directly affected by the Bill's contents, but whose constituents are affected by the rail system in general.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: My hon. Friend mentioned several hon. Members who are concerned that the line from St. Pancras should be electrified as far as Leicester, but that concern extends west of Leicester. My constituents are just as concerned as those of the hon. Members whom my hon. Friend has mentioned. It is a serious problem, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) shares my concern about it.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said, and the board will also have noted his
  1076
  concern. I am responding to the anxieties of hon. Members about general issues. The figures that I have given were provided by the board, but we have not yet begun to discuss the Bill's provisions.
  Sir John Farr: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend in the middle of his interesting speech. I have just heard for the first time the figure of £25 million that he gave. Would it be possible before the debate is resumed at another time—assuming that it is — for the exact break-down of the cost to be made available in the form of documentation placed before the House so that we can consider it?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His request will no doubt be recorded in the Official Report and hon. Members will be able to study it at their leisure.
  Electrification, I am assured by the board, will be reviewed periodically in the light of changing fuel costs or the need to renew the rolling stock, should that be necessary.
  I should like, in this general introduction, to deal with the concerns of my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who expressed concern, although unsuccessfully, about Market Rasen station. Just to make it clear, to reduce operating costs of the local services from Lincoln to Grimsby and Cleethorpes, the hoard plans to transfer ticket issuing and checking from the station to the train at most stations on the route. An early-turn clerk will remain at Market Rasen to deal with bookings for the busy morning trains, including those to London.
  My hon. Friends have had a meeting with the board on this matter and, as a result, will know that a decision has been made not to sell the station building until there have been discussions with the local authority, and to make it clear that a member of staff will he present if trains are delayed, so that the lights are on and passengers are not locked in.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton has made it clear that he is concerned about safety on level crossings, on one of which, sadly, there was an accident in which a young constituent of his was tragically killed. He has now also had a meeting with the board and assurances have been given to him.
  This Bill is divided into a number of parts. Part I deals with standard procedures with which the House is familiar. Clause 3 deals with the incorporation of general enactments and clause 4 deals with the application of part I of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.
  Part II of the Bill deals with a series of works. Work No. 1 is the spur road at Battersea. It requires the provision not only of a spur line but of a station, so that there can be dedicated services to and from Victoria. This is to enable visitors to attend the new leisure complex, which, as hon. Members will know, is coming in the place of the old power station, in the same building.
  Mr. Fallon: I wonder whether, in view of my earlier comments, my hon. Friend can give us some estimate of the cost of Work No. 1. I understand from clause 36 that the various costs of this Act will be defrayed from the board's general expenses. But he has referred to Work No.

  1077
  1 and I wonder whether he has any estimate to offer us on behalf of the promoters as to the cost of undertaking that work.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend will know that the board has had new financial targets set for it, so all these works are against the background of a system which can provide money for the board in return for the works which are being done.
  Works Nos. 2 and 2A refer to a railway and cut at Kilnhurst, and this is to build a new chord railway which will link the Sheffield and Swinton line with the great central line between Rotherham and Mexborough. Members may be interested to know that originally it was hoped that it might be possible that the intended Swinton curve, which was in the 1984 Act, which I also sponsored in the House, could be used. However, a possible new role has been identified for that curve, involving the establishment of a new station at Swinton on the midland route and served by Sheffield.
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The Bill is important and interesting and contains a wide range of provisions. One of the most important elements of the provisions is that there is a cross-London link from the northern routes through King's Cross to the southern half of the country. That is very important because—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 17 March.

  Lookout Posts (Newry and Armagh)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: I welcome the opportunity to air my views about what I believe to be one of the most serious issues facing people in the North of Ireland. No doubt there will be those who tell me that there are more serious problems, and I shall probably accept that. However, if one examines the situation in South Armagh, one must reluctantly reach the conclusion that there is an artificial and optical attempt to present South Armagh as a showpiece for a military approach within the North of Ireland.
  I say that with some reluctance, because I believe that there are Ministers in the Government and those in the Northern Ireland Office who are seriously and genuinely trying to solve a very difficult problem. I can come to no conclusion other than that, within the sphere of Government advice and within the Northern Ireland Office, there are those whose approach can be described only as malign. It is an approach which centres on a spurious philosophy which certainly could not succeed. It is a psychology that says that, somehow or other, there is a military solution to the problems within the North of Ireland.
  I agree with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with General Glover, with Brigadier Bray and with Gerry Adams, who, individually and collectively, have said that there is no such thing as a military solution to the problem. All sides having accepted that there is no such thing as a military solution, it is entirely cynical and detrimental to the cause of peace in Northern Ireland to adopt such an approach. It has been stated publicly on numerous occasions by the Government, by me, by my party and by representatives of Sinn Fein that there is no military solution. If that thesis is accepted, to pursue and to search for a military solution would be a cynical exercise in relation to the people of Northern Ireland.
  I take this opportunity to appeal once again to the Government to rethink their position. I believe that they have embarked on a course which will bring disaster to the North of Ireland. They have embarked on a course of callousness and cynicism which is dedicated to a line of approach which even they agree cannot and will not work.
  It is a blinkered approach. If history has taught us anything in Ireland, if we have learnt anything from the lessons of the past 20 years, it is that one cannot solve the problems of violence by being violent. One cannot solve the problems of lawlessness by breaking the law. One cannot solve what is essentially a political problem by military and quasi-legal means. It is in that context that I wish to make these few remarks tonight.
  Let me put it this way. All hon. Members represent constituencies and are familiar with the difficulties of doing so. If any hon. Member representing any constituency in this House had said to me 15 years ago that in his constituency there was a fortified Army installation for every 600 people, I would have said that it was not possible, that we were not living in that kind of world, and that we were living in a free society where such things did not happen; they might happen in Afghanistan and in South Africa, but not in our civilised society.

  1079
  I represent a constituency the major part of which now has one fortified Army camp to every 600 of the population, 18 in all, if I take the word of the Minister of State in answer to a recent parliamentary question. While he did not avoid the truth in giving that answer, I think that he may have evaded it slightly because he omitted to include those camps which are police stations and which are now acting in a dual capacity. If we included them, we would have something like one armed camp to every 500 of the population.
  If such a situation were to exist in any constituency in England, Scotland, Wales or anywhere else in western Europe, it is something that people would be concerned about, would marvel at and would want to examine. Is that the case here? I am afraid that it is not, because, for too long, the matter has unfortunately been ignored by the Northern Ireland Office, by the Government and, by and large, by those who choose to pontificate on all the problems that we experience daily.
  Since I was elected to this House, I have consistently spoken about this issue. I made it the central point of my maiden speech. I have made request after request to the Northern Ireland Office that some of the Ministers come to visit my constituency and see for themselves what is happening. None of them has yet had the courage to move himself from the safety of Stormont castle and see how the people whom he governs exist.
  I should add that the Under-Secretary of State who is present tonight is the one person who has taken himself out of his area. He has come round the constituencies in the North of Ireland. He has gone out and done what he should do, meet the community. I now take this opportunity of paying tribute to him for doing that and of asking him to continue to do so and to come where those who are responsible for security do not seem to have the courage or the interest to come. I await his response to that.
  But it goes further than this. I am very concerned about the whole trend of this Government, because they are doing something that will be very serious for politics, not just in the North of Ireland but in this country as well. Politics must surely be about consensus and about arriving at solutions, not about confrontations and minor pyrrhic victories. It is not about macho tests, whether in the Health Service or in a military approach to solutions in the North of Ireland. It is not, and cannot be, about retribution. It is about getting solutions to long-standing problems. It is not about attrition. It is particularly not about the attrition that we are witnessing in the North of Ireland tonight and, unfortunately, probably tomorrow, next week, the week after and the week after that.
  Politics is not simply about that. The political process is about binding wounds and solving problems, as well as creating a climate in which problems can be solved. The saying has been attributed to Disraeli that politics is the art of the possible. That is not so, as politics, if it means anything, is the art of creating the circumstances and a climate in which we can solve apparently intractable problems. But I fear that we are not creating that climate, and it worries me greatly.
  The Government are not creating that climate. I fear that that is represented in my constituency by 18 of those hideous outposts, as the Minister has described them. They serve no purpose other than to satisfy the atavistic demands of those in the Northern Ireland Office and the political sphere who want confrontation and a military
  1080
  solution. It satisfies those in the Army and the police, who regard the outposts as a sign that they are doing what they regard as their duty.
  It is a false premise. It will not succeed. We should consider what the Secretary of State has said, and what General Glover has said. We must realise that the further we go in this direction the faster we will slide down a slippery slope. There is no way back. Generations of Irish people will be forced to pay the price.
  It is also significant that, since the recent appointment of the Minister of State, a new brigade has been formed to operate in the border area, which is also centred upon my constituency. In relation to that, I must ask the Minister why there is a "Gaza strip" in Northern Ireland. It concerns us greatly. Where is the primacy of the police in those circumstances? They cannot retain their primacy. It is already obvious that the Army "calls the shots" and that the sort of policing that was painstakingly built up has gone by the board.
  What is this for? It is to satisfy the atavistic attitudes and approaches of some within the Government, the Northern Ireland Office and the security services. They do not have the vision and the courage to tackle the problem, in the hearts and minds of the people of Northern Ireland, where it should be tackled. They should try to create peace rather than confrontation. I ask the Minister this paradoxical question because it is worth thinking about: are the priorities and objectives to beat the IRA or to create peace? We must start to think in those terms.
  This "long war", as it is called now, has continued four times as long as the previous world war. It could continue for another 30 to 35 years. There is no problem about that. The British Government have the resources to continue it and the Provisional IRA has the resources, too. The war can and will continue for another 30 years, unless someone has the courage to break the log jam.
  The question of the Government's objective is central to the problem. Is it to defeat the IRA or to create peace and stability? If we take this question to its logical conclusion, it will surely lead the Government to re-examine their position and approach. They will realise that what they are doing now is laying very sound foundations for this terrible tragedy to continue for another 30 years.
  I address my last point to the Minister, as he is responsible for education in Northern Ireland. Again, I pay tribute to him as he has had the courage to do what he thinks is right, not sitting in the safety of Stormont castle, but working on the ground. .I should like him to visit Cloughoge school in my constituency. Within 350 m of that school is one of the lookout posts that I have mentioned, and 350 m in the other direction is a very heavily fortified road check. If there is an attack on either of those installations, without a doubt that school will be hit. There are 330 children there. I cannot escape the conclusion that the posts were sited there simply to have the protection of that school.
  I warn the Minister that it is inevitable that an attack will be made on those lookout posts, and that the school is in grave danger. I ask him to take action before there is a tragedy. At Aughnacloy the young man, McAnespie, was shot from a distance approximately the same as those guards posts are from that school. If a heavy missile is fired and misses its target, as it will, and hits the school, we would see the wringing of hands. Before that happens, we must end the callousness that we have seen for so long.

  1081
  The happenings in Northern Ireland are tragic and are brutalising soldiers, policemen and members of the community, especially young people. Above all, they are brutalising those in the Government who make the decisions; who are not showing or attempting to show any compassion or vision; and who are dedicated to confrontation, not solutions.
  10.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) does the House a service in raising a very important issue. If he spoke in strong language, I defend him, at least part of the way, against those hon. Members who do not represent areas which have suffered as his constituency has suffered in recent years.
  Having said that, he will forgive me if I say that, even allowing for that, his language was a little extravagant. On reflection, perhaps he would want to modify some of the terminology that he used. He suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office are malign and interested only in a military solution, and that they are brutalised and without care, concern or consideration for people who have to suffer at the hands of terrorists, week in and week out. That was an unfortunate way to make his point, and I make it clear at the outset that those charges are quite unfounded.
  Mr. Mallon: The Minister understands what I said. I did not make that point in relation to everyone at the Northern Ireland Office. The Minister of State has brought with him an attitude dedicated to a military approach, not an imaginative approach, which is clearly at odds with that of the Secretary of State and others in the Northern Ireland Office. I did not make the criticism collectively.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has clarified the point, but he would not expect me to accept what he said about my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who brings to his responsibilities a knowledge of defence matters that is a great asset to the Government in seeking to tackle the problems caused by terrorism in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member talked about a political process, the point of which is to bind wounds and find solutions. I agree with him on both points. The political process is also about combating terrorism in a democracy so that people can enjoy that most basic of freedoms, the freedom from fear, intimidation and death.
  The hon. Gentleman asked a central question, from which I do not resile. He asked whether we were seeking to beat the IRA or to create peace. It is unfortunate that he put that question in either-or terms. All of us wish to create peace, but it is the view of most people in Northern Ireland, including the Government, that we are not likely to create that peace unless it is made crystal clear to the IRA that it has no role in Northern Ireland and that it cannot achieve by the bullet what it cannot achieve by the ballot.
  This Adjournment debate provides the House with the opportunity to review the security situation in South Armagh. As hon. Members will know, this particular part
  1082
  of Northern Ireland has seen some of the worst atrocities of the terrorist campaign and has for many years proved one of the most difficult and dangerous areas from the security point of view. I should like to begin by examining the circumstances in which security force operations are conducted in this part of the Province.
  South Armagh has witnessed a series of dreadful terrorist crimes. In the 10 years from the beginning of 1979 to the end of last year, 101 members of the security forces lost their lives there while seeking to counter the terrorist threat. The House will recall many of the individual incidents that have taken place in recent years, including the horrifying mortar bomb attack on Newry RUC station, which cost the lives of nine police officers in February 1985.
  It was because of the terrorist threat that, in the summer of 1986, the security forces undertook the construction of a number of observation posts in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Their aim was to improve the effectiveness of counter-terrorist operations in the area and to increase the level of security afforded to law-abiding members of the community. The idea was not a new one. For a number of years the security forces have taken advantage of high ground to maintain surveillance of likely terrorist targets, but at three particular sites specially designed structures were erected consisting of fortified sangars and observation towers. A similar tower was added earlier this year on Cloghoge mountain in order to overlook the site of the new permanent vehicle checkpoint on the Belfast to Dublin road. None of those installations occupies more than about an acre of ground, although, in each case, the Army has made arrangements to use some of the surrounding farm land, and none of the towers is more than 50 ft high. I understand that it is those installations that have been the subject of some local controversy.
  I want to make it clear this evening that these structures are a vital part of security force operations in South Armagh. They provide the Army with secure bases from which soldiers can mount patrols of the surrounding countryside, and they enable the security forces to maintain surveillance on suspected terrorist activity.
  The towers pose no threat whatsoever to law-abiding members of the community. Their presence is a threat only to the terrorists and they will remain — I give this assurance to the hon. Gentleman—only so long as they are required to counter the campaign of the Provisional IRA. Members of the security forces, whose job it is to protect the community from violence, are themselves entitled to the best possible protection from terrorist attack.
  Mr. Mallon: I note the Minister's point. Will he tell the House how many lookout towers there are in every other constituency in the North of Ireland? If the virtues of those towers are so great, we can judge the Minister's reply, as I think I might anticipate it.
  Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer. He knows that there are no towers anywhere else. He will be encouraged to know that I took the debate seriously, and I inquired why that is the case. The answer is that the terrain in the rest of the Province does not lend itself to the use of towers in the same way as it does in South Armagh.
  I accept, of course, that some inconvenience has been caused to local people by the erection of the towers, but

  1083
  many of the complaints that have been made, mostly by people who are unaffected by the installations, are out of all proportion to the problem. It has been suggested, for example, that equipment used at the towers is emitting harmful radiation. That is completely untrue. It has also been said that damage to fences has caused the spread of disease among cattle. Again, there is no evidence to support such claims.
  Where damage has been caused, or where small parcels of land have been occupied, adequate compensation or rent has been paid. Soldiers on duty in the area are regularly and carefully briefed on the need to avoid such damage wherever possible. However, during the course of their operations soldiers have inevitably caused some damage to farmers' ditches, fences and crops. That is very much regretted and every effort is made to keep it to a minimum. Legitimate claims have been speedily and properly dealt with, and anyone who is not satisfied with the level of compensation offered can appeal to the courts.
  The purpose of the towers is to provide the whole community with better protection against terrorist violence and to reduce the risk of innocent civilians being injured as a result of the Provisional IRA campaign.
  Allegations of harassment by soldiers should be reported to the police. They will be fully investigated. Following complaints from the hon. Gentleman that printed cards had been distributed by soldiers, those responsible have been disciplined and warned that there should he no recurrence. That incident is regretted by the military authorities and I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will be writing to the hon. Gentleman.
  I believe the House will accept that these observation posts are necessary for the conduct of security force operations in South Armagh. It is gratifying to note that, since the construction of those towers, the security forces have not suffered any fatal casualties. That is something that all hon. Members will welcome.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question of helicopter noise. Again, having made inquiries, I know that he will be pleased to learn that shortly the Ministry of Defence is planning to introduce a scheme for noise insulation grants for houses near helicopter landing sites at Bessbrook, Crossmaglen and Forkhill. The grants will cover the reasonable costs of installing double glazing.
  1084
  I have little time left, and I want to deal with the question of the school, which was raised by the hon. Gentleman. I know that it is a matter of considerable concern to him. He raised certain questions about the school with me recently. I assure him that since the checkpoint was built soldiers have not entered the school grounds, apart from the day of Mr. Wilson's visit, and they will not do so except for urgent operational reasons. Further, helicopters will not overfly the school unless weather conditions preclude any other flight paths. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that, except for the very youngest children, pupils continue to use the school grounds at break times and lunch and that the presence of the checkpoint has not prevented children from attending their classes.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was unhappy about the way in which these issues were bought to the public attention, but I am pleased that he has since raised them with me in the normal way and I have sought to respond to what I believe were his legitimate concerns. I am pleased to tell him that, as part of my usual programme of visiting schools, I intend to visit Cloghoge in the near future.
  We all look forward to the day when observation posts and fortified police stations are no longer necessary in any part of Northern Ireland. I hope that all those who abhor terrorism as I and the hon. Gentleman do will recognise that the existence of the various installations in South Armagh are in their long-term interests. It is the concern of the Government that disruption to the local community should be minimised and adequately compensated for where appropriate.
  I hope the hon. Gentleman will encourage his constituents to see the towers, not as a threat, but as part of their protection against against terrorism, and that he will advise them to raise any complaints that they may have with local civilian representatives.
  It is our concern and the concern of the whole House to do everything that we can within the law to defeat terrorism and we will, therefore, continue to give our support to the policemen and the soldiers whose prime task that is.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to review the governance of the Turks and Caicos Islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. Elections took place in the Turks and Caicos Islands on 3 March. The People's Democratic Movement won a majority of the seats. We look forward to working with the new Government.

  Export Promotion Services
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reorganisation of the United Kingdom export promotion services in the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department of Trade and Industry have reviewed the Government trade promotion services available to British exporters to the Federal Republic of Germany and have jointly agreed to arrangements for upgrading our service in the Federal Republic of Germany. A new post of Director General of Trade and Investment Promotion for the whole country will be created in Düsseldorf. An improved information technology system is being installed in Düsseldorf and in other British consultates-general in Germany which will provide British exporters with speedier service more closely targeted to their needs. All British exporters to the German market will benefit and especially those entering the export market for the first time.

  A comprehensive and centralised data base is to be installed in the consulate-general in Düsseldorf. This will be linked to terminals in consulates-general in Hamburg, Frankfurt, Munich and West Berlin and to the British Marketing Office for High Technology in Stuttgart. An FRG-wide information network will thus be created. All consulates-general will have access to it and be able to communicate with each other through it. The new system will give exporters quicker answers to enquiries about market prospects and faster contact with potential agents and buyers.

  The Focus Germany campaign and Lord Young's recent enterprise initiative are stimulating the interest of exporters, especially smaller and medium-sized companies in the German market. The realisation of the single market in 1992 will open it up even further. The FCO and DTI are strengthening Government services to exporters now to assist them in seizing the opportunities that will present themselves.

  The enhanced system has been planned to be fully operational in October and will be installed over the next six months.
  492
  The consul-general in Düsseldorf, Peter Bryant, has taken over from 14 March, as the new Director General of Trade and Investment Promotion with responsibility to direct and co-ordinate the new organisation.

  The commercial section in the embassy in Bonn will continue in being until 1 May. On that date it will close and thereafter all inquiries and visits which would have been made to the embassy should be directed to the British consulate-general in Düsseldorf. Their address is Nordsternhaus, Georg-Glock-Strasse 14,400 Düsseldorf 30 (Telephone: 0211–43740, telex: 8584855; telefax 0211–4542319).

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Royal Family (Civil List)
  Mr. Stokes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the total amount payable under the Civil List Acts to the Royal Family in the calendar years 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Lawson
  The information on amounts payable to the Royal Family in the present and previous calendar year is as follows:

  1987

  1988

  £

  £

  The Queen's Civil List

  4,326,100

  4,500,000

  HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

  375,300

  390,300

  HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

  209,300

  217,700

  HRH The Duke of York

  50,000

  86,500

  HRH The Prince Edward

  20,000

  20,000

  HRH The Princess Royal

  130,400

  135,600

  HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon

  127,000

  132,100

  HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester

  51,400

  53,500

  HRH The Duke of Gloucester

  102,200

  106,300

  HRH The Duke of Kent

  138,000

  143,500

  HRH Princess Alexandra, Mrs. Angus Ogilvy

  131,500

  136,800

  TOTAL

  5,661,200

  5,922,300

  Refunded by Her Majesty The Queen

  371,700

  386,600

  5,289,500

  5,535,700

  Notes:

  1. These figures combine the sum directly payable from the Consolidated Fund with supplementation provided by the royal trustees via the Treasury Vote "Class XIX, Vote 11 HM Treasury: Administration".

  2. The underlying increase is 4·0 per cent., though the actual increase in total is 4·6 per cent., due to the additional payment to HRH The Duke of York.

  3. The sum of £20,000 has been payable from the Consolidated Fund to HRH The Prince Edward since he attained the age of 18 on 10 March 1982, and has been paid in full since 1 January 1987.

  4. Her Majesty paid £371,700 into the Consolidated Fund in respect of payments made in 1987 to members of the Royal Family whose expenses are met under section 3 of the Civil List Act 1972. A similar payment of £386,600 will be made for 1988.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional annual income net of tax and national insurance would result from(a) a 2 pence cut in the basic rate of income tax and (b) the reduction of all high rate income tax bands to 40 per cent. for (i)a person, (ii)an income taxpayer, (iii)a household and (iv)average family of four.
  493
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 February 1988, c. 88]: I regret that the table given with my reply to

  Increase in income after tax and national insurance (£ per annum) compared with indexation in 1988–89

  Multiple of average male earnings1

  Increase derived from:

  ½

  ¾

  1

  1½

  2

  5

  (a) 2 pence cut in basic rate

  (i)single

  77

  141

  204

  331

  372

  372

  (ii)married couple wife not earning1

  48

  112

  176

  303

  372

  372

  (iii)married couple wife earning2

  82

  188

  294

  534

  658

  744

  (b) reduction of all higher rates of income tax to 40 per cent.

  (i)single

  —

  —

  —

  —

  87

  5,971

  (ii)married couple wife not earning

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  5,685

  (iii)married couple wife earning2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  87

  7,794

  1 Average male earnings assumed to be £244·70 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).

  2 Assuming that the wife's earnings are the same multiple of average earnings as her husband's.

  Taxes and Rates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax and rates will be paid in the present financial year(a) by a married man, with two children, earning £250,000 a year, (b) by a single man, with no dependants, earning £250,000 a year, (c) by a married man, with two children, earning £100,000 a year, (d) by a single man, with no dependants, earning £100,000 a year, (e) by a married man, with two children, earning £25,000 a year, (f) by a single man, with no dependants, earning £25,000 a year, (g) by a married man, with two children, earning £7,500 a year and (h) by a single man, with no dependants, earning £7,500 a year, in each case assuming no other income.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 8 March 1988]: The available information is given in the table.

  Income tax liability in 1987–88

  Annual Earnings

  Single man

  Married man

  £

  £

  £

  7,500

  1,370·25

  1,000·35

  25,000

  6,811·75

  6,195·25

  100,000

  50,203·00

  49,381·00

  250,000

  140,203·00

  139,381·00

  The calculations assume that the taxpayer has no other income and that he is not entitled to any allowances or reliefs other than the personal allowances. The number of children does not affect liability to income tax.

  Corresponding estimates on indirect taxes and local authority rates are not available

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the figure for the projected yield of a 1 per cent. rate of income tax in 1987–88 in England and Wales, based on existing outturns of income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 14 March 1988]: For the United Kingdom as a whole, the revenue effect in a full year from a one penny change in the basic rate of income tax in 1987–88 is estimated at about £1·3 billion. Income tax liabilities of residents of England and Wales in 1985–86, the latest year for which data are available, were 89 per cent. of the total for the United Kingdom.
  494
  the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East contained some incorrect figures. I refer the hon. Member to the revised table below:

  Allowances and Reliefs
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the real increase in the direct tax allowances and reliefs published in table 6·5 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91,"Cm 288–1.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 3 March 1988]: The table shows the percentage change, in real terms, between 1986–87 and 1987–88 of the latest estimates of the cost of direct tax allowances and reliefs, based on the forecast movement of 4 per cent. in the general index of retail prices to 1987–88. The percentage changes should be treated only as an approximate guide. Excluded from the table are those reliefs marked with an asterisk in table 6·5 of Cm 288–1 or in the corresponding 1986–87 table because the estimates were subject to a wide margin of error, and those reliefs whose costs were £5 million or less in either year.

  Estimated change in cost in real terms between 1986–87 and 1987–88

  Per cent.

  Income Tax

  Married man's allowance

  -3

  Single person's allowance

  -5

  Wife's earned income allowance

  -1

  Husband and wife; election for separate taxation of wife's earnings

  50

  Age allowance

  -1

  Additional personal allowance for one parent family

  -4

  Widow's bereavement allowance

  -4

  Dependent relative allowance

  -4

  Relief for:

  Employees' contributions to occupational pension schemes

  -2

  Investment income of occupational pension schemes

  -3

  Lump sum payments to pensioners

  -7

  Retirement annuity premiums

  4

  Life assurance premiums (where insurance contract made before 14 March 1984)

  -14

  Qualifying interest on loans for purchase or improvement of owner-occupied etc property

  -2

  Schedule E work expenses allowed as a deduction

  -7

  Half of Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

  -5

  Exemption of:

  Income of charities

  8

  495

  Per cent.

  British government securities where owner not ordinarily resident in United Kingdom

  6

  Foreign service allowance paid to Crown Servants abroad

  -4

  Petroleum Revenue Tax

  Uplift on qualifying expenditure

  13

  Relief for exploration and appraisal expenditure

  -22

  Oil allowance—Petroleum Revenue Tax

  49

  Safeguard: restricting petroleum revenue tax to not more than 80 per cent. of the excess over a 30 per cent. return on historic capital cost

  72

  Tariff receipt allowance

  0

  Capital Gains Tax

  Exemption of:

  First £6,600 of gains of individuals and first £3,300 of gains of trustees

  13

  Inheritance Tax/Capital Transfer Tax

  Exemption of:

  Transfers to charities on death

  -4

  Relief for:

  Agricultural property

  -4

  Business property

  -4

  Stamp Duty

  Exemption of:

  Transfers of government stocks and loan stocks

  11

  Transfers of houses or other property (not stocks and shares) where the consideration does not exceed £30,000

  -4

TRANSPORT

  Electric Multiple Unit Trains (Brake Failures)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received, or requested, from his Inspectorate of Railways concerning failures in braking systems on electric multiple unit trains; what representations have been made to him or his inspectors on this topic; when he expects to publish any reports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  There is no evidence that failures are occurring in the braking systems of electric multiple-unit trains. The British Railways Board is currently studying the braking performance of trains generally. This is in response to some evidence that the number of signals passed at danger is increasing and the claims by some drivers that under certain conditions the braking performance of their trains is less than fully adequate. The inspectorate's report on the September 1986 accident at Colwich junction, to be published shortly, will, I understand, include comments on current train braking systems, and the report on the August 1987 accident at Walton-on-Naze will comment specifically on the braking of electric multiple-units. No formal representations have been made to the Department on this subject.

  Motorway Safety Fences
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made introducing requirements for firms manufacturing, supplying and erecting safety fences on motorways to have management systems certificated by independent certification bodies accredited by the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies.
  496
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Publication of the specification for highway works in October 1986 announced the Department's intention to introduce these new quality assurance requirements in safety fence contracts from January 1988. The NACCB has accredited two certification bodies which have certificated a number of companies. The first contracts requiring the suppliers to have a certificated quality management system have now been let and we expect this method of achieving quality assurance for safety fencing to be applied increasingly from now on. As yet, not as many firms as we had hoped have achieved certificated quality assurance status. In view of this, where there are insufficient firms with certificated status to maintain competition and progress with the Department's safety fence programme some contracts may be placed with other firms. In those cases, we shall ensure that the qualtiy control checks carried out under existing contractural arrangements are applied rigorously and thoroughly.

  The Department will continue to encourage firms to obtain certification for their quality management schemes and seek to make this a requirement in all contracts. Grants available from the Department of Trade and Industry under its enterprise initiative should be of particular benefit in enabling this sector of industry to introduce quality management systems meeting our requirements.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Land Registry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Attorney-General how many staff are currently employed by the Land Registry; and what are their grades.

  The Attorney-General
  The staff employed and their grades as at 1 March 1988 are set out in the following table:

  Grade

  Permanent

  Casual

  Total

  Open structure

  Grade 2

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Grade 3

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Grade 5

  18·0

  —

  18·0

  Grade 6

  32·0

  —

  32·0

  Grade 7

  92·0

  —

  92·0

  Total

  144·0

  —

  144·0

  Legal Officer

  8·0

  0·5

  8·5

  Executive

  SEO

  246·0

  —

  246·0

  HEO

  468·5

  —

  468·5

  EO

  1,515·0

  —

  1,515·0

  Total

  2,229·5

  —

  2,229·5

  Clerical

  AO

  2,928·5

  3·0

  2,931·5

  AA

  1,181·0

  444·5

  1,625·5

  Total

  4,109·5

  447·5

  4,557·0

  Secretarial

  Total

  703·5

  75·0

  778·5

  Support

  Total

  1,008

  214·5

  1,222·5

  Grand Total

  8,202·5

  737·5

  8,940·0

  497
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Attorney-General what has been the ratio of staff to total registrations dealt with per year by the Land Registry in each of the last seven years for which figures are available.

  The Attorney-General
  The ratio of staff to registrations dealt with in each of the last seven years expressed in terms of registrations completed per post is as follows:

  Registrations

  1981–82

  355

  1982–83

  359

  1983–84

  352

  1984–85

  358

  1985–86

  364

  1986–87

  388

  1987–88

  394

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent representations he has received concerning delays at the Land Registry.

  The Attorney-General
  In the three months to 29 February 1988 the Lord Chancellor received some 35 letters concerning delays at the Land Registry.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects the application for registration about which the hon. Member for Macclesfield recently wrote to the Lord Chancellor to be processed by the Land Registry.

  The Attorney-General
  The Land Registry is awaiting a reply to requisitions sent to the applicant's solicitors on 14 October 1987. The application cannot proceed further until the requisitions are complied with, but will be completed as quickly as possible thereafter.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Research and Development
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of research and development expenditure in the United Kingdom as a percentage of gross domestic product in the light of the finding by the Society of British Aerospace Companies that the Government have over-estimated their research and development expenditure.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have no reason to revise the estimate of total United Kingdom expenditure on research and development (R and D) in the light of the study carried out by the Society of British Aerospace Companies. This relates to the funding by Ministry of Defence of development contract work carried out by some aerospace defence manufacturers. In common with other members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development the United Kingdom compiles statistics of total expenditure on R and D by aggregating expenditure on R and D by the sectors performing the R and D not by sectors funding the R and D.

  Company Registrations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to the numbers of companies registering at Companies House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  A total of 121,125 new companies were registered in England and Wales in 1987, and 5,926 in 498
  Scotland. At the end of January 1988 the total number of live companies, including those registered in Scotland, was 925,321

  Economic League
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Economic League registered its accounts at Companies House for the last financial year.

  Mr. Maude
  The last accounts registered at Companies House were delivered on 24 September 1986 for the financial year ending 31 December 1985.

  Accounts for the year ending 31 December 1986 are overdue and the Registrar of Companies is taking action to secure compliance with the filing requirements of the Companies Act 1985.

  Automotive Industry
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of the United Kingdom automotive industry was Japanese-owned; and what market share this represents, for each year from 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd. is the sole wholly-owned Japanese vehicle manufacturer in the United Kingdom. Production of cars began at Sunderland in 1986 and so far makes up only a small, though increasing, proportion of total sales by Nissan here. Nissan's overall share of the United Kingdom market since 1979—supplied solely by imports from Japan until 1985, and by a mixture of imports and United Kingdom-produced vehicles since then — has been as follows:

  per cent.

  1979

  5·9

  1980

  6·07

  1981

  5·94

  1982

  5·99

  1983

  5·84

  1984

  6·08

  1985

  5·76

  1986

  5·84

  1987

  5·67

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the spending, and the number of cases helped in the county of Cleveland, through(a) regional selective assistance and (b) regional development grant in 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987, broken down into manufacturing and service industries, and within that category (i) firms employing up to 200 employees and 201 or more and within that category (ii) regional development grant awards made on a capital grants basis, as opposed to grants given per job created.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 14 March 1988]: The information requested in respect of the number of projects receiving payments and the value of expenditure under regional selective assistance (RSA) and regional development grant (RDG) in the County of Cleveland in each year is as follows:

  499

  RSA1

  Manufacture

  Service

  1984

  Small

  Number of projects

  28

  5

  Payments (£ million)

  1·0

  0·2

  Medium/Large

  Number of projects

  8

  1

  Payments (£ million)

  3·2

  0·7

  1985

  Small

  Number of projects

  26

  5

  Payments (£ million)

  2·7

  0·1

  Medium/Large

  Number of projects

  9

  1

  Payments (£ million)

  1·8

  0·9

  RDG2

  Manufacture

  Service

  (a) Capital grant

  (b) Job grant

  (a) Capital grant

  (b) Job grant

  19843

  Small

  Number of projects

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Payments (£ million)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Medium/large

  Number of projects

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Payments (£ million)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  Small

  Number of projects

  —

  36

  3

  17

  Payments (£ million)

  —

  1·4

  Neg

  0·2

  Medium/large

  Number of projects

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Payments (£ million)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  Small

  Number of projects

  30

  243

  5

  75

  Payments (£ million)

  0·2

  2·8

  Neg

  0·8

  Medium/large

  Number of projects

  2

  1

  —

  1

  Payments (£ million)

  0·1

  0·1

  —

  Neg

  1987

  Small

  Number of projects

  59

  365

  5

  87

  Payments (£ million)

  0·7

  4·5

  Neg

  0·9

  Medium/large

  Number of projects

  5

  5

  1

  2

  Payments (£ million)

  0·6

  0·7

  Neg

  Neg

  Note—small firms are those with up to 200 employees; medium/large firms are those with 201 employees or more. Negligible means payments below £50,000.

  1 Project and training grants only.

  2 Figures are given for the revised RDG scheme only. Records for the original scheme are insufficiently detailed to provide the information requested.

  3 No data for 1984 as the revised RDG scheme was only introduced in November that year.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set out in the Official Report estimates of expenditure in 1987–88 in England, Scotland and Wales, respectively, on (a) regional development grants, (b) regional selective assistance and (c) regional and general
  500

  Manufacture

  Service

  1986

  Small

  Number of projects

  32

  4

  Payments (£ million)

  1·7

  0·1

  Medium/Large

  Number of projects

  5

  —

  Payments (£ million)

  1·8

  —

  1987

  Small

  Number of projects

  21

  5

  Payments (£ million)

  1·2

  Neg

  Medium/Large

  Number of projects

  13

  1

  Payments (£ million)

  2·6

  Neg

  industrial support in cash and real terms, together with the amounts of planned expenditure for the years 1988–89,1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 10 March 1988]:The information requested in cash and constant (1986–87) price terms is as follows:

  501

  £ million1

  1987–882

  1988–893

  1989–903

  1990–913

  Cash

  Constant

  Cash

  Constant

  Cash

  Constant

  Cash

  Constant

  (a) Regional Development Grant

  England

  132

  127

  156

  143

  116

  103

  66

  57

  Scotland

  67

  64

  58

  53

  51

  45

  32

  28

  Wales

  54

  51

  64

  58

  42

  37

  28

  24

  (b) Regional Selective Assistance4

  England

  122

  117

  161

  148

  148

  131

  148

  127

  Scotland5

  53

  51

  60

  55

  60

  53

  80

  69

  Wales

  41

  39

  46

  42

  52

  46

  61

  53

  (c) Regional and General Industrial Support6

  England7

  294

  282

  463

  425

  448

  397

  423

  364

  Scotland8

  257

  246

  266

  244

  261

  231

  261

  225

  Wales9

  169

  162

  194

  178

  180

  160

  180

  155

  1 All figures are net of recoveries and other domestic receipts, but gross of receipts from the European regional development fund

  2 Supply Estimate figures

  3 Figures underlying the 1988 public expenditure White Paper

  4 Incorporating industrial and training grants and expenditure under the business improvement services and exchange risk guarantee schemes

  5 Including (for 1988–89 onwards) expenditure provision for the regional investment grant element of the enterprise initiative package

  6 Including expenditure on regional development grant and regional selective assistance

  7 Including (in addition to RDG and RSA) expenditure provision in Great Britain for selective assistance towards individual companies and industries, as well as (for 1988–89 onwards) GB provision for the consultancy services and regional innovation grant elements of the enterprise initiative package. Also incorporating expenditure in England only under the regional investment grant element of the package, and expenditure on task forces and city action teams.

  8 Including (in addition to RDG and RSA) expenditure under the Industry, Energy, Trade and Employment (excluding tourism) Vote on support for nationalised industries (except transport), general labour market services, support for the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and other central and miscellaneous services.

  9 Including (in addition to RDG and RSA) expenditure under the regional investment grant element of the enterprise initiative package, and support for the Welsh Development Agency and Mid-Wales Development.

EMPLOYMENT

  London Docklands (Construction Sites)
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many successful prosecutions have been made against companies on construction sites in London docklands for breaches of health and safety legislation; and if he will enumerate these on an annual basis since 1981, with an annual total of fines imposed;

  (2) how many accidents and deaths have been recorded by the Health and Safety Executive on construction sites in London docklands since 1981 on an annual basis.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the detail requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Stations
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the design of police stations in relation to the accessibility to the public of a general reception and injury desk.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Guidance issued by the Home Office on the design of new police stations recommends that the public entrance to the station should have a suitable ramp, and that all parts of the entrance hall should be visible from the inquiry counter.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of inmates in each 502
  of the prisons in England and Wales who on 1 March were in single cells and who were (a) sharing two to a cell and (b) sharing three to a cell.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information tabulated as follows relates to 10 January this year, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Distribution of inmates in cells designed for single occupation

  Prison

  Numbers held singly

  Numbers sharing

  Numbers sharing

  2 to a cell

  3 to a cell

  Acklington

  315

  —

  —

  Albany

  210

  —

  —

  Ashford

  90

  236

  —

  Aylesbury

  271

  —

  —

  Bedford

  30

  92

  204

  Birmingham

  41

  160

  861

  Blundeston

  277

  —

  —

  Bristol

  184

  220

  6

  Brixton

  179

  532

  219

  Brockhill

  2

  198

  21

  Bullwood Hall

  82

  60

  —

  Camp Hill

  180

  156

  —

  Canterbury

  39

  130

  162

  Cardiff

  52

  312

  183

  Channings Wood

  466

  —

  —

  Castington

  227

  —

  —

  Chelmsford

  24

  288

  —

  Coldingley

  236

  —

  —

  Cook.ham Wood

  114

  —

  —

  Dartmoor

  582

  —

  —

  Deerbolt

  202

  —

  —

  Dorchester

  30

  144

  24

  Durham (male)

  140

  526

  306

  Durham (female)

  36

  —

  —

  Everthorpe

  235

  126

  —

  Exeter

  57

  306

  84

  Featherstone

  454

  —

  —

  Feltham

  214

  —

  —

  Frankland

  393

  —

  —

  503

  Prison

  Numbers held singly

  Numbers sharing

  Numbers sharing

  2 to a cell

  3 to a cell

  Full Sutton

  194

  —

  —

  Gartree

  276

  —

  —

  Glen Parva

  301

  346

  —

  Gloucester

  99

  110

  69

  Grendon

  201

  2

  —

  Highpoint

  229

  —

  —

  Hindley

  158

  54

  —

  Hollesley Bay

  169

  —

  —

  Holloway

  170

  —

  —

  Hull

  13

  324

  126

  Huntercombe

  139

  12

  —

  Lancaster

  18

  120

  —

  Latchmere House

  48

  118

  —

  Leeds

  78

  190

  966

  Leicester

  30

  72

  312

  Lewes

  140

  386

  —

  Lincoln

  75

  172

  423

  Liverpool

  120

  570

  345

  Long Lartin

  392

  —

  —

  Low Newton (male)

  14

  242

  —

  Low Newton (female)

  8

  24

  —

  Maidstone

  407

  2

  —

  Manchester

  105

  958

  432

  New Hall

  64

  —

  —

  Northallerton

  16

  138

  —

  Norwich

  80

  134

  135

  Nottingham

  74

  182

  —

  Onley

  389

  —

  —

  Oxford

  19

  102

  78

  Parkhurst

  176

  —

  —

  Pentonville

  135

  856

  —

  Portland

  369

  82

  9

  Portsmouth (Kingston)

  136

  —

  —

  Preston

  240

  294

  —

  Pucklechurch (male)

  42

  64

  —

  Pucklechurch (female)

  11

  52

  —

  Reading

  39

  156

  102

  Risley (male)

  98

  638

  —

  Risley (female)

  12

  36

  —

  Rochester

  198

  58

  —

  Shepton Mallet

  67

  20

  45

  Shrewsbury

  28

  262

  12

  Stafford

  57

  700

  —

  Stocken

  285

  —

  —

  Stoke Heath

  127

  184

  —

  Styal

  2

  —

  —

  Swansea

  19

  206

  18

  Swinfen Hall

  166

  —

  —

  Thorp Arch

  151

  —

  —

  Usk

  56

  16

  —

  Wakefield

  575

  10

  —

  Wandsworth

  617

  712

  —

  Wellingborough

  204

  —

  —

  Winchester

  111

  484

  —

  Wormwood Scrubs

  386

  690

  —

  Wayland

  434

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  13,929

  13,264

  5,142

  Police Cells (Remanded Persons)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unconvicted prisoners were remanded in police cells in Peterlee and Seaham on 1 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No unconvicted prisoners were held in police cells at either Peterlee or Seaham police stations on 1 March 1988.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of complaints 504
  made following official visits to either police or magistrates court cells in the London area to see people being held on remand during the last 12 months.

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

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a breakdown of the charges facing remand prisoners being held in police cells on 1 March; and if he will list the police stations and the age of the remand prisoners.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 1 March 1988, a total of eight juvenile remand prisoners were held in cells at Croydon, Wimbledon, Coalville and Cowley police stations. A record of their ages is not available.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a breakdown of the charges facing remand prisoners being held in either police or magistrates' court cells on 7 March.

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

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women being held on remand in police cells in England and Wales on 7 March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On Monday 7 March, 1,510 male and eight female prisoners, most of whom would have been on remand, were held in police cells in England and Wales.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of remand prisoners who had to sleep on the floor in either police or magistrates' court cells on 6 March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Prisoners held in police and magistrates' courts cells are all provided with mattresses and most sleep on beds. Further information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of pregnant women being held on remand in either police or magistrates' court cells on 7 March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the visits, and their dates, that he, or other Ministers in his Department, have made to police or magistrates' court cells to see the conditions under which remand prisoners are being held; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary visited prisoners in the Liverpool main bridewell on 2 October 1987 and my noble Friend the Earl Ferrers visited prisoners in police cells at Bradford police station on 23 February, Ealing police station on 1 March and Newcastle bridewell on 8 March this year. I visited he prisoners in police cells at Croydon police station on 23 November last year and the Metropolitan police holding cells at Lambeth on 18 February this year. My hon. Friend
  505
  the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) plans to visit the cell area at Horseferry road magistrates' court shortly. In addition to these particular visits, Ministers in the Department undertake frequent visits to police stations during which we often take the opportunity to visit the cells.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the following places of detention were last visited for the purposes of inspection, and by whom: Bow road police station, Camberwell road magistrates' court, Horseferry road magistrates' court and South Western magistrates' court; and if he will place in the Library a copy of any resultant reports on conditions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am informed by the Metropolitan police that the local chief superintendent has responsibility for ensuring that conditions in places of detention at police cells and magistrates' courts are maintained at the highest possible level. So far as access to individual prisoners is concerned, lay visitors already have access to persons detained by the police in police cells; these arrangements will be extended to include detainees who would normally be held in prison service establishments.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to monitor the number of days persons are being held in either police or magistrates' court cells while on remand; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to do so.

  Remanded Persons (Complaints)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision is made for prisoners held on remand to complain as to the conditions under which they are kept; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Remand prisoners in prison custody may make complaints about conditions in the following ways:

  by speaking to supervising prison staff;

  by applying to see the governor, chaplain, medical officer, education officer or welfare officer;

  by applying to see the board of visitors or a visiting member of the board;

  by applying to see a visiting officer of the Secretary of State;

  by petition to the Secretary of State, to Parliament or to Her Majesty The Queen;

  by writing to a Member of Parliament;

  by writing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, directly or through a Member of Parliament;

  by petition to the European Commission of Human Rights.

  Remand prisoners held in police custody may raise any complaints about conditions with the supervising police officers or by writing to the chief officer of the force concerned. It has also been decided that prisoners held in police custody should have access to an independent body concerned with the supervision of their custodial conditions and treatment. Lay visitors have been asked to take on this task as we are discussing with the Metropolitan police what guidance needs to be given to assist them in carrying out these duties.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of people held in police or magistrates' court cells in each of the last five years in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Annual averages are given in the table. Further details are published annually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales" at table 1.9 of the latest volume, for 1986 (Cm. 210), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Average population of prisoners held in police cells, 1983 to 1987

  Number

  1983

  310

  1984

  54

  1985

  45

  1986

  119

  11987

  537

  1 Provisional.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when each member of staff at Wandsworth prison is to be allocated an individual locker; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Where space is available, policy is to provide each prison officer with an individual locker. At Wandsworth, because of space constraints, it has only been possible to provide two thirds of the staff with individual lockers. We are presently looking at ways in which extra space might be secured to provide for additional lockers.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of showers for the use of prison officers in each of the wings or relaxation areas in Wandsworth prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Staff showers are provided at Wandsworth prison in the hospital, the gymnasium, the reception area and the works department. There are no staff showers elsewhere.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the annual number of homicides reported by the police in England and Wales in each year since 1958; and if he will express these figures per million of population in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of offences initially recorded as homicide per million population is given in the following table. In each year since 1967, some 10 to 15 per cent. of such offences were not finally recorded as homicide. Figures for homicides recorded by the police are published annually in chapter 4 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", (figures for offences currently recorded as homicide related to population are in table 4.1), copies of which are in the Library. Corresponding information for 1987 is not yet available.
  507

  Offences initially recorded by the police as homicide1 and offences per million population.

  England and Wales

  Year initially recorded

  Offences initially recorded as homicide1

  Offences initially recorded as homicide1 per million population

  1958

  261

  5·8

  1959

  266

  5·9

  1960

  282

  6·2

  1961

  265

  5·7

  1962

  299

  6·4

  1963

  307

  6·5

  1964

  296

  6·3

  1965

  325

  6·8

  1966

  364

  7·6

  1967

  414

  8·6

  1968

  420

  8·6

  1969

  395

  8·1

  1970

  396

  8·1

  1971

  459

  9·4

  1972

  480

  9·8

  1973

  465

  9·5

  1974

  599

  12·2

  1975

  508

  10·3

  1976

  565

  11·5

  1977

  484

  9·8

  1978

  535

  10·9

  1979

  629

  12·8

  1980

  621

  12·6

  1981

  556

  11·2

  1982

  618

  12·5

  1983

  552

  11·1

  1984

  619

  12·4

  1985

  625

  12·5

  1986

  662

  13·3

  1 Murder, manslaughter and infanticide

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the current level of burglaries and violent attacks on members of the public.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the first nine months of 1987 recorded offences of burglary fell by 2·5 per cent. compared to the same period in 1986. Burglaries in dwellings fell by nearly 4 per cent.

  Recorded offences of violence against the person rose by 11 per cent. Some of this increase is likely to be attributable to increased recording and the greater willingness of victims to come forward, especially to report racial attacks, rapes and domestic violence which have been receiving special police attention in the last year.

  The handbook "Practical Ways to Crack Crime", published last week, provides valuable guidance for members of the public about how to prevent burglaries and reduce the risk of becoming a victim of violent crime.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the annual number of armed robberies in England and Wales in each year since 1958.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used, by offence type, is published annually in table 3.1 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which are in the Library. Comparable figures are not available before 1969.

ENVIRONMENT

  Inner City Partnership Authorities
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which inner city partnership authorities underspent their allocations in 1986–87; and by what percentage.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is provided in the table:

  Authority

  Estimated 1986–87 Outturn

  Allocation

  Percentage Underspend

  £ million

  £ million

  Lambeth

  11·323

  13·1

  13·6

  Hackney

  10·973

  11·6

  5·4

  Islington

  9·267

  10·0

  7·3

  Manchester/Salford

  21·987

  23·8

  7·6

  Liverpool

  22·986

  23·5

  2·2

  Birmingham

  25·943

  26·5

  2·1

  My Department impresses on local authorities the importance of reporting projected underspends during the course of the financial year, so that resources can be reallocated to local authorities which can make effective use of them.

  Housing Act 1985
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many local authorities are(a) imposing and (b) not imposing the availability and fair rent conditions, as contained in sections 503 and 504 of the Housing Act 1985, in (i) housing action and general improvement areas and (ii) in all other areas.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information is not collected centrally, but it is a requirement of section 503 of the Housing Act 1985 that, with certain specified exceptions, local authorities must impose the further letting conditions listed in section 504 in relation to any grant-aided property situated in a housing action area or general improvement area.

  Rural Economy
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his plans to revise the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions in the light of his policies for the diversification of the rural economy.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The revised guidance on the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions in our circular on development involving agricultural land (DOE circular 16/87, Welsh Office 25/87, May 1987) took full account of Government policies for the rural economy.

  Urban Development
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the land allocated for urban development corporation development is owned by international financial companies; and what is the investment total, as a percentage of overall capital expenditure in real terms, they have provided to date in(a) the Merseyside Development Corporation, (b) the London Docklands Development Corporation and (c) the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation.
  509
  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested is not available.

  Circular 26/85
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take in the light of the judgments given in the Queen's Bench Division on 9 June 1987 that the guidance given to local authorities in circular 26/85 should be clarified.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are currently considering whether it would be appropriate, in the light of the judgment in respect of R.v. Camden London Borough Council ex parte Christey, to issue further guidance to local authorities about the imposition of further letting conditions in relation to mandatory home improvement grants.

  Committee Room 12 (Tapestries)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will take to restore the tapestries in Committee Room 12 of the House to their original condition.

  Mr. Chope
  Following examination by experts during the last summer recess these tapestries have been included in the forward programme of conservation work. But this work is unlikely to be done for about three years.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies on the proposed poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  I know of no such report.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report the advice he was given by the International Commission for Radiological Protection and the National Radiological Protection Board when determining what weekly level of megabecquerels should be specified in the certificate of authorisation for the disposal of radioactive waste.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The International Commission for Radiological Protection and the National Radiological Protection Board periodically publish formal recommendations to Governments on the criteria to be adopted when setting discharge limits. The Government's objectives for radioactive waste management based on this advice are given at paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Government's response to the Environment Committee's report on radioactive waste (Cmnd. 9852, 1986).

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if any study has been carried out by his Department as to the environmental implications of the release into the atmosphere of polonium 210; and at what rate polonium 210 decays when discharged.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution required an environmental assessment of the radiological implications of the polonium 210 discharge. The National Radiological Protection Board undertook this for Capper 510
  Pass Limited. The report concluded that radiation exposures from discharges are insignificant. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has checked and confirmed this assessment. Half of the polonium decays every 138 days due to natural processes.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the National Radiological Protection Board's evaluation of the official radiological consequences of the work undertaken by the north Humberside firm, Capper Pass, prior to the granting of the certificate of authorisation for the disposal of radioactive waste.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The evaluation was undertaken by the National Radiological Protection Board at the request of the company and I have asked the company if a copy can be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the system of monitoring for emissions of polonium 210 from the chimney stack at the North Humberside Smelting and Refining Company, Capper Pass, distinguishing between the differing responsibilities of the company, the National Radiological Protection Board and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; and if he has any plans to change the current arrangements.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Samples of stack discharges are collected by the company. Stack samples are routinely analysed by the company and check samples have been analysed independently for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The National Radiological Protection Board analyses air samples taken from sites near the plant. I am satisfied with these arrangements.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will consider introducing a more frequent system of monitoring by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution of smelting and refining installations such as that at Capper Pass in north Humberside.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The onus is on operators to demonstrate compliance with the conditions of a discharge authorisation. I am satisfied that the check monitoring undertaken by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is adequate.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the findings of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's 1986 assessment of samples taken from the main chimney stack and the environmental monitoring stations at the North Humberside Smelting and Refining Company, Capper Pass; and what information he has as to the level of naturally occurring radiation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The results indicated that the most exposed member of the public would receive less than 1 per cent. of the dose received from natural radiation.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will instruct Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to conduct an immediate investigation into emissions of polonium 210 from the chimney stack of the North Humberside Smelting and Refining Company, Capper Pass.

  Mr. Moynihan
  As part of the investigation I have asked Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to review
  511
  the discharge authorisation issued to Capper Pass Limited before the end of this year. A part of that review will be a study of current and planned emissions, together with an assessment of any health effects which could result.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many tests for polonium 210 have been carried out at the North Humberside Smelting and Refining Company, Capper Pass; by whom the tests were conducted; and if he will publish the results.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Tests are made weekly. Subject to the agreement of the company, results will be published in the report to be prepared by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Housing (Bolton)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres are designated for housing in the Bolton council area; and what is his estimate of how many new homes could be constructed on this land.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This is one of the disputed issues currently before the Secretary of State in connection with the application to remove a covenant preventing development at Birtenshaw farm, Bolton. I therefore cannot prejudge the decision to be made on that application by expressing an opinion on this issue.

  The borough council is required by the Greater Manchester county structure plan to provide sufficient land for 11,800 dwellings in the period from mid-1981 to mid-1991. Government policy requires that they should at all times ensure that a five years supply of land is available.

  Historic Covenants
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many decisions he has made about historic covenants in respect of planning appeals during the last 12 months;

  (2) if he will make a statement about his current policy on historic covenants, with particular reference to their relevance in planning appeals.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I assume that my hon. Friend's questions relate to agreements which were made under section 34 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1932 and restrict the planning, development or use of land. Applications may be made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under paragraph 88(3) of schedule 24 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 for the discharge or modification of restrictions imposed by an agreement under section 34 of the 1932 Act. Such an application may sometimes be required before development which has been granted planning permission on appeal or otherwise can be started. Applications are considered on their individual merits. Only one application under the paragraph has been determined during the last 12 months.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions during the latest 12 months for which figures are available he overruled his inspector's advice on planning appeals; and if he will make a statement.
  512
  Mr. Waldegrave
  In 1987 the Secretary of State made 26 decisions on planning appeals contrary to the inspectors' recommendation, following a public inquiry.

  Green Belt and Housing Restraint Areas
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about establishing protected green belt areas and designating housing restraint areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 14 March 1988]: We receive frequent representations on various aspects of green belt and housing policies. Green belt policies already provide adequate and necessary restraint on inappropriate development in such areas.

  Building Regulations (Disabled Persons)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to alter the building regulations as they affect disabled people in order to broaden their scope and assist those disabled people who are not confined to a wheelchair.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 14 March 1988]: The building regulations were amended last December so as to require reasonable provision to be made to enable disabled people to gain access to offices, shops, and the principal entry storey of factories, schools and other public buildings. These requirements benefit people with a physical impairment which limits their ability to walk as well as people who need to use a wheelchair for mobility. We now intend to develop proposals for widening the scope of these requirements, and I am asking the Building Regulations Advisory Committee to consider how we might best proceed.

  Palace of Westminster (Carpets)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the composition of the carpeting in the Norman Shaw, North and South buildings, St. Stephen's House and the Old Palace Yard, respectively; whether these carpets are regularly treated with anti-static fluid; and what is the most recent date of treatment in each of these buildings and in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Chope
  The carpet in all the buildings listed is predominantly 80% wool, 20% nylon Wilton, with some specialised areas in 100% polyamide heavy duty low loop pile carpet with static control, or polyamide/polypropylene blended fibre bonded carpet.

  The carpets are spray treated with anti-static fluid only on request and no record is kept of when the treatment is applied.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any measure of the levels of static electricity in carpets in the Palace of Westminster; what percentage of carpets in the Palace have been treated with anti-static fluid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  No measurements are taken of the levels of static electricity. Nor is the percentage of carpets treated known, as this is carried out only when requested and its effects are relatively short-lived.

WALES

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the replacement of rates by the community charge in respect of self-catering accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  After considering representations about the position of self catering accommodation under the new local government finance system we have decided that holiday-let self catering accommodation, which includes services and facilities similar to those provided in a hotel, should remain in rating and be subject to the non-domestic rate. Further consideration is being given to the precise boundary between the domestic and non-domestic sectors.

  Withybush Hospital
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the Pembrokeshire health authority in respect of defective roofs at the Withybush hospital, Haverfordwest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Discussions have taken place between the Department and Pembrokeshire health authority, and the Department has agreed to make a contribution of £500,000 towards the total estimated cost of £750,000 needed to remedy roofing defects at Withybush hospital. This offer is subject to the availability of funds.

  Welsh Water Authority
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received proposals from the Welsh water authority on the implementation of the EEC drinking water directive including a time scale for full implementation, along with the estimated extra cost.

  Mr. Grist
  As a consequence of the change in guidance issued by the Government in respect of directive 80/778/EEC, officials are now seeking the relevant information from Welsh water authority.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the Welsh water authority will be eligible for grants from the European regional development fund in the run-up to and after plc status.

  Mr. Grist
  Water authorities will be eligible to apply for grant both before and after privatisation. It is, however, for the European Commission to consider individual applications on their merits.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what aid the Welsh water authority has received from the European regional development fund in each year since 1980; and what projects it currently has under consideration for grant application to the European regional development fund up to 1988.

  Mr. Grist
  Gross European regional development fund commitments to the Welsh water authority since 1980 are as follows:

  £

  1980

  2,268,059

  1981

  1,596,468

  514

  £

  1982

  3,117,044

  1983

  2,776,064

  1984

  2,362,322

  1985

  570,649

  1986

  2,366,863

  1987

  7,638,029

  1988

  4,194,500

  Five further applications for European regional development fund aid have been submitted to the European Commission and are awaiting decisions; the Department is also currently considering nine applications. A number of projects are also likely to be brought forward for consideration under the terms of integrated operations programmes which are either under negotiation with the Commission, or in preparation with the local and public authorities concerned.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what bonus on salary was paid to the chairman of the Welsh water authority, board members and senior officers in 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No decision on the payment of bonuses for 1987–88 has yet been made. In 1987 both the chairman and chief executive of the Welsh water authority received a bonus based on the authority's performance during the 1986–87 financial year, of 5 per cent. of their actual salaries.

  Fair Rents
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has issued any recent guidelines to rent officers for assessing fair rents.

  Mr. Grist
  No. The requirements are laid down in the Rent Act 1977.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the level of fair rents being set by the rent officer in Mid Glamorgan.

  Mr. Grist
  Levels of rent on individual dwellings are not held centrally, but the mean registered rents for the private sector and housing associations are published in "Welsh Housing Statistics." The latest figures for Mid Glamorgan based on cases dealt with by rent officers are as follows:

  Mean registered rent (£ per year)

  Number of case

  1986

  Private Sector1

  685

  895

  Housing Associations2

  1,098

  1,122

  1 Figures relate to unfurnished premises re-registered, excluding housing associations, where re-registration has taken place within 1·75 to 2·75 years of previous registration.

  2 Figures relate to housing association, unfurnished tenancies where re-registration has taken place within 1·75 to 2·75 years of the previous registration.

  Ward Closures (Mid Glamorgan)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received any application from Mid Glamorgan district health authority for the permanent closure of high dependency wards at St. Tydfil's hospital; if he has received any representations about the closure of high dependency wards in Mid Glamorgan; and if he will make a statement.
  515
  Mr. Grist
  I have received no application from Mid Glamorgan district health authority for permanent closure of the 5-bed high dependency unit at St. Tydfil's hospital. I have received three representations about the unit's temporary closure. I understand that Mid Glamorgan health authority is committed to the unit's longer-term future.

SCOTLAND

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to monitor the growth of private nursing homes for the elderly and to inspect these homes at regular intervals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is collected annually by the information and statistics division of the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service on the number of private nursing home places in Scotland. The Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 requires health boards to undertake regular inspections of private nursing homes.

  Unemployed Disabled People
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what facilities are available for retraining for the disabled unemployed in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The full range of Manpower Services Commission training programmes is available to the disabled in Scotland. In addition, there are four employment rehabilitation centres located at Bellshill, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow geared to helping the disabled and disadvantaged into employment. The range of training programmes and special help for the disabled is outlined in the Government's publication "Action for Jobs".

  National Health Service Hospitals (Medical Equipment and Facilities)
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many major pieces of medical equipment and facilities were funded by public donation to Health Service hospitals for each of the last five years; and what is the total value of these donations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Non-Domestic Rate
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the non-domestic rate for each regional, district and islands council in Scotland for the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Lang
  The figures, which have been provided to my Department by the local authorities, are set out in the table.

  Non-domestic rate poundage 1988–89

  Pence

  Borders

  53

  Central

  58·5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  54

  Fife

  62

  516

  Pence

  Grampian

  50·2

  Highland

  59

  Lothian

  69·3

  Strathclyde

  64

  Tayside

  59

  Orkney

  55

  Shetland

  108

  Western Isles

  79

  Berwickshire

  9·5

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  10·9

  Roxburgh

  12

  Tweeddale

  9·2

  Clackmannan

  19

  Falkirk

  15·5

  Stirling

  23

  Annandale and Eskdale

  11·5

  Nithsdale

  11·5

  Stewartry

  10

  Wigtown

  9·4

  Dunfermline

  12·75

  Kirkcaldy

  16

  North East Fife

  14·35

  Aberdeen City

  14

  Banff and Buchan

  12·5

  Gordon

  10

  Kincardine and Deeside

  8·2

  Moray

  10·5

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  8

  Caithness

  12·5

  Inverness

  9·5

  Lochaber

  14·5

  Nairn

  8

  Ross and Cromarty

  12·5

  Skye and Lochalsh

  12

  Sutherland

  9·5

  East Lothian

  17

  Edinburgh City

  16·7

  Midlothian

  17

  West Lothian

  15

  Argyll and Bute

  19

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  13

  Clydebank

  19·5

  Clydesdale

  16·75

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  16·5

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  17

  Cunninghame

  20·5

  Dumbarton

  19

  East Kilbride

  14·3

  Eastwood

  10

  Glasgow City

  26·5

  Hamilton

  18

  Inverclyde

  16

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  18·5

  Kyle and Carrick

  17

  Monklands

  18

  Motherwell

  16·25

  Renfrew

  18

  Strathkelvin

  16

  Angus

  13·5

  Dundee City

  21·5

  Perth and Kinross

  14

  Surgical Operations (Fife)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by specialty the numbers of people presently awaiting operations within Fife health board's area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is not collected in precisely the form requested. The number of persons waiting for in-patient hospital treatment (including
  517
  operations) in each specialty is published in table 6.5 of "Scottish Health Service Statistics 1986/87", copies of which are held in the Library.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many operations were performed in National Health Service hospitals in Fife in the last five years for which information is available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of inpatient cases operated on in National Health Service hospitals in Fife for the years 1981–1985 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1981

  13,131

  1982

  10,552

  1983

  13,583

  1984

  14,086

  1985

  14,063

  Consultants by specialty in Fife health board at September 1983 to 871

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  Total All Specialties

  78

  81

  81

  81

  82

  Surgical Specialties

  ENT surgery

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  General surgery

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Ophthalmology

  3

  3

  3

  3

  2

  Orthopaedic surgery

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Urology

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Accident and Emergency

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Anaesthetics

  11

  13

  12

  12

  12

  Communicable diseases

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Dermatology

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  General medicine

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Geriatric medicine

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  Medical paediatrics

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Respiratory medicine

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Dental Specialties

  Orthodontics and paediatric dentistry

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Psychiatric Specialties

  Child and adolescent Psychiatry

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Mental handicap

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Mental illness

  12

  12

  12

  10

  11

  Laboratory and Support Specialties

  Haematology

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Microbiology

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Pathology

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Radiodiagnosis

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  1 Provisional data.

  Scottish Islands (Agricultural Development)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in finalising the details of the agricultural development programme for the Scottish islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's proposals for an agricultural development programme for the Scottish

  Nurses (Fife)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nurses have resigned or retired from the service of Fife health board in the last five years for which information is available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Hospital Consultants (Fife)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by specialty the number of consultants employed by Fife health board in the last five years for which information is available; and the number of vacancies currently in such posts.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of consultants employed by Fife health board for 1983–87 is shown in the table. Information on consultant vacancies is not available centrally.

  islands were formally approved by the European Commission on 8 March. The regulations to bring the programme into effect from 5 April have been laid today.

  Recidivism
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons in Scotland who were granted parole in 1985 and 1986 whose original offence involved
  519
  violence, sexual assault or robbery were sentenced again (a) during the period of their parole licence or (b) within 12 months of the expiration of that licence.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 March 1988, c. 146]: Information on the numbers of persons convicted within 12 months of their parole licence expiring are not collected centrally; the other information requested could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  However, figures for the number of persons released on parole or life licence reported for breaches of licence conditions and issued with recall orders are given in the annual reports of the Parole Board for Scotland (copies of which are available in the Library). Persons reported for breach of parole or life licence conditions and persons issued with a recall order were not necessarily released on parole or life licence in the same year.

PRIME MINISTER

  War Widows
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government are now in a position to remove the differences which currently exist between the pension entitlements of pre-1973 and post-1973 war widows.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty's Government expect to remove the differences which currently exist between the pension entitlements of pre-1973 and post-1973 war widows.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty's Government expect to remove the differences which currently exist between the pension entitlements of pre-1973 and post-1973 war widows.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will undertake a review of provision for pre-1973 war widows.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) on 7 March 1988, at column 19, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 10 March, at column 518.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any estimate of the number of pre-1973 war widows.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 1 March 1988, at column 550.

  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty's Government have received on the differences which currently exist between the pension entitlements of pre-1973 war widows.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty's Government have received on the differences which currently exist between the pension entitlements of pre-1973 and post-1973 war widows.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty's Government have 520
  received on the differences which currently exist between the pension entitlements of pre-1973 and post-1973 war widows.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty's Government have received on the differences which currently exist between the pension entitlements of pre-1973 and post-1973 war widows.

  The Prime Minister
  Numerous representations have been received in recent years about the comparative positions of pre-1973 and post-1973 war widows.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received concerning the situation of pre-1973 war widows.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of letters in the past year.

  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans for a meeting with representatives of the British War Widows and Associates.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister when she last had a meeting with representatives of the British War Widows and Associates.

  The Prime Minister
  I have not held such a meeting and I have no plans to do so.

  Weymouth and Portland
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to visit Weymouth and Portland.

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

  Engagements
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will commission a report on the present disposal method for domestic refuse in East Antrim, future land fill operations and alternatives to present procedures, including the possible use of waste-derived fuels.
  521
  Mr. Needham
  No. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 17 November 1987 at columns 531–32.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial assistance is available to district councils in East Antrim for carrying out a research and feasibility study into alternative methods of waste disposal in conjunction with a local university department.

  Mr. Needham
  None. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 17 November 1987, at columns 531–32.

  Heavy Industry
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which constituency outside Belfast has the highest concentration of heavy industry in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  Results from the 1984 census of employment show that, outside Belfast, the parliamentary constituency of Antrim, East had the highest total number of employees in the following industries:

  Energy and water supply industries.

  Extraction of minerals and ores (other than fuels); manufacture of metals, mineral products and chemicals.

  Metal goods, engineering and vehicle industries

  Construction industries.

  Larne and Carrickfergus
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish details of the number of ships which entered(a) Larne and (b) Carrickfergus ports during 1987.

  Mr. Viggers
  During 1987 there were 5,107 ship visits to Larne and some 250 to Carrickfergus.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many passengers travelled through Larne port in 1987;

  (2) how many (a) commercial vehicles and (b) cars and caravans passed through Larne harbour in 1987;

  (3) what is the estimated number of vehicles entering and leaving Larne harbour annually;

  (4) how many persons are estimated to have been at Larne harbour meeting or leaving passengers during 1987.

  Mr. Viggers
  The information requested is as follows:

  Shipping traffic through Larne harbour in 1987

  Numbers

  Inwards

  Outwards

  Total

  Passengers

  737,665

  722,072

  1,459,737

  Vehicles

  326,944

  287,562

  614,506

  (a) Commercial vehicles

  160,942

  147,804

  308,746

  (b) Cars and caravans

  166,002

  139,758

  305,760

  1. The table gives the numbers of vehicles carried on ships. No figures are available for the numbers of vehicles which enter and leave the Larne harbour area.

  2. There are no estimates available of the numbers of persons meeting or leaving passengers at Larne harbour.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what tonnage of cargo passed through(a) Larne harbour and (b) Carrickfergus harbour in 1987; and what tonnage of cargo was handled at Ballylumford, Magheramorne and Kilroot in 1987.

  Mr. Viggers
  The information requested is as follows:522

  Total tonnage of goods in 1987

  Tonnes

  Larne

  3,743,268

  Carrickfergus

  309,970

  Ballylumford

  785,840

  Magheramorne

  298,123

  Figures for Kilroot are not available for publication. The figures exclude the tare weights of containers.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are(a) employed and (b) unemployed in east Antrim; and what percentage of the total unemployed in Northern Ireland (b) represents.

  Mr. Viggers
  On the basis of the most recent information available, there were in 1984 an estimated 22,050 employees in employment in the parliamentary constituency of Antrim, East.

  At 11 February 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the Antrim, East parliamentary constituency was 6,056. This represented 5 per cent. of the total number of unemployed in Northern Ireland at that date.

  Accidents at Work
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many accidents at work have been reported in each year since 1979 in east Antrim.

  Mr. Viggers
  The information sought is not available.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish, by recipient organisation or body, allocations from the European social fund made to projects in Northern Ireland during 1987.

  Mr. Viggers
  In Northern Ireland the beneficiaries of European social fund aid during the calendar year 1987 were as follows:

  Organisation

  Allocation

  £

  Department of Economic Development

  49,883,189

  Department of Health and Social Services

  1,573,300

  Department of Education

  1,013,245

  Northern Ireland Council for Orthopaedic Development

  44,329

  Short Bros plc

  815,284

  Harland and Wolff plc

  682,828

  University of Ulster

  595,329

  Northern Ireland Small Business Institute

  74,894

  Inner City Trust

  80,294

  Derry Film and Video Collective Co. Ltd.

  27,703

  Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO)

  131,153

  Extern Organisation

  61,111

  Dismas House

  25,484

  Nante Ltd.

  53,559

  Churches, Voluntary Work Bureau

  32,628

  Industrial Therapy Organisation

  416,515

  Northern Ireland Electricity

  915,778

  Northern Ireland Training Authority

  2,191,356

  Sea Fish Authority

  17,411

  Hyster

  50,550

  LEDU

  143,850

  Bryson House

  127,425

  Total

  58,957,215

  Companies
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the total number of non-British owned companies operating in Northern Ireland and the total number of(a) British citizens, (b) non-British citizens other than Irish Republic and (c) citizens of the Irish Republic working for them.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 14 March 1988]: There is no requirement on shareholders or EC nationals who are employees of companies operating in the United Kingdom to disclose their nationality and so the information requested is not available.

  Farmland
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what has been the average price paid per acre in Northern Ireland for hill farmland and for hill grazing land in the last year for which figures are available; and what were the sums paid five and 10 years ago;

  (2) what has been the average price paid per acre in Northern Ireland for arable farmland without buildings in the last year for which figures are available; and what were the sums paid five and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 14 March 1988]: Statistical information on sales of agricultural land in Northern Ireland is not available in the detail requested. The average price paid for all farmland sold in Northern Ireland in the year ending June 1987 was £1,310 per acre. The average prices paid in 1981 and 1976 were £1,172 and £563 per acre, respectively.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the training schemes currently available in the Province and the total number of those engaged in them in the age groups 18 to 25 years, 25 to 40 years and 40 to 65 years.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 8 March 1988]: The available information is as follows:

  Scheme

  18 to 24 years

  25 to 39 years

  40 to 65 years

  Training Centres

  432

  250

  124

  Attachment Training

  476

  135

  37

  Skill Training Scheme

  850

  —

  —

  (entrants)

  Sandwich Course Grant Scheme

  155

  —

  —

  Job Training Programme (pilot)

  122

  14

  —

  Junior Management Development Scheme

  43

  13

  —

  Industrial Scholarship Scheme

  65

  —

  —

  European Export Marketing Programme

  6

  3

  —

  USA Export Marketing Programme

  4

  1

  —

  Graduate Attachment Programme

  30

  —

  —

  New Enterprise Programme

  11

  —

  1

  Management Extension Programme

  —

  4

  5

  Training Employers Premises Scheme

  1,993

  1,788

  1—

  Manpower Training Scheme (pilot)

  —

  —

  2—

  1 The figures given represent the number of employees for whom claims have been made in the current financial year to January 1988.

  524
  It is not possible to state how many are currently on the scheme. Information is available only in two categories, those aged under 25 years and 25 years and over. A further breakdown of the latter category could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  2 This is a discretionary scheme negotiated with individual companies. There are currently 14 companies benefiting from the scheme. Information in the form requested regarding employee participation is not presently available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Aidan McAnespie
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the police officer from the Irish Republic investigating the death of Aidan McAnespie has asked the pathologist or the Royal Ulster Constabulary to be allowed to examine Mr. McAnespie's clothing or the photographs of the body.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 10 March 1988]: No.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Maritime Dumping
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is taken to ensure that the control of maritime dumping from vessels is strictly enforced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Maritime dumping from vessels is controlled by the licensing provisions of part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 administered by my Department. Licences for disposal of industrial waste, sewage sludge and dredged spoil are not issued unless careful scientific examination shows the operation in question to be acceptable in terms of its impact on the marine environment, the living resources that it supports and human health, and unless it conforms to the relevant international conventions. The practical availability of alternative methods of dealing with the wastes is also taken into account.

  Departmental scientific staff and officers of my Sea Fisheries Inspectorate carry out inspections to enforce the provisions of the 1985 Act. Checks, often unannounced, are made of licensed disposal operations from the point of production to deposit in the sea. Investigations are mounted into allegations of unauthorised disposals. The Ministry's surveillance aircraft are also used for enforcement purposes.

  Responsibility for the deposit of sewage and rubbish originating on a vessel rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Fishing Grounds (Contamination)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what environmental impact analysis has been made by his Department of a possible accident in the English channel involving the crash of an aircraft carrying plutonium to or from Sellafield; and what assessment has been made of any potential contamination of fishing grounds.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 14 March 1988]: I understand that 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, and therefore the question of contamination of fishing grounds would not arise.

  Radioactivity (Skipton)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library the results of the surveys of deposition of radioactivity in the Skipton area of Yorkshire following the Chernobyl fallout.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 14 March 1988]: I am placing in the Library of the House copies of the report of the surveys which were carried out by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (ITE). This report was produced by ITE after full evaluation of the project had been completed; the detailed deposition information was available to my officials at the time the individual surveys were undertaken. The results of our own monitoring in north Yorkshire has already been placed in the Library. The ITE is engaged on my behalf in a further study of radio-caesium deposition in north Yorkshire; when it is completed, I will place that report in the Library.

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has received concerning the effects on the nutritional value of food of the use of irradiation; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action he intends to take to ensure that the nutritutional value of food is not reduced because of the use of irradiation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 14 March 1988]: Both international expert committees and the United Kingdom Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods have advised that the irradiation of food up to an overall dose of 10 kilo gray presents no toxological hazard and introduces no special nutritional or microbiological problems. This view was reaffirmed by ACINF in its further advice to Ministers given after considering the technical representations made during consultation. As part of its ACINF has recommended that the pattern and extent of use of food irradiation should be monitored, and new nutritional data on irradiated foods kept under review.

  The need to monitor the effects of irradiated food is one of the factors that will be taken into account as part of the further work, referred to in the reply given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 4 March at column 762, now being carried out to examine the scope and format of controls necessary to enable the phased introduction of food irradiation in this country.

DEFENCE

  War Widows
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what benefits are paid by his Department to widows of service men killed in world war 2.

  Mr. Freeman
  All widows who lost their husbands in action in world war 2 receive a war widow's pension from the Department of Health and Social Security. Additional pensions are paid by the Ministry of Defence to the 526
  widows of warrant officers class I and equivalents and to the widows of commissioned officers, where certain qualifications were met, including the completion by the husband of the appropriate minimum period of qualifying service.

  Carrasco International Airport (Emergency Landing)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the emergency landing of a Hercules C-130 at Carrasco international airport and the subsequent discussions and decision about where it would be allowed to fly.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which a Hercules aircraft carrying materials for Exercise Fire Focus in the Falklands was forced to land in Montevideo, Uruguay, on 9 March; when he expects the aircraft to resume its journey; and if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Government of Uruguay.

  Mr. Stewart
  On 8 March a Hercules C-130 was on a routine flight from Ascension Island to the Falklands. It was only 85 nautical miles north of Mount Pleasant airport (MPA) when the latest report of rapidly changing weather conditions at MPA indicated a very powerful cross-wind, well beyond the aircraft's limit for landing. At this stage the aircraft had insufficient fuel to return to Ascension Island or to rendezvous with a tanker aircraft from Ascension, whilst tankers at MPA were unable to take off because of the wind. An emergency diversion to the South American mainland was therefore essential and landing clearance was given by Carrasco (Montevideo's international airport) where the aircraft landed early on 9 March (British time). It landed on three engines because of a propellor malfunction, which was rectified by the crew in situ. Clearance for the aircraft to depart was sought and given by the Uruguayan authorities on 9 March. The aircraft left Carrasco the following day, after the crew had rested and the aircraft had been refuelled. At Uruguayan request the aircraft returned to Ascension Island.

  We are most grateful to the Uruguayan authorities for their humanitarian assistance in this matter.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Education Reform
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on financial delegation to schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  We have received a range of representations on our proposals for financial delegation to schools.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science upon what dates(a) the consultative documents on the Education Reform Bill were despatched to Devon county council and (b) replies were required; and what is his practice regarding the minimum time for a local authority to distribute, consider, discuss and provide reasoned comment on such papers during the months of school holidays and council recesses.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Devon county council was sent copies of the consultation papers at the same time as all other local education authorities which had an interest. My right hon. Friend made it clear that comments received right up
  527
  to the introduction of legislation on 20 November 1987 would be carefully considered. I will arrange for a table showing the timing of this distribution and the dates by which replies were requested to be published in the Official Report.

  Document

  Dispatched

  Replies requested

  Changes in Higher Education:

  Polytechnics and colleges sector

  10 April

  30 June

  Changes in Higher Education:

  Contracts

  8 May

  30 June

  Collective Worship

  7 July

  11 September

  More open enrolment

  9 July

  16 September

  Financial delegation to schools

  20 July

  16 September

  Grant Maintained Schools

  24 July

  30 September

  National Curriculum 5–16

  24 July

  30 September

  Maintained Further Education:

  Financing, Governance and Law

  7 August

  9 October

  Charges for school activities

  2 October

  30 November

  Accounting and auditing in Higher Education

  20 October

  30 November

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about his proposals to encourage parental involvement in education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research his Department has carried out into the willingness of parent-governors to accept their increased responsibilities under the Education Reform Bill.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for making parents aware of the role they will have in the running of schools under the Education Reform Bill.

  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what initiatives he intends to take to encourage further parental involvement within education, following the extended role given to them in the Education Reform Bill.

  Mr. Dunn
  A number of responses to the consultation documents issued last year included comments upon parents' increased involvement in and influence upon their children's education. We intend to give greater publicity to the changing role of parents and of school governors, so that they will be able to make full use of the new opportunities offered to them. A free booklet was issued by the Department last December to explain to parents, governors and others the changes proposed in the Education Reform Bill. Last week, the Department published two further leaflets. The first encourages parents and others to become school governors. The second leaflet outlines the changes in school governors' responsibilities already introduced as a result of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, and now proposed in the Education Reform Bill.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the opting-out of schools from county education authorities.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has now received on his proposals for schools to opt out of local education authority control.
  528
  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has received approximately 950 responses to his consultation paper on grant-maintained schools, of which 27 came from local education authorities in county areas.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further representations he has received on the Education Reform Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Since the beginning of the year my Department has received about 2,750 representations concerning the Education Reform Bill.

  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received concerning assessment testing of children aged seven, 11 and 14 years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  More than 100 representations have been received since the publication of the report of the task group on assessment and testing on 12 January. As with the large number of responses to the Government's consultation document on the national curriculum last year, many of the representations have expressed a variety of views about the place of assessment and testing.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received from Scottish universities concerning the Education Reform Bill.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the Association of University Teachers in Scotland and university principals and governing bodies concerning the Education Reform Bill; and what was his response.

  Mr. Jackson
  We have received many representations from universities about the provisions of the Education Reform Bill, including some from Scotland. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State met representatives of the AUT (Scotland) on 1 March to discuss the Bill's academic tenure provisions. The Government have taken appropriate account of all representations in carrying the Bill forward.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received seeking further details on the proposed foundation subjects in secondary schools in the Education Reform Bill.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) on 19 January at columns 616–7.

  Teachers (Shortage)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to discuss with the Universities Council for the Education of Teachers problems caused by teacher shortages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My officials have regular meetings with the Universities Council for the Education of Teachers at which they discuss teacher shortages and recruitment to initial teacher training. The most recent such meeting took
  529
  place last Thursday. The latest figures for overall applications for initial teacher training this year are up almost 3 per cent. over the same period in 1987.

  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to meet the Universities Council for the Education of Teachers to discuss teacher shortages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish).

  School of Physiotherapy, Coventry
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations his Department has received about the educational effects of the proposed closure of the School of Physiotherapy, Coventry, and its relations with Coventry polytechnic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  None. The working group which envisaged the discontinuation of physiotherapy training at Coventry polytechnic was established by the West Midlands regional health authority. I understand that the authority has yet to consider the working group's report.

  Scottish Universities (Vice-Chancellors)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the vice-chancellors of the Scottish universities.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the vice-chancellors of the Scottish universities; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the vice-chancellors of the Scottish universities; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  My right hon. Friend meets the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals from time to time and addressed its conference on 30 October. He has not met the Scottish vice-chancellors as a group, though my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland did so on 4 March. I visited Edinburgh, Heriot-Watt and Stirling universities last October and will be visiting Aberdeen, Glasgow and Strathclyde shortly. A wide range of higher education matters is discussed during these meetings and visits.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many places he expects to be available at city technology colleges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is envisaged that each city technology college will provide between 750 and 1,200 places depending on the local circumstances. It is not possible to give a precise figure for the overall number of places which will be available but the target is to establish 20 such colleges.
  530
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress to date in the setting up of city technology colleges.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 1 February at column 442 Since then my right hon. Friend has announced plans for a CTC in Middlesbrough.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have now shown an interest in the establishment of city technology colleges.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 19 January at column 619.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further plans he has for introducing additional city technology colleges in parts of the United Kingdom not yet earmarked for such a college.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The list of possible locations for city technology colleges in the booklet, "A New Choice of School" was not definitive and my right hon. Friend will consider proposals to establish CTCs in other locations. The Government's first objective is to establish CTCs in England. It is for my right hon. Friends to decide if and when the programme should be extended elsewhere to other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Church Schools
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the future management of Church schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo).

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps he intends to take to encourage further business sponsorship in further and higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government welcome the growing involvement of industry in all levels of education, and continue to support initiatives to maintain and enhance the various education-industry partnerships which are vital for the country's economic well-being. Notable examples of specific initiatives jointly supported by my Department and industry include the engineering and technology programme and the manufacturing systems engineering programme, which are designed to provide an additional 6,500 graduate and postgraduate places in engineering and technology disciplines by the end of the decade; and an education support grant initiative to provide modern computer-aided engineering equipment for senior technician courses in colleges of FE. The ETP was launched in 1985 and will continue to perform a vital function for the foreseeable future. The MSE and ESG initiatives will be launched in the 1988–89 academic year. These initiatives are based on partnerships between education and industrialists. Employers participate by
  531
  providing equipment on loan or as gifts, and giving access to leading edge technology which educational institutions do not always possess; sponsoring students on relevant technician, undergraduate and postgraduate courses; and providing opportunities for students to obtain industrial and commercial experience within academic programmes.

  General Certificate of Secondary Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the general certificate of secondary education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further representations he has received concerning the GCSE examination.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with the progress of the general certificate of secondary education examination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received any representations on the funding and the organisation of the GCSE examinations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with the progress of the GCSE examination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The recently published HMI interim report on the GCSE provides reassuring evidence that the new examination is being successfully introduced. It is already leading to better teaching and learning in many classrooms across a wide range of subjects. There have been some teething problems which must be addressed but HMI considers that these are not endangering the progress already made. It is important to ensure that the first pupils to sit the examination are fairly treated, and to press on to ensure that the new exam will—as the Government intend — bring higher standards in schools and give pupils a good preparation for adult and working life.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of school leavers in the current year will have taken a GCSE in(a) science and (b) mathematics.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information on the number of school leavers in 1987ߝ88 who will have taken GCSE is not yet available. Of those who left school in the academic year 1985–86, 65·5 per cent. had attempted a science subject and 81·1 had attempted mathematics at either GCE O-level or CSE.

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

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure religious education in schools, following enactment of the Education Reform Bill.
  532
  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend and I have had a number of meetings in recent months with Church leaders and representatives about the place of religious education in the national curriculum and the quality of religious education provision. The Education Reform Bill clarifies the duty on local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers to comply with the 1944 Act provisions relating to religious education. It also proposes a procedure under which parents and others will have a right of complaint to their local education authority or to aided school governors in cases where they believe schools are failing to provide religious education in accordance with the law.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding the possible inclusion of religious education as a foundation subject within the core curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what reconsideration he has given, in the light of representations from Christian leaders and bodies, to the absence of religious education from the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from Christian leaders and bodies about the possible inclusion of religious education as a foundation subject in the national curriculum. In response to these, my right hon. Friend and I have stressed the importance we attach to maintaining the current statutory arrangements for local determination of religious education syllabuses.

  The position of religious education in the curriculum of maintained schools is secured by the relevant provisions of the 1944 Act and the Education Reform Bill strengthens these in certain respects.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he intends to take to ensure that nursery classes in primary schools are staffed as nursery and not as reception classes.

  Mr. Dunn
  None. Levels of staffing in schools are for determination by local education authorities and schools.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to impose upon local education authorities a statutory duty to provide some form of nursery education to all children of three and four years of age whose parents wish them to benefit from it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish proposals to improve pre-school provision for children.

  Mr. Dunn
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) on 19 January at column 805

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how spending on nursery education has varied since 1979 with the number of children participating.

  Mr. Dunn
  Relevant current spending on under fives pupils in maintained nursery and primary schools in
  533
  England rose by 22 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1985–86 while the number of pupils rose by 20 per cent..

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 estimated outturn

  Per cent. increase 1985–86 to 1986–87

  increase 1986–87 to 1987–88

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Schools

  8,596

  9,597

  10,633

  11·6

  10·8

  Higher and Further Education

  4,418

  4,594

  4,904

  4·0

  6·7

  Miscellaneous education services, research and administration

  826

  892

  975

  8·0

  9·3

  13,840

  15,083

  16,512

  9·0

  9·5

  These figures exclude expenditure by the research councils and related bodies.

  A-level Statistics
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the proportion of both girls and boys taking A-level mathematics, craft design and technology and physics, who have obtained grades A and B since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the proportions of

  School Leavers, England Leavers attempting or passing GCE A-level as a percentage of the 17 year old population

  Mathematics

  Physics

  Craft, design, technology and other science

  Academic year

  Percentage who had attempted subject

  Percentage who had passed subject

  Percentage who had attempted subject

  Percentage who had passed subject

  Percentage who had attempted subject

  Percentage who had passed subject

  Boys

  1978–79

  8·8

  6·4

  7·5

  5·9

  1·4

  1·1

  1979–80

  8·9

  6·5

  7·4

  5·9

  1·4

  1·1

  1980–81

  8·9

  6·7

  7·7

  6·0

  1·3

  1·0

  1981–82

  9·5

  7·0

  8·1

  6·2

  1·5

  1·1

  1982–83

  9·4

  7·1

  7·8

  6·0

  1·5

  1·1

  1983–84

  9·6

  7·1

  8·0

  6·2

  1·6

  1·2

  1984–85

  9·7

  7·5

  7·8

  6·2

  1·5

  1·2

  1985–86

  9·7

  7·4

  7·6

  5·9

  1·5

  1·1

  Girls

  1978–79

  3·3

  2·4

  2·0

  1·5

  0·3

  0·2

  1979–80

  3·7

  2·8

  1·9

  1·5

  0·4

  0·3

  1980–81

  3·9

  3·0

  2·1

  1·6

  0·3

  0·2

  1981–82

  4·3

  3·3

  2·3

  1·7

  0·3

  0·2

  1982–83

  4·6

  3·5

  2·3

  1·8

  0·3

  0·3

  1983–84

  4·7

  3·6

  2·3

  1·8

  0·4

  0·3

  1984–85

  4·8

  3·6

  2·3

  1·7

  0·4

  0·3

  1985–86

  4·9

  3·6

  2·1

  1·7

  0·4

  0·3

  Source: School Leavers Sample Survey. Data subject to sampling error.

  Coal Mining Subsidence
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to how many schools have been subject to coal mining subsidence in the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what increase has been made in education spending in the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The table below shows the total spending on education in cash over the last three years and the related percentage increases.

  both girls and boys who took A-level mathematics, craft, design and technology and physics since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information on the proportion of girls and boys leaving school since 1979 attempting and passing A level mathematics, craft design and technology, and physics is given in the table. Information on grades is not readily available.

  School Leavers (Illiteracy)
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he proposes any further steps to reduce the level of illiteracy among school leavers; and if he will make a statement.
  535
  Mrs. Rumbold
  English is one of the core subjects in our proposed national curriculum. The introduction of attainment targets in English will raise standards of literacy by identifying pupils needing further help. A national curriculum working group on English will be established after Easter, building on the work of the Kingman committee on what children should know about language, to advise on attainment targets and the associated programmes of study for all aspects of English.

  Universities (Funding)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in connection with the funding of research in universities since June 1987.

  Mr. Jackson
  About 260 in response to the discussion document "A Strategy for the Science Base", issued by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. Representations concerning the funding of individual universities frequently also make reference to research.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the level of funding for the universities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend receives many representations bearing on university funding. As shown in table 12.1 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91" volume II (Cm 288) current provision for the universities is planned to increase by 7·9 per cent. between 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Schools (Spare Places)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made of the scope for local education authorities to make greater use of existing spare places in schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend encourages local education authorities to make the maximum use of the school accommodation available to them and, where places are surplus to requirements, to take them out of use. The Government's proposals for more open enrolment are designed to ensure that no child is refused admission to a school which has places available.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has about the financial position of students in higher education in other countries in the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Jackson
  Students in higher education in Great Britain are more dependent on maintenance grants than those in other European Community countries. But a precise comparison of financial circumstances is very difficult because of the variety of forms that student support may take. The student support review group under my chairmanship is examining the available evidence.

  Task Groups on Assessment and Testing
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will include, within the 536
  objectives of the subject working groups and the task group on assessment and testing, the elimination of sex bias; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government are clear that there is no room for sex bias in the curriculum. The remit letters to the subject working groups on science and mathematics emphasise that the curriculum should provide equal opportunities for boys and girls. In framing its advice the group has been asked specifically to consider the expectations and attitudes of girls. Other subject working groups will be similarly guided. The task group on assessment and testing has recommended ways of dealing with gender bias in the proposed assessment arrangements within the national curriculum.

  Swimming Instruction
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any proposals to increase the level of availability of swimming instruction within education authorities.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Any increase in the level of availability of swimming instruction would be a matter for local education authorities to determine. The Government's proposals for a national curriculum include physical education as one of the foundation subjects and it is envisaged that guidelines for the study would cover swimming instruction.

  Funding Councils
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to ensure that women are represented on(a) the Universities Funding Council and (b) the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin).

  School Buildings
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the state of primary school buildings.

  Mr. Dunn
  The state of repair of primary school buildings is raised from time to time in correspondence from or in meetings with hon. Members and others.

  Teachers
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to improve the professional effectiveness of teachers and the management of the teaching force.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The main instrument for this purpose is the local education in-service training grant scheme which was introduced in 1987. The coverage and structure of the scheme is reviewed annually. As to initial teacher training, the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education was established in 1984 to review all courses against new specific criteria. The council is expected to complete its scrutiny of existing courses by the end of 1989. My right hon. Friend will be considering what arrangements should thereafter be made for the approval of initial teacher training courses.
  537
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science in what way he will seek to secure the conditions of employment of teachers in grant-maintained schools which are established as a result of the Education Reform Bill.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government intend that grant maintained schools shall be subject to statutory provisions on school teachers' pay and conditions under the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 or succeeding legislation. When teachers transfer to grant maintained schools which are being set up they will retain the provisions of their previous contract of employment and the school must honour those provisions so far as is practicable.

  Research Funding
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on Government funding of academic and academically related research in France, Germany and the United Kingdom as a percentage of gross domestic product at the latest available common date.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information for 1982, the latest available common date, is contained in the following table:

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  0·38

  Germany

  0·49

  France

  0·44

  Netherlands

  0·63

  United States of America

  0·31

  Japan

  0·25

  Source: ABRC Science Policy Study No. 2—An International Comparison of Government Funding of Academic and Academically Related Research. October 1986.

  Village Schools
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for continuing the service provided by village schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  It is the responsibility of local education authorities to provide a proper service to villages and rural areas as well as to other areas. My right hon. Friend is currently supporting a number of projects, including one in Cornwall, designed to identify ways of enriching the curriculum of rural primary schools. Any proposal for the closure of a village school which comes before my right hon. Friend is considered very carefully in the light of the criteria set out in the Department's circular 3/87, which makes it clear that size alone is not a criterion for closure.

  Science Budget
  Mr. Millan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the science budget, defined as research council and associated funding, as a percentage of gross domestic product in 1964–65, 1970–71, 1974–75, 1979–80 and 1986–87, respectively.

  Mr. Jackson
  The figures are as follows:

  Percentage

  1964–65

  0·13

  1970–71

  0·20

  538

  Percentage

  1974–75

  0·17

  1979–80

  0·15

  1986–87

  0·16

  The elements that make up the science budget have changed considerably since 1964–65. The above figures should be read in the light of the following notes:

  (1) The 1964–65 science budget has been assessed as Government funding for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (dissolved by the Science and Technology Act 1965), the Agricultural Research Council (later the Agricultural and Food Research Council), the Medical Research Council, the Nature Conservancy (absorbed the following year by the newly established Natural Environment Research Council) and Grants for Science (which included grants-in-aid for both The Royal Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh). The Economic and Social Research Council (formerly the Social Science Research Council), the Natural Environment Research Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council (formerly the Science Research Council) first received Government funding in 1965–66.

  (2) Under arrangements described in Cmnd. 5046 of July 1972, £11·6 million, £20·7 million and £34·6 million were transferred in 1973–74, 1974–75 and 1975–76 respectively from the science budget to customer Departments. On 1 April 1981, £14 million was transferred back to the science budget from the health Departments.

  (3) The Royal Society of Edinburgh continued to receive a grant-in-aid from the science budget until 1972–73. Since 1984–85, the Fellowship of Engineering has received a small grant-in-aid from the science budget.

  (4) For all years shown in the table, the science budget has been deemed to exclude provision for the British Museum (Natural History) which was transferred to the Office of Arts and Libraries on 1 August 1987.

  AIDS
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what support he is giving to the Medical Research Council for research into the epidemiology of AIDS in Africa.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is for the Medical Research Council to decide its scientific priorities. I understand that the council is at present funding three projects on epidemiological research in Africa. A total of some £250K has been awarded for these studies.

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the dual use of sports facilities in schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  Comments were sought from a number of organisations on the findings of our recent study into the economics of the dual use of school sports facilities. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for sport and I will take account of these comments in the preparation of the practical guidance to which I referred in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Irvine) on 16 February at column 579.

  Teachers (Pay)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about teachers' pay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about teachers' pay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend continues to receive some representations from teachers about their pay, both directly and through hon. Members.

  Medical Research Council (Grants)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give for each year in 1980 the number of Medical Research Council project grants approved but not funded.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend understands from the Medical Research Council that the number of alpha graded research project grants awarded but unfunded since 1980 are as follows:

  Award year

  Number

  1980–81

  60

  1981–82

  66

  1982–83

  25

  1983–84

  199

  1984–85

  87

  1985–86

  90

  1986–87

  235

  "A Strategy for the Science Base"
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to reply to the Advisory Board for the Research Councils' discussion document on "A Strategy for the Science Base".

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) on 16 February 1988 at column 586.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the assessment of children for dyslexia.

  Mr. Dunn
  The assessment of children with special educational needs, including dyslexia, is a matter for local education authorities. No records are kept which would show the number of letters my right hon. Friend has received on this subject.

  University Dental Schools
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the Government's plans for funding of university dental schools.

  Mr. Jackson
  A working party set up to review dental education reported to the University Grants Committee on 25 February. The report, copies of which are available in the Library, has been sent to universities, relevant 540
  Government Departments and professional bodies for comment. A reduction of 10 per cent. in the intake to dental schools will be effected in October 1989, but no final decisions have been taken on the funding of individual schools.

  Core Curriculum
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received on the core curriculum for schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on Monday 7 March 1988. Many of the letters commenting on our national curriculum proposals have welcomed the inclusion of English, mathematics and science as core subjects.

  School Governors
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the giving of increased powers to governors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has received a range of representations about the allocation of functions to school governing bodies under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and about the proposals in the Education Reform Bill which would further increase their powers. He believes that these enhanced responsibilities will attract many parents and others in the community who would not previously have considered becoming governors.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what initiatives he is taking to encourage the training of school governors.

  Mr. Dunn
  For the last two years, the Government have been supporting the development of suitable training strategies in 10 local education authorities by means of education support grants. My right hon. Friend also announced his intention recently to give grant support to the National Association of Governors and Managers. We are discussing with the education authorities, voluntary bodies and business interests what further steps might usefully be taken at national level, drawing on the findings of a research study into existing training methods and materials, which we commissioned late in 1987.

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

  Mr. Dunn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 16 February last to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) at column 581.

  Workers' Education Association
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the Government's funding plans for the Workers' Education Association for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the future funding of the Workers' Education Association; and if he will make a statement.
  541
  Mr. Dunn
  We are not yet in a position to announce future grants to the Workers' Educational Association districts. These will be determined in the light of the resources available and the Government's priorities.

  In the current Session, three letters about the association have been received from hon. Members. Additionally, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, received a request for a meeting from the association's national executive to discuss the work of the WEA and the funding arrangements.

  Officials from the Department are currently discussing the future of the association with its representatives.

  Student Finance
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to complete his review of student finance; and if he will make a statement.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to complete his review of student finance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer my right hon. Friend gave earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) and for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern).

  School Closures
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what weight he attaches to parental choice in deciding upon school closures; how he applied this criterion specifically in the case of the closure of the Pilgrim school, Bedford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Secretary of State's policy in respect of parental choice in the context of school reorganisation proposals is set out in DES circular 3/87. There was a substantial volume of representations both in objection to and support of the LEAs proposals in respect of Pilgrim school, and my right hon. Friend took account of this with other relevant facts and arguments in reaching his decision.

  Japanese Language
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students graduate each year from United Kingdom institutions of higher education with degrees in Japanese; what priority he attaches to developing the study of Japanese language and society; and what plans he has to encourage such study.

  Mr. Jackson
  Twenty students with degrees in Japanese as a single subject graduated from universities in Great Britain in 1986. The Government recognise the importance of Japanese studies. These fell within the scope of the review of Asian and African languages and area studies conducted by Sir Peter Parker in 1985–86. The University Grants Committee has accepted, and is now implementing, the recommendations of the Parker report.

  Inner London Education
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans for taking into consideration the wishes of London parents regarding the existence of a single education authority in inner 542
  London; whether he intends to review his decision not to grant financial assistance for the ballot to be conducted by the Electoral Reform Society; and whether he will make a statement about the means available to London parents to influence the Government's proposals for education in London.

  Mr. Dunn
  It would not be appropriate for the Government to fund a ballot on a constitutional matter such as this, affecting the organisation of local government. The decision on the Government's proposals must be for Parliament, taking account not only of the views of parents but also those of other ratepayers who share the bill for education. Local people, including parents, will have an opportunity to influence and comment on boroughs' development plans for their education service from 1990.

  Education Resources
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to make sure existing resources in education are used more effectively.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Our policies for education, incuding the measures set out in the Education Reform Bill, are designed to ensure that we secure the best possible return from the very substantial resources invested in the education service. The implementation of those policies will lead to an improvement in standards and to the more effective use of resources.

  Capital Expenditure (Inner Cities)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of the total amount of capital expenditure bids made by inner city local education authorities was given in capital allocations in 1987.

  Mr. Dunn
  There is no precise definition of inner city to enable local education authorities to be described in this way. For all authorities I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 January to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) at columns 50–52.

  Academic Year
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals there are to alter the present academic year.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Government have no such plans.

  Inner London Education Authority (Abolition)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

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

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received since he announced his decision to abolish the Inner London education authority; and if he will make a statement.
  543
  Mr. Dunn
  We have received some 800 letters from hon. Members, organisations and individual members of the public about the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend on 4 February. Many of these are concerned with the future arrangements for particular aspects of the education service in inner London.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for intervening where a local education authority is acting improperly in its role of providing the best education service possible for the people who live within the area of that local education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  Local education authorities have the responsibility of providing efficient education for the areas they serve. Under sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944 my right hon. Friend may intervene where he is satisfied that an authority has acted or is proposing to act unreasonably in respect of any duty under the Education Acts or where he is satisfied that it is in default of such a duty, and may then make such directions as appear to him to be expedient.

  Headmasters
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for increasing the training and administrative support of headmasters, in the light of their enhanced role under the Education Reform Bill.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government support training in management for head teachers and other senior staff in schools with specific grant under the LEA training grant scheme. Grant at 70 per cent. will be payable in 1988–89 on £4·3 million of LEA expenditure. The Government are also providing grant in support of the production of various training materials and are consulting a range of organisations on the possibility of further measures to enhance management training for heads.

  Universities (Central Funding)
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what increases he has made in the central funding of universities in the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is provided in table 12.1 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91" Volumn II (Cm. 288). Current provision for the universities increased by 10·5 per cent. from 1986–87 to 1987–88 and by 7·9 per cent. from 1987–88 to 1988–89.

  Students (Rates Compensation)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to compensate students who from April will have to pay 20 per cent. of their rates for the first time.

  Mr. Jackson
  There will be no addition to student grants in respect of liability for rates in the current academic year. Changes in the housing benefit system, which will apply to all categories of claimant from April this year, were among the factors taken into account in 544
  determining grant levels for 1988–89 and will be considered in coming to decisions about future levels of student support.

  Polytechnics
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further plans he has for increasing the role of the polytechnics in higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Education Reform Bill, now before Parliament, provides for the 29 English polytechnics to be re-established as free-standing corporate bodies outside local authority control and under contract to a new Polytechnic and Colleges Funding Council. This reform will enable the polytechnics to develop further their role as national providers of high quality vocational courses of higher education and promote better management and closer ties with industry.

  Science and Technology
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how he intends to increase further the emphasis on science and technology in schools and the relevance of education to the job market.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Education Reform Bill proposes that science should be a core subject, and technology a foundation subject, in the national curriculum. My Department supports the many organisations which aim to increase the links between school and industry, and it is actively promoting the development of a coherent programme of careers education and guidance in schools.

  Education Budgets
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for ensuring that local authorities maximise the percentage of their education budgets which are devoted directly to pupils and equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Provision for local authority spending on education is mainly channelled through block grant which is unhypothecated. The Government's plans identify particular levels of expenditure on areas of education provision and it is for the individual local authorities to decide on their own priorities to be met from within the resources available to them. However, education support grants are allocated for specific purposes, including the provision of books and equipment for the GCSE, and must be used for the prescribed purpose.

  Geffrye Museum
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements are being made to secure the future of the Geffrye museum.

  Mr. Dunn
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) assured the House on 17 February at column 1069, the Government are considering the most appropriate arrangements for securing the future of the Geffrye museum.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  NHS Facilities (Usage Rate)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has regarding the relative usage of National Health Service facilities amongst different age groups of the United Kingdom population.

  Mrs. Currie
  The following information is for England. Information about the rest of the United Kingdom is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

  The following is a list of the NHS facilities in England for which statistics are collected centrally and which show some age breakdown of the patients:

  NHS hospital in-patient or day-patient treatment;

  Residents of NHS mental handicap hospitals and units;

  Residents of NHS mental illness hospitals and units;

  Treatment at genito-urinary medicine clinics;

  Smear tests for cervical cancer;

  Chiropody services;*

  Home Nursing Services;*

  Family Planning Services;

  School health services;

  Vaccinations and immunisation;

  General and community dental services*.

  In addition, the results of the general household survey provide information with an age breakdown on GP consultations, visits to a dentist, and NHS and private hospital treatment.

  Information on items marked with an asterisk is published annually in "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England": other information is provided in the annual report of the chief medical officer of the DHSS, and a number of statistical booklets and bulletins. Copies of all these documents are available in the Library.

  Special Hospital Patients
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to his answer of 16 February to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire,Official Report, columns 555–56, he will provide the same information as to how many patients were residing in each special hospital who no longer required a secure environment, due to an inability to relocate them in National Health Service or local authority accommodation, at 4 January of each year since 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  The information provided in my reply to the hon. Member on 16 February at columns 555–56 was derived from current records. I regret that information for earlier periods is not held.

  Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing in rank order the absolute and percentage increase in spending for each district health authority since 1983.
  546
  Mr. Newton
  I have placed in the Library tables giving the information requested derived from the annual accounts of district health authorities for 1982–83 and 1986–87 (the latest year available).

  Health Expenditure
  Dr. Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing expenditure per head in(a) London and (b) the rest of England on (i) general hospital expenditure, (ii) community health services and (iii) psychiatric hospitals.

  Mr. Newton
  Per capita figures based on total populations of the district health authorities covering the area of the former Greater London council and in England as a whole are shown in the table.

  Revenue expenditure—Per capita 1986–87

  Total hospital1 services

  Psychiatric2 hospitals

  Community health services

  £

  £

  £

  London

  236

  27

  27

  Rest of England

  160

  17

  21

  England total3

  175

  19

  22

  1 The figures for expenditure on total hospital services cover spending on all categories of hospital including "Mental Illness".

  2 The figures for expenditure on psychiatric hospitals comprise those classified as "Mental Illness". These figures neither include expenditure on the growing volume of activity in psychiatric units in general hospitals and within community health services etc. nor expenditure on hospitals classified as "Mental Handicap".

  3 Relevant expenditure recorded in the accounts of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals is recorded in the England total figures only. Such expenditure cannot strictly be attributed to London or to particular health regions.

  Note: The population figures used make no allowance for people resident in particular districts who receive treatment in others or for differences in morbidity and age/sex structure of particular populations.

  Sources:

  (a) Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities in England.

  (b) Costing returns for hospitals categorised "Mental Illness".

  (c) Mid-year estimates of population 1986 (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys).

  Dr. Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list for each year since 1979 expenditure per head on the hospital service in England, by regional health authority;

  (2) if he will list for each year since 1979 expenditure per head on the hospital service in England, Scotland and Wales.

  Mr. Newton
  Per capita figures based on total population of the health regions are shown in the table.

  Information about hospital services in Wales and Scotland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  547

  Revenue expenditure on hospital services—per capita

  Region

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Northern

  88

  114

  125

  136

  144

  153

  162

  173

  Yorkshire

  87

  112

  125

  132

  140

  148

  157

  167

  Trent

  80

  104

  114

  124

  132

  139

  147

  158

  East Anglian

  81

  105

  115

  123

  131

  139

  146

  156

  North-West Thames

  108

  139

  153

  150

  157

  163

  169

  178

  North-East Thames

  109

  142

  154

  179

  187

  195

  202

  214

  South-East Thames

  109

  139

  150

  159

  168

  173

  180

  187

  South-West Thames

  102

  132

  141

  146

  153

  159

  164

  174

  Wessex

  82

  104

  114

  122

  129

  138

  143

  152

  Oxford

  77

  98

  107

  113

  117

  126

  131

  137

  South-Western

  84

  107

  125

  133

  140

  146

  153

  162

  West Midlands

  84

  107

  117

  127

  134

  142

  150

  161

  Mersey

  96

  124

  136

  147

  153

  162

  170

  180

  North-Western

  92

  120

  135

  145

  153

  161

  170

  181

  All Regions

  91

  118

  129

  138

  146

  153

  160

  170

  England

  93

  121

  133

  142

  150

  157

  165

  175

  Sources:

  (a) Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities (Predecessor authorities for the years prior to 1982–83).

  (b) Mid-year estimates of population 1979 to 1986 inclusive (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys).

  Notes:

  1. The figures exclude capital expenditure and all expenditure on other health services (for example, community health, ambulance and blood transfusion services).

  2. The population figures used make no allowance for people resident in one region who receive treatment in another or for differences in morbidity and age/sex structure of particular populations.

  3. The figures for England include relevant expenditure recorded in the annual accounts of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals (Predecessor authorities for the years prior to 1982–83). Such expenditure cannot strictly be attributed to particular regions.

  Doctors (Budgets)
  Dr. Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the budget controlled each year on average by(a) general practitioners including their own time and the drugs they prescribe, and (b) hospital doctors, including their own time and the drugs they prescribe.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that the information is not available to answer the question in the terms asked.

  General medical practitioners are independent contractors and do not have budgets to control. Gross payments made to them in England in 1986–87 for the provision of general medical services were £1,131 million. The gross cost to the family practitioner services of the drugs prescribed in 1986–87 was £1,378 million.

  Determination of individual budgets within hospitals is a matter for each health authority. While medical staff are involved and clinical budgets are being developed, staff of a number of other disciplines (particularly general managers) also share responsibility for budgetary control.

  The summarised accounts of health authorities in England for 1986–87 show total revenue expenditure on hospital services as £8,255 million. This figure includes most of the total hospital and community health services expenditure on medical staff pay (£1,094 million) and on drugs (£318 million).

  Community Care
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to ensure that the findings of Sir Roy Griffiths' review of the future development of community care are made available for public debate; if he is able to name the date for publication; and if he will make a statement.
  548
  Mr. Newton
  I refer the right hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) on 8 March 1988, at column 171.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to what health authorities in England have cut back their provision for family planning clinics.

  Mr. Newton
  Tables giving the number of health authority family planning outlets and sessions provided in the last five years for which figures are available have been placed in the Library.

  Rampton Hospital
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the(a) revenue and (b) capital allocation for Rampton hospital in each year from 1982.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is as follows:

  Revenue allocation £

  Capital allocation £

  1982–83

  13,067,000

  401,000

  1983–84

  15,199,000

  664,000

  1984–85

  16,218,000

  1,731,000

  1985–86

  17,336,000

  387,000

  1986–87

  18,078,000

  542,000

  1987–88

  19,498,000

  1,250,000

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to encourage the use of the Karpas test for simultaneous testing for both HIV-1 and HIV-2; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Our policy is to have all available tests for HIV antibody evaluated so that the users can determine if they are appropriate to their needs. Officials are in contact with the supplier of this test and with suppliers of other tests with similar potential.

  Medical Practitioners
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of medical practitioners reported to him in 1987 from family practitioner committees as being in breach of their terms of service and the numbers consequently having remuneration withheld.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested. Of cases concluded in 1987, 220 general medical practitioners were found in breach of the terms of service and withholdings were directed against 75 of them.

  Dental Caries
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the potential effectiveness of a vaccine against dental caries, and if he has any plans to promote the development of such a vaccine.

  Mrs. Currie
  In 1984 the Department sought advice from the Medical Research Council on the desirability of conducting clinical trials of a dental caries vaccine following research which had been funded by the Department. The Medical Research Council advised in 1986 that there was considerable concern about the prospect of a trial in children of a vaccine of which the mode of action was incompletely understood and about

  Title

  Approximate Cost

  purpose

  £

  "New People at No. 10"

  24,000

  To help make the public more aware of the development of community care.

  "Getting Better"

  20,000

  To explain Mersey region's 10-year strategy to 42,000 health service staff.

  "Person to Person"

  25,000

  To be used with a training package designed to improve customer relations.

  "Healthy Cities"

  8,000

  To introduce politicians, local authorities, educationists, industrialists, members of the public and health professionals to the healthy cities project, Liverpool being a WHO pilot city.

  "Needle Exchange"

  5,000

  To provide information to NHS managers, other health professionals and agencies worldwide which are interested in establishing needle exchange schemes.

  We welcome the authority's commitment to explaining its policies to staff and the public. The region has recouped more than £80,000 so far from video sales to other health authorities, social services departments and other organisations.

  If my hon. Friend requires further details he may care to contact the chairman of the Mersey regional health authority.
  550
  which there were doubts relating to both safety and efficacy. The MRC concluded that more laboratory, field and clinical work would be necessary preliminary to any trial. The council advised that a clinical trial of dental caries vaccine in children in the United Kingdom was not appropriate at that time, nor was this situation likely to change rapidly, and that as the incidence of caries in the United Kingdom is falling the value of a vaccine in the future may be reduced.

  In the light of this advice the Department ceased to fund research into the vaccine on 31 July 1987.

  Single Payments
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of claimants received a single payment in 1986–87, 1985–86 and 1984–85; and what was the average value of those payments.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret the information is not available in the precise form requested. Data are available from annual statistical inquiries only as follows:

  Percentage of claimants receiving single payments

  Average payment (£)

  December 1984

  20

  173

  February 1986

  24

  187

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiries.

  Note: The information relates to single payments made in the 12 months preceding the annual statistical inquiry to claimants in receipt of benefit at the time of the inquiry. As a result, it does not record all the single payments made in the year.

  Mersey RHA
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the purpose of the recent video commissioned by the Mersey regional health authority; what it cost to produce; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that the Mersey regional health authority has commissioned five videos in the last three years, as follows:

  NHS (RCN Representations)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has had from the Royal College of Nursing on the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.
  551
  Mr. Newton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has received no representations since he met representatives of the Royal College of Nursing on 1 February.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will show, for each local authority in England, and the aggregate for the country, for each year from 1978–79 to 1986–87(a) the number of whole-time equivalent home helps and the number per 1,000 population aged 75 years and over, and per 1,000 population aged 85 years and over, (b) the number of meals provided and the number per 1,000 population aged 75 years and over and per 1,000 population aged 85 years and over, (c) the number of home help hours provided per 1,000 population aged 75 years and over and per 1,000 population aged 85 years and over, (d) the number of whole-time equivalent social workers employed by social services departments per 1,000 population and (e) the number of day centre places per 1,000 population aged 75 years and over and per 1,000 population aged 85 years and over.

  Mr. Newton
  The table gives the information requested for the total provision in England of social workers, and the ratio per 1,000 population. It is not possible to give meaningful figures for home helps, home help hours, and meals per 1,000 population in particular age groups, since the proportion of the service provided which goes to these age groups is unknown.

  Information collected centrally on staff of social services departments and personal social services activities for each local authority is published on an annual basis in:

  i. Staff of Local Authority Social Services Departments (S/F 1)

  ii. Domiciliary Services — Meals, Aids and Adaptations (A/F 18)

  iii. Adult training centres for Mentally Handicapped People and Day Centres for Mentally Ill, Elderly and Younger Physically Handicapped People (A/F 8).

  Information collected by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy for each local authority is published annually in "Personal Social Services Statistics, Actuals".

  Copies of all these publications are available in the Library.

  Number of field social work staff (expressed as whole-time equivalent) and rate per thousand population, 1978–1986.

  As at 30 September

  Whole time equivalent (thousands)

  Number (wte) per thousand population (all ages)

  1987

  22·2

  0·48

  1979

  22·7

  0·49

  1980

  23·0

  0·49

  1981

  23·0

  0·49

  1982

  23·0

  0·49

  1983

  23·7

  0·51

  1984

  24·3

  0·52

  1985

  24·8

  0·53

  11986

  25·9

  0·55

  1 provisional

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will show, for each district health authority in England, and the aggregate for the country,552
  for each year from 1978–79 to 1986–87 (i) the number of whole-time equivalent district nurses per 1,000 population aged 75 years and over and per 1,000 population aged 85 years and over, and (ii) the number of whole-time equivalent chiropodists employed per 1,000 population aged 75 years and over and per 1,000 population aged 85 years and over.

  Mr. Newton
  It is not meaningful to provide the ratios of staff to population in specific age groups as the staff provide care to patients of all ages.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the most recent information available to him on what proportion of elderly persons resident in the community are(a) housebound, (b) bedfast, (c) unable to negotiate stairs independently, (d) unable to bath or shower or wash all over alone, or (e) unable to go to the toilet unaided.

  Mrs. Currie
  The most recent information available is from the 1985 general household survey.

  Among those aged 65 and over included in the sample interviewed for the survey:

  (a) 8·0 per cent. were not able to go out of doors.

  (b) 1·9 per cent. needed help to get in and out of bed and 0·2 per cent. could not get in and out of bed at all.

  (c) 3·6 per cent. needed help to negotiate stairs and 5·4 per cent. could not negotiate stairs at all.

  (d) 7·3 per cent. needed help to bath, shower or wash all over and 1·3 per cent. could do none of these tasks at all.

  (e) 1·2 per cent. needed help to get to the toilet and 0·5 per cent. could not get to the toilet at all.

  The 1985 general household survey interviewed nearly 20,000 people aged 16 and over living in private households in Great Britain.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many elderly people received respite care in each local authority social service department during 1986–87.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information is not available in the form requested. The number of short-stay admissions to local authority homes during 1985–86, the latest year for which information is available, is given in table 11 of "Residential Accommodation for Elderly and for Younger Physically Handicapped People: All Residents in Local Authority, Voluntary and Private Homes Year ending 31 March 1986 England"; a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons have been discharged from long-stay mental illness and mental handicap institutions since 1978–79; and into what forms of care and in what numbers these persons have been discharged.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that I am unable to give the hon. Member the exact information requested. Information on discharges of people from mental illness and mental handicap hospitals since 1978 is given in statistical bulletins 2/2/88 ("Mental Illness Hospitals and Units in England: Results of the Mental Health Enquiry 1986") and 2/3/88 (for mental handicap hospitals and units). These bulletins are in the Library.
  553
  Table 1 of both publications gives the total numbers of discharges, and figure 6 of bulletin 2/2/88 and figure 4 of bulletin 2/3/88 show an indication of the number of people discharged after, in effect, living in the hospital. Some people may require to be readmitted depending on their circumstances.

  Central information cannot trace people out into the community after discharge from hospital, but I am placing in the Library a research register prepared by "Good Practices in Mental Health" which includes a number of studies of particular areas with relevant information.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide figures for each year from 1978–79 to 1986–87 showing(a) the numbers of mentally handicapped children leaving education, and the numbers of mentally handicapped people discharged from residential care, and (b) the corresponding trends in provision of day care services for mentally handicapped persons over the same period.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information requested at(a) is not available centrally. The following tables give information on (b).

  Table 1 Adult training centres for mentally handicapped people England 1979 to 1987

  Centres/Units

  Places

  1979

  445

  42,061

  1980

  451

  42,337

  1981

  461

  43,627

  1982

  474

  45,152

  1983

  484

  46,558

  1984

  496

  47,464

  1985

  505

  48,824

  1986

  527

  50,374

  1987

  533

  51,198

  Notes:

  1. The above includes adult training centres plus independent special needs units.

  2. All figures as at 31 March.

  Table 2 NHS day care for mentally handicapped people England 1978 to 1986

  Year

  Attendances

  1978

  295,033

  1979

  333,735

  1980

  372,678

  1981

  379,962

  1982

  379,639

  1983

  369,459

  1984

  348,719

  1985

  404,176

  1986

  453,667

  Further information on adult training centres and special needs units is published in "Adult Training Centres for Mentally Handicapped People and Day Centres for Mentally Ill, Elderly and Younger Physically Handicapped People at 31 March 1986", copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Carers (Support)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what proportion of local authority social services departments provide 24-hour, seven days a week availability of relief services to carers;
  554
  (2) what is the most recent estimate available to him of the number of carers in Britain; and what proportion of these are known to service agencies and supported in their efforts.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no reliable information at present about the number of carers. A series of questions was included in the 1985 general household survey to identify people looking after a sick, handicapped or elderly person, with the aim of providing national estimates of the number of people who are providing care of this kind. The results of the survey will be available later this year. Information about the numbers of local authorities and other agencies which provide service for carers is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the proportion of households caring for a dependent member who are in receipt of(a) home help support, (b) district nursing services, (c) social work support or (d) other services.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is not centrally available. The Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys hopes to publish later this year a report on carers based on data collected as part of the 1985 general household survey.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the numbers of households with a mentally handicapped member who receives(a) sitting services, (b) respite care or (c) holiday relief schemes.

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

  Private Residential Homes
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what evidence is collected by his Department on the adequacy of the inspection of private residential homes by local authorities; and if he will publish a summary of this information.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department's Social Services Inspectorate has carried out a study of the implementation of the Registered Homes Act 1984 by local authorities. The report was published on 14 March 1988 and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the local authorities which make further inspection visits to private residential rest homes in addition to the statutory annual visit.

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

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will rank all local authorities by net real expenditure, as indicated by personal social services, pay and prices, on personal social services for 1978–79 and 1986–87 per 1,000 population, all ages.

  Mr. Newton
  The requested information for social services departments is given in the tables. 1978–79 expenditure has been revalued to 1986–87 prices by a
  555
  national personal social services current expenditure revaluation factor. Non-metropolitan district councils, which incur only minimal expenditure on the personal social services, are excluded from the tables.

  PSS net current expenditure per 1,000 population at 1986–87 prices in ranking order

  Authority

  1978–89 spend (£000)

  Islington

  152

  Camden

  148

  City of London

  146

  Hackney

  142

  Lambeth

  141

  Tower Hamlets

  140

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  138

  Wandsworth

  136

  Southwark

  132

  Westminster

  125

  Lewisham

  114

  Kensington and Chelsea

  113

  Haringey

  103

  Manchester

  91

  Greenwich

  86

  Brent

  83

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  81

  Newham

  77

  Waltham Forest

  73

  Merton

  67

  Liverpool

  63

  Ealing

  63

  Birmingham

  61

  Bradford

  59

  Hounslow

  57

  Coventry

  57

  Salford

  57

  Sheffield

  57

  Rochdale

  57

  Sunderland

  56

  Barnet

  55

  Kingston upon Thames

  54

  Hillington

  54

  South Tyneside

  54

  Barking and Dagenham

  53

  Oldham

  53

  North Tyneside

  53

  Doncaster

  52

  Knowsley

  52

  Croydon

  52

  Wakefield

  51

  Sutton

  51

  East Sussex

  51

  Gateshead

  51

  Tameside

  51

  Wirral

  51

  Avon

  49

  Calderdale

  49

  Redbridge

  48

  Harrow

  47

  Cleveland

  46

  Bolton

  46

  Barnsley

  45

  Enfield

  45

  Nottinghamshire

  45

  Rotherham

  44

  Kirklees

  44

  Havering

  44

  Sefton

  44

  Lancashire

  43

  Bromley

  43

  Richmond upon Thames

  43

  Bury

  42

  Leeds

  42

  Bexley

  41

  St. Helens

  41

  Durham

  41

  Stockport

  41

  556

  Authority

  1978–89 spend (£000)

  Bedfordshire

  41

  Sandwell

  41

  Wolverhampton

  41

  Oxfordshire

  40

  Trafford

  40

  Northumberland

  40

  Walsall

  39

  Wigan

  39

  Dorset

  39

  Humberside

  38

  Leicestershire

  38

  Cheshire

  38

  Lincolnshire

  37

  Norfolk

  37

  Derbyshire

  37

  Northamptonshire

  35

  Cumbria

  35

  Somerset

  35

  Kent

  35

  Berkshire

  35

  West Sussex

  34

  Gloucestershire

  34

  Cambridgeshire

  34

  Hereford and Worcester

  34

  Hampshire

  34

  Devon

  33

  Wiltshire

  32

  Staffordshire

  32

  Hertfordshire

  32

  Isle of Wight

  32

  North Yorkshire

  31

  Warwickshire

  31

  Essex

  31

  Isles of Scilly

  31

  Suffolk

  30

  Cornwall

  29

  Buckinghamshire

  29

  Dudley

  29

  Surrey

  29

  Shropshire

  27

  Solihull

  26

  PSS net expenditure per 1,000 population at 1986–87 prices in ranking order

  Authority

  1986–87 spend (£000)

  City of London

  313

  Camden

  204

  Lambeth

  192

  Islington

  191

  Southwark

  176

  Westminster

  170

  Hackney

  161

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  157

  Lewisham

  151

  Haringey

  146

  Wandsworth

  135

  Brent

  133

  Greenwich

  129

  Kensington and Chelsea

  128

  Tower Hamlets

  121

  Manchester

  117

  Waltham Forest

  99

  Newham

  98

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  88

  Hounslow

  81

  Coventry

  78

  Sheffield

  77

  North Tyneside

  76

  Rochdale

  76

  Liverpool

  75

  Bradford

  74

  Merton

  71

  Hillingdon

  70

  557

  Authority

  1986–87 spend (£000)

  Ealing

  70

  Birmingham

  70

  Wolverhampton

  69

  Tameside

  67

  Kingston upon Thames

  67

  Barking and Dagenham

  63

  Knowsley

  63

  Salford

  63

  Gateshead

  62

  Harrow

  60

  Richmond upon Thames

  60

  Croydon

  60

  Leeds

  59

  South Tyneside

  59

  Sunderland

  59

  Kirklees

  59

  Enfield

  58

  Oldham

  58

  Nottinghamshire

  58

  Redbridge

  57

  Cleveland

  57

  Calderdale

  57

  Sutton

  56

  Barnet

  56

  Wirral

  55

  Derbyshire

  54

  Sandwell

  54

  St. Helens

  54

  Lancashire

  52

  Avon

  51

  Humberside

  51

  Havering

  51

  Wakefield

  51

  Bury

  50

  Bolton

  50

  Bexley

  49

  Bromley

  49

  Rotherham

  49

  Walsall

  49

  Wigan

  48

  Sefton

  47

  Stockport

  47

  Northamptonshire

  46

  Cheshire

  45

  East Sussex

  45

  Cumbria

  45

  Northumberland

  45

  Barnsley

  44

  Leicestershire

  44

  Isle of Wight

  44

  Doncaster

  44

  Trafford

  43

  Bedfordshire

  43

  Berkshire

  43

  Buckinghamshire

  42

  Solihull

  41

  Dudley

  41

  Cambridgeshire

  41

  Durham

  41

  Warwickshire

  40

  Somerset

  39

  Norfolk

  39

  Devon

  39

  Lincolnshire

  38

  Wiltshire

  38

  Essex

  38

  Kent

  38

  Oxfordshire

  38

  Cornwall

  37

  Hereford and Worcester

  37

  Hertfordshire

  37

  North Yorkshire

  37

  Staffordshire

  36

  Dorset

  36

  Isles of Scilly

  36

  Gloucestershire

  35

  558

  Authority

  1986–87 spend (£000)

  West Sussex

  35

  Hampshire

  34

  Suffolk

  32

  Shropshire

  31

  Surrey

  29

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list those local authorities which did, and those which did not, experience real expenditure increases on the personal social services of 3½ per cent. or more during 1987–88.

  Mr. Newton
  Following are the requested lists, showing relevant authorities in alphabetical order. The lists are based on a comparison of each authority's 1987–88 budgeted expenditure with actual expenditure, or estimated expenditure where actual is not available, for 1986–87. The 1986–87 figures have been revalued to 1987–88 prices by use of the gross domestic product deflator. Non-metropolitan district councils, which incur only minimal expenditure on the personal social services, are excluded from the lists.

  Authorities with PSS net current expenditure for 1987–88 more than 3·5 per cent. in real terms above 1986–87

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnet

  Barnsley

  Bedfordshire

  Berkshire

  Bexley

  Birmingham

  Bolton

  Bradford

  Buckinghamshire

  Bury

  Calderdale

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  City of London

  Cleveland

  Cornwall

  Croydon

  Cumbria

  Derbyshire

  Devon

  Doncaster

  Dorset

  Dudley

  Durham

  Ealing

  East Sussex

  Enfield

  Essex

  Gloucestershire

  Hackney

  Hampshire

  Haringey

  Havering

  Hertfordshire

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Humberside

  Isle of Wight

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kent

  Kingston upon Thames

  Kirklees

  Lancashire

  Leeds

  Leicestershire

  Lewisham

  Liverpool

  559

  Manchester

  Merton

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Newham

  North Tyneside

  North Yorkshire

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  Oldham

  Oxfordshire

  Rochdale

  Rotherham

  Salford

  Sandwell

  Sefton

  Shropshire

  Solihull

  Somerset

  South Tyneside

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  Sunderland

  Surrey

  Sutton

  Tameside

  Tower Hamlets

  Trafford

  Wakefield

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest

  Warwickshire

  West Sussex

  Wigan

  Wiltshire

  Wirral

  Wolverhampton

  Authorities with PSS net current expenditure for 1987–88 less than 3·5 per cent. in real terms above 1986–87

  Avon

  Brent

  Bromley

  Camden

  Coventry

  Gateshead

  Greenwich

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Harrow

  Hereford and Worcester

  Isles of Scilly

  Knowsley

  Lambeth

  Lincolnshire

  Norfolk

  Nottinghamshire

  Redbridge

  Richmond upon Thames

  Sheffield

  Southwark

  St. Helens

  Stockport

  Wandsworth

  Westminster

  Camberwell Resettlement Unit
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many direct access beds have been provided to replace the provision previously made at the Camberwell resettlement unit;

  (2) if all the replacement units funded under the Camberwell replacement scheme are still in existence and providing the original number of beds;

  (3) if he will itemise the type and extent of alternative provision funded under the Camberwell replacement scheme.
  560
  Mr. Portillo
  The Camberwell replacement scheme will provide a total of 929 beds, of which 108 will be situated in three hostels designed to cater for emergency admissions off the street (direct access). A further 221 second stage beds will provide a high level of care and the remaining 600 beds will cater for those needing lower levels of care.

  The 108 direct access beds to be provided by three London boroughs are not yet open. When the Camberwell resettlement unit closed in 1985, 184 beds in the Department's resettlement units were designated "direct access" to serve as an immediate replacement.

  Up to 31 December 1987, 622 beds had been provided under the Camberwell replacement scheme and all of them are still open.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the cost of running the Camberwell resettlement unit in the last three years of its existence; and what has been the cost of the replacement provision in each financial year so far.

  Mr. Portillo
  The cost of running the Camberwell resettlement unit in the last three years of its existence was:

  £ million

  1983–84

  2·0

  1984–85

  1·9

  1985–86

  1·1

  The cost of the replacement provision in each financial year so far has been:

  DHSS £ million

  DOE £ million

  Capital

  1981–82

  0·1

  0·8

  1982–83

  0·3

  2·2

  1983–84

  0·5

  5·6

  1984–85

  0·5

  4·9

  1985–86

  0·2

  1·9

  1986–87

  0·1

  Nil

  Total

  1·7

  15·4

  DHSS £

  DOE £

  Revenue

  1981–82

  Nil

  Nil

  1982–83

  4,000

  Nil

  1983–84

  32,000

  10,000

  1984–85

  114,000

  39,000

  1985–86

  210,000

  107,000

  1986–87

  359,000

  298,000

  Resettlement Units
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the future administration and management of resettlement units.

  Mr. Portillo
  All 22 DHSS resettlement units are to be closed and replaced by groups of smaller hostels, run by voluntary bodies and local authorities, but funded by the Department. That process will take some years, during which the units will continue to be run by the Department. The Department has under consideration the establishment of the units and their associated headquarters branch as a departmental agency under the initiative announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 18 February.
  561
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much has been spent, and under what headings, on the process of replacing the existing resettlement units.

  Mr. Portillo
  Capital and revenue expenditure of £229,424 and £35,218 respectively has been incurred in respect of facilities to replace the existing units. In addition, £64,452 has been spent in the review process itself, mainly on development workers but also on the review teams and the advisory steering group.

  Patients (Spending)
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the average annual expenditure per patient in each regional health authority in 1986–87.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 23 February 1988]: Regional tables showing this information by type of hospital and type of patient, with comparative figures for England, have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many National Health Service staff fall into each of the following categories:(a) medical, including doctors, dentists, nurses and technicians, (b) non-medical but providers of services, including hospital administrators, clerks, receptionists, cleaners, and (c) other.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 9 March 1988]: Information in the exact format requested is not readily available. The total number of employed staff in the
  562
  National Health Service at 30 September 1986 was 801,600. A breakdown of these staff is shown in the table. Ambulance staff have been counted in the "direct care" staff category.

  NHS directly employed staff at 30 September 1986: England

  Whole time equivalent1

  (a) "Direct care staff"2

  541,000

  (b) Total non-medical "support staff"3

  260,600

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

  1 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest 100 whole-time equivalents.

  2 Includes medical-dental including locums, nursing-midwifery including agency and professional-technical staff and ambulance staff.

  3 Includes works, maintenance, administrative-clerical, and ancillary staff.

  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the first admission to the cardiac block at Great Ormond street hospital took place; and when the block will achieve full occupation.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 14 March 1988]: Twenty four patients were admitted to the new block, which currently houses 38 children, on 29 December. Provided the current rate of nurse recruitment can be sustained, the authority expects the total capacity of 52 patients to be reached by the end of July.

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

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
Sir Robert Temple Armstrong, GCB, CVO, having been created Baron Armstrong of Ilminster, of Ashill in the County of Somerset, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Charteris of Amisfield and the Lord Hunt of Tanworth.
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Namibia: Trade Policy
2.48 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards British trade with Namibia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we continue to believe that civil trade with other countries, including Namibia, should be determined by commercial considerations.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many people in this country who disagree with the Government on this issue and that this has been shown in Liverpool over the past week by the refusal of the Transport and General Workers' Union and the seamen's union to handle uranium which has been imported by British Nuclear Fuels from Namibia? Is he also aware that British Nuclear Fuels has now admitted that a considerable proportion of the material that it handles comes from Namibia?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the fact is that the CEGB contract for the import of uranium from the Rossing mine in Namibia has expired and imports from that source have ceased. There are no plans to renew the contract, but of course this is a matter for commercial decision only.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that I visited the Rossing uranium mine and was extremely impressed by the state of affairs there, where blacks and whites are treated equally? I think it is very sad that there is no more business going on there.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is quite right. I am very interested to hear what she says.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that British Nuclear Fuels has admitted that it is importing uranium which originated in Namibia? Do the Government take the stance that in defiance of the United Nations decree they will still continue to trade with Namibia despite the fact that the World Court has declared that the South African occupation and use of the resources of Namibia are internationally illegal?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord is wrong. As I said, the CEGB's contract expired in 1984 and there are no plans for its renewal.
On the United Nations Council Decree No. 1, we do not recognise the claim of the United Nations Council for Namibia to be the legal administering authority for Namibia. We consider that the United Nations General Assembly acted beyond its competence in establishing the council. Therefore the council's Decree No. 1 does not impose any obligations on the United Kingdom.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord is evading the question. Is he not aware that officials of British Nuclear Fuels have admitted publicly that the material that they are now using originates from Namibia, irrespective of the ending of the contract? That material—uranium oxide—still comes from Namibia; and British Nuclear Fuels has said so.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of the technicalities. Perhaps he is not. BNFL processes uranium for a variety of overseas customers who are at all times the owners of that uranium. A given batch of hex—I am sure that the noble Lord will know what hex is—contains uranium from a number of countries. It is not possible to state the country of origin of any given batch and that is why hex was not included in the ban on the import of South African and Namibian uranium under the United States antiapartheid Act.
I stand on my earlier remark that the contract that the CEGB had has ended.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, since when has any organ of the United Nations power under the charter to issue decrees or to make them a factor in deciding the legality or illegality of actions of an international forum? I should like to know the answer.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the answer to my noble and learned friend is that he is absolutely right.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that what is disturbing is that the statement made by the company in no way can be corroborated by the Minister? Is that not an unsatisfactory state of affairs?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, so far as I am aware the original contract under the CEGB has expired, and I can go no further than that. Those are the facts.

European Council Document: Approval
2.53 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whose signature of approval on their behalf was made to document SN 517/88, being the overall agreement reached at the European Council on 11th-12th February 1988; whether they will state the nature and extent of the modifications made to the note from the presidency SN 461/88 in order to conform with SN 517/88 and whether they confirmed such modifications.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, document SN 461/88 contained the proposals of the presidency which were put to the Brussels European Council on 11th to 13th February. Document SN 517/88 showed the extent and nature of the amendments to SN 461/88 which were made as the result of discussion at the European Council. It is of course not the practice for such agreement to be signed by those attending the Council.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I have both documents in front of me and I have checked one against the other. It would seem that these show a very grave state of affairs. As has not been disclosed so far, the burden on the British taxpayer envisaged in Cmnd. 288-II of January was £800 million, whereas as a result of the agreement arrived at, although it was not signed, the burden on the British taxpayer will be between £1·3 billion and £1·4 billion. In those circumstances, would it not have been better for these negotiations to be taken out of the somewhat pliant hands of the Foreign Office and put into the rather more adroit and financially expert hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord is right. The main changes between the two documents—made between the draft conclusions and the conclusions as finally agreed—were that the final agreement contained, first, an agreed figure for the growth of the structural funds; secondly, a figure for the own resources ceiling—that is to say, an overall ceiling for all, including agricultural spending; thirdly, the detailed and final arrangements for the agricultural stabilisers on a more stringent basis than proposed by the presidency; and, fourthly, provision for the continuation of the United Kingdom abatement mechanism.
I think that the noble Lord has to agree that we now have a ceiling that will have to last until at least 1992. We have ensured that money for programmes—for example, the structural funds from which this country has been a major beneficiary—cannot be eaten up by agricultural spending.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the documents to which I have referred have since been superseded by a further series of documents issued by the presidency? One that is notable is No. 461/1/88, which is infinitely
1030
more detailed than the agreement arrived at. There is even a further variation that has been sent to me by the European Parliament this morning which purports to be the notes of the presidency and which is described by them as the proceedings.
Is the noble Lord aware that in spite of the more general provisions recorded in the agreement to which he has referred, which were accomplished unanimously, the agreement contains a number of provisions whereby its interpretation is to be subject to qualified majority only?
Is the noble Lord further aware—
Noble Lords: No, no!
Lord Bruce of Donington:—that on reading the document further it is quite clear that there will be no satisfactory control over Community expenditure any more than there was at Fontainebleau?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am surprised to hear the noble Lord say that, because we have insisted that all controls agreed at the European Council must be in legally binding form. Paragraph 18 of the consolidated conclusion states that quite clearly. Legally binding texts are now being prepared.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, subject to qualified majority.

"Airbase" Television Programme
2.58 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have made any representations to the BBC concerning the programme "Airbase" transmitted on BBC1 on 1st March 1988.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, responsibility for the content of programmes rests with the broadcasting authorities. The Government have not made any representations to the BBC about the programme, but I understand that a number of people, including Members of Parliament, have done so.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, is it not true that under Clause 20 of the Royal Charter of the BBC the Home Secretary has direct responsibility for ensuring that the conditions of the charter and the licence and agreement granted by the Home Secretary are observed? Has anyone in the Home Department seen this film and recommended to the Home Secretary whether or not the BBC is in breach of its charter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the matter has been investigated. We are not aware of any information which would suggest to us that the Royal Charter has been breached.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this was the most debasing and degrading programme that it is possible to imagine?

1031
When directed at a unit of the allied forces serving in this country it was really inexcusable. In the circumstances, is it not right that the Government should make some representations?
Earl Ferrers; My Lords, I quite understand the concern that my noble friend has expressed, and I accept it. Programme content is a matter for the BBC. It is not a matter for the Government to interfere in.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, do the Government agree that, if the BBC had reason to believe that the American F-111 pilots stationed in this country were a lot of junkies operating in a junkie culture, it should have informed the British authorities of those reasons; and if it had no reason to believe so, it was playing, in the most disgraceful manner, upon the natural fears of the people in suggesting, and even asserting, that it was so?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the concern which the noble Lord expresses. As I understand it, the programme was a piece of fiction and was not depicting everyday life.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that for the past 30 years there has been one of the largest American airbases near my home? During the 1960s and 1970s I used to visit it frequently and have met hundreds of American airmen of all ranks. Will be accept my assurance that, contrary to what is said in the film, they are splendid men to whom we owe a great deal for their preservation of world peace?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I accept entirely my noble friend's reflections on the United States Air Force and the way that its members have helped not only this country but NATO. It is a matter of regret if programme contents, of whatever nature, are such as to depict facts which do not occur. I repeat that as I understand it this programme was a work of fiction. I know that your Lordships will understand if I say that it is not the problem or the duty of the Government to interfere in the content of BBC programmes. If noble Lords are concerned the correct person to write to about this is the chairman of the BBC.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of this programme, is the noble Earl aware that many of us are of the opinion that Her Majesty's Government have made too many recommendations to the BBC regarding programmes and we have no wish at all for them to add to that number?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that supplementary question, but I am not quite certain whether it was helpful or unhelpful.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at this very moment that despicable programme, which sows dissent among our loyal allies and shows considerable discrimination in referring to them, is being shown on breakfast TV on
1032
the NBC network throughout America? It has a vast audience and the whole theme of the programme that is shown there is this: this is a message of how our young people are received today in Britain. Could we perhaps put out from all quarters of the Chamber that this is totally unrepresentative of the way US servicemen in this country are being received. It is despicable and I hope that high, wide and handsome apologies will be made by the BBC not only in this country but also in the United States of America.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, what the United States puts on its television screens is a matter for the United States. What is put in BBC television programmes in the United Kingdom is a matter for the BBC. The concern, which I absolutely understand and which quite rightly has been expressed in your Lordships' House today on this subject, is such that it might be helpful if I were to draw your Lordships' remarks to the attention of the chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister said that this was a work of fiction. Does he not agree that there are other works of fiction—this was a drama—which refer to all sorts of groups of people within the population? Nobody believes that such a production has any connection with reality at all and therefore it should be treated in that way.
Earl Ferrers: The problem is, my Lords, that some people considered that it was related to reality. Programme content must be a matter for others and for one's personal interpretation.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I started looking at the programme and thought that it must be fiction, although of the most deplorable kind, but as one went through it it appeared that it was directly related to the American forces serving in this country and there was no mistaking that aim. I hope that my noble friend and the Government will make some representations to the BBC.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not seek, nor is it my duty, to defend a programme which was put on by the British Broadcasting Corporation. As I said, it is not the duty of government to interfere with what is shown. However, I shall draw your Lordships' remarks to the attention of the chairman of the BBC.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the House accept that the anger that has been expressed this afternoon in the House will be reiterated in the General Advisory Council of the BBC, which meets monthly and which has a very broad representation? Fears that the BBC might be pressurised too much and fears that it might not be pressurised enough are put forward there month by month in the interests of all the people in this country.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for making that point. It is helpful to know that the BBC will be informed of both sides of the argument by that council.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of two matters that arise from his answers? The first concerns his assertion that the programme was a work of fiction. If he refers to the Radio Times in the week in which it appeared he will see an article which says that it was very close to fact indeed. On the second point which he raised—that the correct person to whom these matters should be referred is the chairman of the BBC—will he please refer to Clause 20 of the Royal Charter, which states quite distinctly that representations on matters concerning the BBC's adherence to its charter are to be made to the Secretary of State for the Home Department? I am now making that representation.
Earl Ferrers: I shall certainly take into account the representation which the noble Lord has made. With regard to the article in the Radio Times, I accept entirely that when reading it it was difficult to determine whether it was fact or fiction—the article, let alone the programme. It is an article produced by a publication of the BBC and it is not for the Government to comment upon it.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the splendid publicity awarded to this item, which I have not seen, will now result in most of your Lordships and a number of people outside this Chamber viewing it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is one of the troubles when one draws attention to something that is undesirable. Many noble Lords have expressed the view that this programme was undesirable and I should not dissent from their expressing that view. However, it is not right for the Government to bring pressure to bear upon a broadcasting authority to determine what should or should not go into its programmes.

Iran-Iraq War: UN Resolution 598
3.8 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are considering to seek to replace United Nations Resolution No. 598 concerning the Iran-Iraq war with one to contain effective arms sanctions.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is no question of replacing Security Council Resolution 598. It is a mandatory resolution whch remains in force. We are actively engaged in discussion aimed at obtaining implementation of Security Council Resolution 598. This may well require imposition of an arms embargo.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that in the circumstances of the Iran-Iraq war both the relevant chapter and the specific United Nations resolution are totally and completely useless? To say that we cannot change something just because a regulation states that we cannot means that people will continue to be killed and slain and the appalling war will continue. Ought we not to consult
1034
our senior allies to see whether something more realistic can be achieved by imposing effective arms sanctions on the participants in this appalling war?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is a fact, nevertheless, that Resolution 598 is mandatory and it is underpinned by the unity of the Five. It has been adopted unanimously; it must be obeyed and it remains the best basis for a negotiated settlement. We must therefore move to measures to enforce implementation, which is what I think the noble Lord wants us to do. We continue to play a leading part in the discussions in New York as co-ordinator of the Five on progress towards an arms embargo.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on the question of implementation, can the Minister confirm that following the visit of the Chinese Foreign Minister to this country China is prepared to impose an arms embargo on Iran? Secondly, will be give the view of Her Majesty's Government on the Soviet Union's proposals to appoint a mediator?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Lord the response of the Chinese or indeed go into detail on the discussions which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had with the Chinese Foreign Minister. I am not aware of the position at the moment on the question of a mediator. A draft document towards an arms embargo is under discussion among the Five and it has now been circulated to non-permanent members. We are awaiting further discussions. There would be no fixed timing as regards any enforcement resolution but the movement towards enforcement must be carefully prepared. I think that the noble Lord will agree that the unity of the Five and the unanimity of counsel are important objectives which would add weight to the resolution.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for giving that full reply. Can he say a little more about the discussions to which he referred? What is the form of the discussions and how long will they take?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is no short answer to the point raised by the noble Lord. Neither side can expect to continue to flout the wishes of the international community, as expressed by Security Council Resolution 598, without serious repercussions. We are trying to achieve progress towards the arms embargo, which appears to be the best way forward, and we in the United Kingdom are playing an important part in that.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that over the past few months he has quite rightly stated the Government's endeavours in trying to bring some form of arms embargo and sanctions into a reality? It appears that that will be quite impossible simply by adhering to Chapter III and to this resolution of the United Nations. There must be other nations with which our Government have had discussions in New York and which would be prepared to work with the British Government in imposing arms sanctions in order to bring an end to this horrid war.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the discussions among the Five on the now circulated document are precisely about that point. We are awaiting further opportunities for discussion and we are as keen as the noble Lord to see progress in this difficult matter. We shall continue to pursue the matter with all vigour.

The Sharpeville Six
3.13 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government, as a Private Notice Question:
What urgent action they are taking to persuade the South African Government to reprieve the Sharpeville Six due to be executed on Friday, 18th March?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, what is the Question? It does not appear on the Order Paper.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Question asks Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to persuade the South African Government to reprieve the Sharpeville Six due to be executed on Friday, 18th March.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, our normal practice is to intervene in such cases only very exceptionally where there are strong humanitarian grounds to do so. In the particular circumstances of this case Britain and other Western governments have repeatedly urged the South African Government to exercise clemency. We are continuing to do so.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I welcome that Answer to my Question. Is the noble Lord aware that people of all parties and of none will support Her Majesty's Government in any efforts that they can make at this eleventh hour to save the five men and one woman? Will he agree that, in view of the fact that the judge who tried the case on appeal stated categorically that not one of the six was personally involved with the murder but that they were charged under what is called "common purpose"—which is nothing more than being present in a crowd—to execute them on that ground would be an act of barbarity? Can the Minister expound a little further on the actions that Her Majesty's Government will take between now and Friday?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that people of all parties and of none will feel strongly about the matter. It is for that reason that we have acted as we have on humanitarian grounds and I should like to stress that fact to the noble Lord. He quoted from what he said was part of the judgment, but that is not a matter for me. We have approached and shall continue to approach the matter on humanitarian grounds.
As regards activities in the past, we have bilaterally and with our European partners made repeated calls, both public and private, for clemency on humanitarian grounds. We have also supported a
1036
statement issued by the presidency of the UN Security Council calling for the sentences to be commuted. Relatives of the six people have been received at No. 10 Downing Street and by officials within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
As regards further action that can be taken, I can only say that we have done and are continuing to do everything within our power. We have repeatedly urged clemency both bilaterally and in concert with our European partners and we also supported an appeal by the UN Security Council.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, yesterday was Commonwealth Day. Does not the Minister agree that the action of the South African Government is an affront to the Commonwealth as a whole? Is not the Commonwealth an excellent example of different communities living together in peace and harmony?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I understand the point made by the noble Lord but South Africa is no longer a member of the Commonwealth. I believe that the actions we are taking are as much as we can take and we shall continue to do so.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on these Benches strongly support the initiatives taken by Her Majesty's Government? Is he further aware that I do not wish to say anything today which may prejudice any further action which Her Majesty's Government may take to prevent this impending tragedy? However, we shall support any further initiatives taken by the Government either alone, or in concert with our Community partners or the United States of America.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his approach and for his support of the action being taken by the Government. I assure him that we shall continue to make our views known and, as always, our embassy in South Africa is continually active
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, will the Minister agree that questions of responsibility of members of a crowd for what other members of that crowd may do give rise to matters of extremely complex law? It would therefore be better not to intervene as regards the evidence but to put forward an appeal based entirely on humanitarian grounds. In those circumstances, may we on these Benches support what has been said by the Minister and put forward the general proposition that it would be uncivilised to hang six people years after an event for a matter in which, on any showing, they did not play a major part? Does the Minister recall that on many occasions his right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said that she would wish to embark upon a constructive dialogue with the President of South Africa? Might this not be a useful starting point?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for reinforcing the point that I made earlier about the importance of approaching the matter from a humanitarian and not

1037
a legal point of view. As regards dialogue with South Africa, I believe that my comments about our embassy there being active go a long way towards meeting the noble Lord's point.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that what he has said this afternoon has the full support of noble Lords on these Benches and of the SDP?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, as I am to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund Act,

Land Registration Act,

Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act,

Welsh Development Agency Act,

Social Security Act,

Keble College Oxford Act,

Selwyn College Cambridge Act,

Whitchurch Bridge Act,

Hastings Borough Council Act,

City of Westminster Act,

Liverpool Exchange Act,

Corn Exchange Act.

Licensing Bill
3.21 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Modification of permitted hours]:
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) In section 60(1)(b) of the principal Act (permitted hours in licensed premises on Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday) the words "with a break of five hours beginning at two in the afternoon" shall he omitted.")
The noble Lord said: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 together. In moving Amendment No. 1 coupled with Amendment No. 2, both of which are in my name, I recognise the Government's problem in extending to Sunday the freedom that they have given in the Bill from Monday to Saturday. I recognise their problem because I understand that when the Bill was presented in another place they indicated that on this occasion they do not want to interfere fundamentally with the
1038
general feeling expressed in previous debates as to how the matter of Sunday should be settled.
However, I feel that this is an occasion when we should reinforce how illogicial it is that on the one day when local citizens want the benefit of the extra freedom suggested in the amendment, it will be denied to them. Sunday is a family day and a day when the family moves together and often eats and congregates outside their own homes. It is perhaps the only opportunity to do that. Therefore, to be under the restriction of not being able to enjoy the full freedom of spending their Sunday in a normal, national way is illogical and unsatisfactory. Also, it goes some way to bringing the law into contempt which is bad from every point of view. Because it is illogical and because it cuts across a normal family function, it carries with it the risk of people going outside the strict terms of this legislation.
Therefore, I prefer Amendment No. 1 where the same freedom is given on Sunday as is being given from Monday to Saturday. I take that view purely on the grounds that such an extension will help the normal family function of being together and, in these days of motorcars, of driving out and eating in places other than their own homes—in other words making a day of it. However, I recognise that the Government are in some difficulty if they have indicated that they will not deal with that matter on this occasion.
Amendment No. 2 need not be included in that general understanding of the Government's position. Amendment No. 2 proposes that instead of insisting by legislation that the power to sell intoxicating liquor shall end at 2 o'clock, it should be extended to 3 o'clock. It proposes an extension of one hour. It is not a question of wanting to edge over the boundaries of the principle. It fits into the common sense of the matter. When we are passing legislation which will eventually become a statute, we must take into account the principle behind any move that we make, but we must not completely ignore the common sense practicalities that go with it. I believe that this is an occasion where, without in any way infringing on the principle of wanting to recognise the separateness of Sunday—which is the indication that the Government have given and which I have said I understand—we can achieve both; the principle and the practical.
Perhaps I may give an example and I should declare an interest. We have a small family group of hotels which would be affected by this measure. However, I believe that by declaring an interest one is really saying that one knows something of the matter as it operates on the ground and it should add to rather than detract from the force of the argument.
Last Sunday was Mothering Sunday and in our hotels on that day our restaurants were crowded because families wanted to honour their mother and to turn the occasion into a family party. That meant that the number of people who wanted to book to celebrate Mothering Sunday in our restaurants could not be fitted in during the normal opening hours of the restaurant. It meant that we had to sectionalise and some reservations were later than others in order to give our customers the satisfaction they wanted on that day. From experience I can say with some

1039
firmness that that extra hour would make all the difference in the world in dealing with an occasion such as Mothering Sunday by keeping within the law at the same time giving satisfaction to those people who want to celebrate that day which we all applaud.
Normally people go out and eat and have a drink and relax between 12 to 12.30 and 2.30 to 3.00. I believe that to say rigidly that the covers must be put on at exactly two o'clock, irrespective of the practical matters which are affected, is carrying legislation to a rather ridiculous point.
The principle that people can drink on a Sunday is conceded by the Bill itself. Under the licensing law as set out in this Bill people can drink until 2 o'clock. Therefore, the principle of whether or not they should be able to enjoy this facility is granted by the Bill. How can any Government or any group of people be so certain that the right hour to draw the line is 2 o'clock? I do not guarantee that 3 o'clock is necessarily the perfect answer but I merely say that from a practical point of view it is more likely to be a sensible one than the rigid time of 2 o'clock as laid down by the Bill.
I ask noble Lords to think of their own procedure on a Sunday. I guarantee that almost all of us have a slightly different routine on a Sunday in terms of our lunch hour and time for recreation. Everything is done later than in the week. You get up bit later, have your breakfast a bit later and you have lunch a little bit later. We know of all of those things from practical experience because that is what we do ourselves. Therefore, in moving Amendment No. 1 I hope that there may have been a change of mind and that there is a chance that the Front Bench will be able to say that they will allow Sunday to be the same as weekdays but, as I have already said I understand their problems.
On the second amendment I stand firm. I believe that this is a matter where we ought to allow commonsense to run alongside our principles, whatever they are. If the principle is that one ought not to drink at all, then to support a Bill which says that one may drink until two o'clock is in itself a nonsense. It is illogical to say that until two o'clock is the only time when the principle ought to operate and beyond that it ought not.
My appeal to the Government and to my noble friend is that, whatever they do with Amendment No. 1, I hope that on Amendment No. 2 they will recognise that nobody can be so precise as to guarantee that their principles end at two o'clock and cannot be allowed to go on for an extra hour although there are practical considerations.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, who will be speaking to his amendment in this group, produces a very different argument concerning airports. I have to say that I agree with him. The representations made to me show the difficulties in the bars at our airports, which are different from others round the world. People coming to this country find it a little ridiculous, in their eyes, that we should be so different from all the other airports.
Lord Renton: I have been listening carefully to my noble friend, but is he suggesting that it is a majority or a minority of families who visit hotels and pubs on Christmas Day, Good Friday and Sundays? Is it a majority or a minority?
3.30 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I do not know whether it is a minority or a majority, but I know that many families do. I know that enough families do that for me to say that we ought to take their views and needs into account, but I do not think there has ever been a Gallup poll upon the point. I know that in the part of the country where I have always lived, and still live, Sunday is a day when people go to the pub in a family group more than they do during the week. It is within my knowledge that our neighbours, as well as ourselves, as a family get into the motor car and travel into the country to have a drink in a country pub or go to a local hotel. It is within my knowledge that most people I know do things a little bit later on a Sunday than on a weekday, so that, where two o'clock might on a weekday fit into the normal pattern of lunch when the family is together, it is different on a Sunday.
I should not like to commit myself on whether these people form a majority or a minority, because I do not know, but I do know that enough families find this a normal way of life for me to be very disappointed if the Government on this occasion feel that they are so certain on this precise two o'clock timing that they cannot recognise the practical needs as reflected in a majority of households in this country who like a drink.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Before the noble Lord sits down—and I do not want to speak at length on this amendment because I shall speak to my own amendment—does he not agree in regard to the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that, while one may not be able to distinguish whether there is a minority or a majority of people who go out to eat on Christmas Day, Good Friday and Sundays, there is no question at all but that it is being done by increasing numbers? If one wants to go out for a meal with the family on such days one must book well in advance to get a table.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord confirms the reply that I gave to my noble friend. I do not know the precise figures. I do not think it matters. I do not believe that on every piece of legislation we pass we have to work out whether there is a majority of one in the country for or against it. Our job is to reflect the normal pattern of life of the country and to try not to obsruct it too greatly. If one is creating an obstacle to the normal pattern of life one risks bringing the law itself into contempt, because people will want to subvert it if they think that what they are doing is right.
It is for that reason that I strongly press my Amendment No. 2. However, I do understand the problems of the Government as regards Amendment No. 1. I certainly support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dean—indeed, I added my name to it—which confines itself to giving the same

1041
sort of freedom to airport bars that other countries give to theirs. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: In attaching my name to the first amendment let me say first that, although I am sympathetic to the other amendments mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, it seems to me that the key amendment is Amendment No. 1.
I do not expect on most issues in this Chamber to be on the same side as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, but I am delighted to agree with him on this matter. The reason I support the amendment is not that I am averse to interfering with market processes, so to speak. Apart from markets operating within a correct framework of law and order, I believe that particular markets have to be scrutinised especially with a view to protecting the consumer and ensuring that there are no adverse social and environmental consequences. In other words, I am certainly an interventionist but I do not believe in interfering for its own sake. That seems to be the crux of the matter. I certainly do not believe in intervention which does harm rather than good.
I am bound to say, looking at the licensing laws in general, that they seem to be altogether irrational. The restrictions on Sunday opening, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, pointed out, are illogical to the point of absurdity. It can hardly be a matter of religion, as has been implied, because licensed premises would have to be closed all day on Sunday. Clearly they are not and they are not going to be.
It is also worth making the additional point that other countries which are recognisably more religious than this country do not have such restraints on Sundays. It is also worth recognising that it is simply not the case that easier licensing hours cause excessive drinking. Research evidence does not show that at all. In any case, it is illogical and a fallacy to regard a specific form of access to alcohol as a cause of alcoholism. It is a mistake to believe that. What is apparent is that Sunday closing is annoying to holidaymakers, to foreign visitors and to ordinary people, all of whom are respectable people. There is no issue here concerning respectability.
It may be that such restrictions were appropriate at some time in the past but today they serve no useful purpose. In my view they are an affront to a liberal democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, says that he understands the Government's difficulties. I do not understand them at all. The Government ought to be more courageous and it is about time they let us grow up.
Lord Soper: In attempting to seek the rejection of these amendments, it may be convenient for the Committee if I indicate briefly the reasons that I shall not attempt to adduce. I am a committed teetotaller. I was brought up to believe that alcohol is the devil in solution. I no longer hold that view and I am not going to argue the teetotal case. Neither am I prepared to argue that essentially the Christian point of view should be adduced as a reason for the total closing of such premises on Sundays.
I prefer to start by saying that I believe, from evidence to which I am prepared to give categorical
1042
affirmation, that drinking of alcohol has increased, is increasing and should be diminished. In particular, I believe that the case rests quite surely and profoundly on the effect of increased alcohol indulgence among young people. Over the past 40 years I have had a great deal to do with alcoholism in its more rampant forms. Our evidence is, I believe, substantial and irrefutable that the age at which many youngsters being to drink is much earlier than it was and that the casualty rate among those who take to drink when they are very young, particularly in the adolescent stage, tends to increase.
I wish to make a simple plea if I may. I am quite sure that one of the elements in increased drinking among young people is the availability of continuous drinking. It is almost a sign of one's masculinity to carry a can around with you and continuously to imbibe from that can or other cans. In my judgment it is one of the most dangerous assumptions that though you would not necessarily say that youngsters today are taking more alcohol spasmodically, the accustomed habit of repeatedly and continuously taking alcohol by the availability of a can and the opening hours of the public house creates a very great moral danger.
I am quite sure of one fact; namely, that the ability to continue to drink would be a very strong contention and a very strong incentive for those who can remain within the public house over the hours of the afternoon. Perhaps I may make it a personal matter. Surely there is something to be said for other forms of public pursuit and entertainment rather than those which have been argued rather too conspiciously in terms of the family. There are a great many youngsters who do not belong to a family; there are a great many youngsters who will now be inclined to spend their time on Sunday afternoons in the pub if it stays open rather than coming to heckle me in Hyde Park which I would much prefer.
Therefore not specifically on the grounds of a Christian argument I say that this kind of attitude contained in the amendment is a measure that is dangerous particularly to those who are most susceptible in encouraging a continuity of drinking throughout the day. I shall not expand that in any greater detail. However, for that reason, I hope very much that this Committee will not agree to the amendments.
Lord Broxbourne: I rise at this moment only to make a very brief intervention in order to clarify the position as regards Amendment No. 3 which is standing in my name on the Marshalled List. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls was obviously surprised when I indicated that this amendment was not being moved. I could not fail but to note the puzzled expression which momentarily clouded his distinguished features. I hasten to reassure him and the Committee in general that this does not indicate any change of heart on my part. I do not resile at all from the sentiments conveyed in Amendment No. 3. It is purely a matter of form and drafting. Amendment No. 3 follows precisely the wording of the amendment moved in the other place by my respected friend Anthony Steen. It was drawn to my attention by the Minister and his ever helpful, expert

1043
and agreeable advisers that it would be more appropriate to get the same sentiment into the pattern of the proceedings now before your Lordships' Committee.
The substance of Amendment No. 3 now appears, I hope, more appropriately. If it is thought that the drafting is not more appropriate, then do not blame me but blame my noble friend the Minister. It appears in the fasciculus of amendments standing in my name; namely, Amendment No. 13 et sequentes. Those Members of the Committee who have the stamina to remain until then will hear me at a little greater length (but I hope not wearisomely so) when I shall clarify the thinking behind that proposition.
Earl Attlee: As I put my name down to the first amendment, I should mention that I thought I had put my name down to the second amendment but I see that it is not there.
The Minister at Second Reading said that this is a simple Bill and it should be kept that way. I certainly agree with him. I do not think one could get anything more simple than suggesting (in speaking to Amendment No. 2) that instead of pubs closing at two o'clock in the afternoon, they should close one hour later. I went across to my local, which is a family pub, because I was slightly worried about what the licensee felt regarding staying open another hour. Basically, his reply was that he would be delighted to open for a further hour on Sunday because he had lots of trade. He said that opening the rest of the week all through the afternoon would not be any good to him because there was not sufficient trade. Time and again the noble Lord, Lord Soper, spoke about boys and men having cans of beer which had been bought from a pub. I said at Second Reading that I believed that these people do not buy their beer from pubs in cans; they buy it from supermarkets.
A noble Lord: And from corner shops.
Earl Attlee: The noble Lord is quite right. They buy their cans of beer from corner shops and off-licences. I do not believe that pubs opening for one more hour on Sunday is going to turn anyone into a drunkard. It is going to alter the normal drinking pattern of people. As the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said, it is a family affair. Families go out on a Sunday and they may even go to church first. Then they may go to the pub and they go as a family. All we are asking for is one more hour.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said: young people drink much more today. The reason is that they have more money. That is a good thing. In Scotland you can drink pretty well the whole day. In some areas you get more drunkenness. I remember the medical officer for Argyll telling me that on the island of Barra there is, per capita, the highest alcoholic content in the world. In the winter it is understandable, I suppose. Before the war I was once stationed in the Army in the Gorbals at Mary Hill barracks. The drunkenness there was appalling. It
1044
was not necessarily due to alcohol. What some people used to do was to put gas into a milk bottle. That makes you completely roaring drunk in a very short time. It is also very cheap. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Soper, while I agree that young people drink more, I do not really think that it affects the licensing laws.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Perhaps I may say a very brief word on this matter. I agree with the logic of what has been said in support of extending licensing hours on a Sunday. The logic is that there will be more people who will benefit from it. They will not be only tourists, young people or the unemployed because they are the people who will most benefit during the week. There will be families and those who got up rather later and wish to have a later lunch.
The logic is very strong in support of Sunday opening. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said how people would arrive in their cars. This point shows the reverse of the argument. One of the fears that many of us have had about this Bill is that there will be a greater amount of drink and driving problems. This argument is certainly very strong in relation to those who visit pubs on a Sunday. They will go with their families in a car. This is the only note of anxiety that I have about Sunday opening. It may well be a way of increasing the number people who will drink and drive at the same time. I do not share the worry that I believe the Government have about this being a danger to Sundays. I think there is a danger of a possible extension of drinking and driving.
Lord Morris: In supporting the amendment spoken to so ably by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls I should like to take up one issue. He used the hotel analogy. I may be quite wrong, but I think he need have no fear in that respect because it is covered by the Private Member's Bill of my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein.
My major reason for supporting the amendment is that Sunday is the only day of the week when in the vast majority of families the mother is relieved of the appalling chore of preparing the daily lunch for the children. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, may not know it, but for many families which would not dream of going to the pub on a Sunday the pub may be the only club that men have experience of, and to deprive those families of the opportunity of going out en famille as the French, the Spanish and so many Continentals do would be very sad. As for the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who suggested that he was speaking for Christians, I understand that the Church of England supports the Bill.
Lord Ardwick: I should like to know more about the families which go out to lunch. What ages are they? What kind of families are they? During the debate there has been a singular lack of understanding of ordinary life in the industrial areas of this country. The time of two o'clock was originally imposed to get the men home from the pubs at a reasonable hour so that the family lunch could take place. That is the origin of two o'clock closing. There is also the question of the small licensee's little bit of

1045
freedom. If he manages to close at two o'clock it is the one afternoon in the week when he can take out his car. For all those reasons I strenuously oppose the amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: As one who has burnt many a lunch waiting for my husband to come back from a pub, I welcome the Bill. Unfortunately, as the Committee will know, I am not married now and therefore I have nobody to burn a lunch for. I try very hard to provide a good lunch when my friends come. However, I see this as a welcome extension of the freedom of the family to go out together. During the winter one cannot always have a picnic lunch with one's family because of snow or rain or other ghastly weather. What could be nicer than to go out to the local pub to have a meal together with a drink?
The noble Baroness said that she thought it might encourage excess drinking or more drinking. I hesitate to cross swords with her, but I think that I must. If a father, a mother and children go out together and have a meal, whoever does the driving will not be drinking. Therefore, with the family together, there will be less drinking rather than more. My experience during my slightly political life and all the things I have organised on a Sunday afternoon shows me that the family wants to go out together. At this time in the history of our country when so many families are breaking up I would submit that this is one of the ways in which we can encourage families to stay together.
I should like very briefly to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. Those of us who listened to the Second Reading speeches will remember the strong words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely in favour of the Bill. Those of us who support it welcomed all that he had to say. It is important that the Churches recognise that one can be a Christian and also go to a pub for lunch.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to support the amendment and to follow the points made by the noble Baroness and the mover of the amendment. I always feel slightly hypocritical when we discuss alcohol in this place. In this building one can drink for almost 24 hours a day. I say to my noble friend Lord Soper that that proves that availability does not mean that people drink more. Otherwise all the Members of the Committee would be lying about in a state of alcoholic stupor. I know that some people say we do, but it is not true.
I am amazed how out of date some noble Lords are. I took my family out last week. Where did we go? I must not name the place, but the company has a lovely restaurant in each of its pubs. I was the only one who had two glasses of wine, and I say to the right reverend Prelate that I had been to Mass first. I do not think that the Almighty forbids that. As I recall, He changed the water into wine, a point which always consoles me when I think of heaven; otherwise it sounds a rather boring place. My son, my daughter-in-law and my grandchildren do not partake of alcoholic beverages but they like the restaurant.
What is now happening, to follow up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is that the closing time of the restaurant is being geared up to
1046
the time the pub ceases to serve alcohol. One is in the position of hurrying to get there before 1.15 p.m. in order to get in the last order, not for alcohol but for food. We are much more civilised than we used to be. We are more like the French.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Phillips: This is the only time that I would say it. We like to eat together outside the home. The lovely idea which my noble friend seems to have of everybody rushing home for Sunday lunch is a thing of the past. Young people have a joint meal on Sunday evening at six o'clock because the children all want to do different things. For heaven's sake, let us bring ourselves a little up to date.
What is the passion we British have about hours? We must do this up to seven o'clock but not after eight. I once asked whether the lights could be turned on in the Royal Gallery. I was told, "Not after nine o'clock, my Lady". What is the magic about these times? They were invented many years ago. For heaven's sake, let us bring ourselves into the 20th century.
Lord Renton: Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely, I am not opposed to the Bill in general but I am opposed to these amendments. Perhaps I may be allowed to say why. In mentioning families, my noble friend Mr. Harmar-Nicholls and other noble Lords who have spoken—
Noble Lords: Lord Harmar-Nicholls!
Lord Renton: I am so sorry. I have known him for much longer as Mister and as Sir than I have as a noble Lord. We had adjoining constituencies for many years; in fact, for a generation.
When we talk of families, I think that my noble friend and other noble Lords were assuming that families visiting the pubs would include children. I have sometimes visited pubs on Sundays and I have often seen children there. The children generally seemed to be utterly miserable. While their parents were drinking they were out on a limb in a corner. I did not think that it was a form of happiness for them. To the extent that any of these amendments were accepted, the children would be the principal sufferers, but not the only ones, as has been said.
In spite of what my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve said about when a married couple, or any two people, go out drinking in a pub, hotel or restaurant, one of them will drink less and so will drive, that has not stopped there being casualties on the road through drinking and driving. The question is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said, whether the acceptance of any of the amendments would lead to an increase in drunken driving. I fear that it would. We also know that there is a good deal of child alcoholism these days. Alas, it has increased in recent years. I think that before we accept any of the amendments we should consider whether it will lead to or reduce child alcoholism. I cannot escape my own conclusion that it would lead to an increase in such alcoholism.

1047
As regards the amendments, I agree that it is somewhat dangerous and difficult to generalise too much because the position of families going to hotels and restaurants is perhaps a little different from that of those going to pubs. After all, even in hotels and restaurants people will be allowed to drink under the present law, as I understand it, until 2 o'clock in the afternoon. That is not a bad drinking time; it is a fairly reasonable one.
I now turn to the reference made by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls to Mothering Sunday being spent and enjoyed in an hotel. Well, yes, I suppose that is so, but I should have thought that the best place for children to spend and enjoy Mothering Sunday is in the home, and preferably with a visit first to church.
4 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Am I to assume from what the noble Lord has said that he is going to vote against the Bill as a whole? I say that because if there is any point at all in the argument that extra hours will encourage drunken driving—which none of us want and which anyone with any sense is opposed to—the rest of the Bill means that from Monday to Saturday people will have the entire afternoon. Therefore I find difficult to understand how one can produce an argument that that danger is there but that it only happens on a Sunday, between the hours of two and three in the afternoon.
Lord Renton: Of course the circumstances for the community at large are quite different. For most people weekdays are working days, whereas Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday are not.
Lord St. John of Bletso: There is little that I can add to what has already been said on the subject. However, I wish to express my support for the amendment. There is the anomalous position which was pointed out on Second Reading that one can drink on a moving boat, train or plane for 24 hours a day. I merely wish to raise the point, which the Member for Romsey and Waterside mentioned in Committee in another place, that in keeping with the efforts that are being made to encourage tourism, especially in the rural areas, surely licensees should be given the opportunity to respond to the demands of customers.
The Viscount of Falkland: I am very much in agreement with both amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. However, on the other hand, one is in a difficult position because the underlying fact is that an enormous amount of alcohol is consumed in this country. An enormous amount of that alcohol is consumed responsibly, but, unhappily, large quantities are consumed irresponsibly, dangerously and often with tragic results.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, or the noble Lord, Lord Soper—who are perhaps on either end of the argument this afternoon—have a different view about the world
1048
they would like to see as regards alcohol. But perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, takes the long term-view which I share—I sense that in his speech—that we should like to see a change in social attitudes and a change which results in responsible drinking. I think that the family is probably as good a place as any to start responsible drinking, as it seems to me that nowadays a lot of irresponsible drinking starts in the home. The small change proposed in the amendments is probably a small price to pay for this, although I also agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Soper. I sense from his speech that we may see in some areas a slight abuse as a result of those amendments.
Nevertheless, if we are going to tackle seriously the long-term issue of alcohol abuse in this country the major factor, the underlying factor, is the attitude of people. They drink to get drunk. Young people drink because they think it is macho to do so. I agree to the extent that I do not think the young man goes to the pub to buy his can of longlife lager; he goes to the supermarket. The extension I should like to see in the best of all possible worlds—at any rate in the United Kingdom—is that there should be no licensing laws at all. Everyone would go out and drink alcohol responsibly and it would be a cohesive factor in family life. I think that is the goal that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is aiming for.
Having said that, I must stress that I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and I take great cognisance of his fears. However, I tend to prefer to take the small risk in the hope that we can change public attitudes by encouraging people to drink in a more leisured and responsible way. Therefore I marginally support the noble Lord's amendments.
Lord Monson: I wholeheartedly support Amendment No. 1. I should gladly have added my name to it if I had thought that there was any realistic possibility of getting it through the other place in the teeth of pressure from the Government Whips. It seems to me that the Government are being extraordinarily insulting towards the English and the Welsh people. They are telling them, in so many words, that they are not as mature as the Scots, not nearly as mature as most other Europeans, and cannot be trusted to drink sensibly on Sundays once archaic restrictions are lifted; but, on the contrary, the rigid and indeed somewhat draconian controls must be maintained south of the Border, although not north of the Border.
I do not believe that the Government really want to insult the English and the Welsh. The only possible explanation is that they are scared stiff of the Lord's Day Observance Society. That society represents 1 per cent. of the population, if that. Therefore if the Government were to sum up all their reserves of courage, I suggest that they could successfully defy the Lord's Day Observance Society and live to tell the tale. Failing that, of course there would have to be a compromise. If the Minister is able to indicate that the Government are open to the idea of a compromise, I think that those of us who support some or all of the amendments will respond in kind. Otherwise I for one shall certainly follow the four

1049
noble Lords who tabled the amendment into the Division Lobby.
I am in something of a quandary. I was given to understand only four hours ago that the Committee was taking Amendment No. 1 separately from the amendments which follow. It is obvious that something has happened during the interval to change the position. Therefore, before speaking to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which are consequential upon Amendment No. 1, I should prefer to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Hooson: I am in a dilemma over the amendments. It seems to me that the only reasons for having any licensing laws are entirely practical ones. If everyone was a responsible social drinker there would be no need for licensing laws at all; but the truth of the matter is that that is not our situation. Over the past 25 years, alcohol-related problems have multiplied enormously throughout the country; and, I regret to say, more so in Wales than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Anyone who thinks that, if continuous drinking is available, that will result in less drinking rather than more is absolutely deluding himself. We know that that is true. For example, the argument has been put forward in this Chamber many times and in every civilised legislature in the world that the more available the drugs are the greater the drugs problem becomes. Therefore the truth is that the more readily available alcohol is, the greater that problem will become. This is because a minority of people in this country, and in other countries, will overindulge.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Hooson: Yes, I shall give way in a moment. Anyone who thinks that the fact that alcohol is available within the precincts of this place and is not abused is a good example is wrong. We are not a normal cross-section of the population. We should be fooling ourselves were we to think so.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I wish to mention Scotland, because the point that the noble Lord was making has not been brought out in Scotland.
Lord Hooson: Scotland, like Wales, has its own problems in relation to drink. We do not know how the provision, or non-provision, of licensing laws is related to our present alcohol-related problems. No one knows. We know that since alcohol became more available, alcohol-related problems have increased. There could obviously be a connection.
The nationalisation of public houses in Carlisle during the First World War arose entirely because of the drunkenness problems in the area. The legislature reacted—people have since said over-reacted—by proposing not only stringent licensing laws but by nationalising the public houses. The Government must be cautious. I believe that people should be trusted to act responsibly. That is the premise upon which I approach these problems, and yet I cannot ignore any more than the Committee can the overwhelming evidence of increased alcohol-related
1050
problems in our country. They are greater at the moment than drug and cigarette-related problems. The Government must be cautious before accepting the amendments.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Lord sits down, he referred to those of us who disagreed with him as deluded. Is he aware of the research evidence that shows we are not deluded? There is no evidence to show a causal connection between licensing hours and alcoholism. If he were merely to use his common sense—if I may be as robust as he was when he referred to delusion—he would see that the provisions of alcoholic beverages in off-licences and similar places is a response to a demand. It is not causal. It is not remotely connected with the opening hours of licensed premises. The noble Lord is entitled to his view of the problems of society connected with alcoholism, but he is not entitled to mislead the Committee about what we know. It is not a matter of doubt. It is a matter that has been studied and shown not to be the cause.
Lord Hooson: I suggest that the noble Lord should read the report dealing with alcohol problems in Wales published in 1987 by the Education Health Advisory Committee for Wales. He will find that the committee thinks that among other matters involved—it is not the only one—is the availability of alcohol. All I am saying is that we do not know the relationship between those factors and therefore our approach must be cautious. Any government who did not take a cautious approach to this matter would be acting irresponsibly.
Baroness Phillips: I wish to make a historical point before the noble Lord sits down. Does he agree that during the time of strict prohibition laws in America there was more drunkenness than at any other stage in its history?
Lord Hooson: I do not in any way advocate strict prohibition; all I am saying is that we would not need licensing laws if everyone was responsible. The only reason we have licensing laws is that we recognise that many people are not responsible.
Lord Auckland: Having, as I do, family in the hotel and public house trade, I agree that the amendments contain implication which give rise to some concern for family life. After all, Sunday is a family day, and Sunday lunch in the home is desirable. However, one thing that the amendments seek to do is to maintain standards in public houses, which have improved so much over the years.
There was a time when the pub was a pretty degenerate place. Food was almost non-existent, and therefore it is true that at that time alcohol problems were rife. Many pubs now serve an extremely high grade of food, which makes it possible to take families to them. On Sunday mother occasionally needs a day away from the kitchen stove and the kitchen sink. On balance I believe that these amendments are desirable.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden: I admit to having had 47 years in the liquor trade. I have also visited Australia a great deal. In the early days when I visited Australia, they closed the pubs at 6 p.m. The Australians had what they called "swill time" before 6 p.m. and everyone became absolutely plastered. When they changed the time to 10 p.m. there was little drunkenness and they all drank in a far more civilised manner.
Earl Ferrers: I felt sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, because all he did was to advise the Government to proceed with caution, and he then proceeded to get the stick. I am grateful to him for his advice. We are quite happy to take good advice from any quarter of this place.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls was persuasive when he introduced the amendments. He said that it was illogical to have restrictions on Sunday. He must have temporarily forgotten what happened to the Sunday Trading Bill, which stirred up a hornet's nest of emotions. The Government do not wish this Bill to do that.
My noble friend said that it is absurd to put up the covers at 2 p.m. and that that is carrying legislation too far. Legislation at the moment permits the covers to be put up—or drawn down—at 2 p.m. He asked whether the Government were certain that 2 p.m. was the right time. The answer is that no, of course we are not certain that it is the right time. We are aware that the subject is highly controversial. The debate has shown the levels of controversy produced by the subject of Sunday opening.
The question of Sunday hours is always a vexed one. I wish to make the Government's view clear. The Bill is intended to be a modest, non-controversial measure. The amendments are controversial. The Bill is an important step towards making life easier for people in general by allowing them freedom to choose when to drink. Throughout the Bill's passage the Government have always made it clear that they have no intention of using the Bill to change Sunday hours. The amendments that we are debating all seek, in varying degrees, to relax the present Sunday restrictions.
The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and the two amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, upon which he would like me to comment, impinge upon the hours of church services and so go to the heart of what one might call "the specialness" of Sunday. I am bound to say that I cannot commend those amendments to the Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, was right when he said that if the Committee were to pass the amendments, we should then have the problem of trying to get them through another place. The Bill has been seen as one which would not interfere too far with Sundays. Amendment No. 1 seeks to allow the sale of drinks throughout the whole of Sunday afternoon. It is the most controversial of all the amendments. It represents a fundamental change to Sunday hours. In addition, there is a serious risk—the matter has been put forward by the noble
1052
Lord, Lord Soper, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland—that it could result in increased alcohol consumption.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would also affect the opening of pubs during church service time. I find it hard to suggest that the Committee should accept the amendments.
The second amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, would permit pubs to close an hour later on Sunday afternoons. This is a rather different matter. Many Members of the Committee have said that people enjoy a mid-day drink as a matter of social convenience; they take their families to the pubs and the pubs produce food. I have little doubt that with an added hour many pubs would become even more attractive venues than they are at the moment, not just for drinking but for Sunday lunch in general. It may be that some people now find the 2 o'clock closing an irritant and a social inconvenience.
In any question of Sunday hours it is difficult to know where to draw the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Everyone has different views over where that line should be drawn. The extra hour until 3 o'clock is probably unlikely to lead to higher levels of consumption, nor would it interfere with Sunday services or the non-commercial nature of that day.
However, having said that, I am bound to add that I personally cannot support even this modest extension of the licensing hours for the simple reason that the Government have made plain their intention to leave the Sunday hours unchanged in this Bill.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: That was a very adept and satisfying reply from my noble friend. He said that it was a modest and uncontroversial Bill and I agree with him. Within this modest and uncontroversial Bill Amendment No. 2 is certainly a modest and uncontroversial amendment. If I have the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, because of the tone of my noble friend's reply I would beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1. However, I understand that that is not agreeable to the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
Lord Peston: If I may intervene, my difficulty is that I do not fully understand the noble Earl's reply. As best I understand it, it was, "We won't do it, full stop. We have decided not to do it and that's it." I do not regard that as a reasoned reply. I do not like to be a nuisance but I personally would prefer to divide the House if I am simply told, "You can't have it, full stop." I do not know what the noble Earl thinks?
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I think that he must have misunderstood the nature of your Lordships' Committee. What I said was that the Government said that this was a Bill in which they did not seek to alter Sunday licensing hours. I said that I could not recommend that noble Lords accept Amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 5. I think noble Lords should reject them because there would be difficulty in another place.

1053
As regards Amendment No. 2, I said that the Government would not advise the committee to accept that amendment because they have said that they would not interfere with Sunday trading. If your Lordships have a different mind, that is up to noble Lords but I can only tell you what the Government's advice would be.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I should like to thank my noble friend. It is a matter of translating the real meaning of parliamentary exchanges. If I interpret correctly the exchanges this afternoon, it looks as though the Government could not support in any way Amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 5. But the language used by my noble friend—and it was as far as he could go in view of the commitment in another place—was that the Government do not recommend in quite such strong terms against Amendment No. 2. If that translation of what was meant is correct, the suggestion which I was making to the noble Lords who joined with me in putting down Amendment No. I was to be grateful for small mercies and to say that we recognise that we shall not get the support likely to make Amendment No. 1 a winner.
However, I sensed that providing we showed the same impartiality as my noble friend has shown, there is just a chance that we might get Amendment No. 2. The reason why I think we have a duty to follow that through and to try hard to get Amendment No. 2 agreed is the words used by my noble friend when he said that the Government had decided not to interfere with the hours because of pledges they had made.
Fortunately for Amendment No. 2, the Government have a boss, they have somebody who will tell them that whatever their views are as the Executive, as the Government, there is somebody who has the power to alter them, if they think, generally speaking, that the alteration is one which does not go against the principle of the Government's wishes. The boss which the Government have is Parliament. Part of Parliament is the House of Lords. The only chance we can give to the other half of Parliament is for us to pass this amendment so that it can have second thoughts on what is, as I said, a modest, uncontroversial amendment. I hope that with that in mind and with the indications which we have had, we can agree to withdraw Amendment No. 1. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) In section 60(1)(b) of the principal Act (permitted hours in licensed premises on Sundays etc.), for the words "five hours beginning at two" there shall be substituted the words "four hours beginning at three".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 27, lease out ("five and a half") and insert ("seven").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment was to bring the law regarding clubs into line with the law on pubs, in the event of Amendment No. 4 being passed. Now that Amendment No. 2 has been carried, Amendment No. 5 is obviously not correctly worded so I shall not move it at this stage with a view to bringing it back in an amended form at the next stage.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) In section 87 of the principal Act, at the end there shall be inserted the following—
"( ) At an airport where this section is in operation, the permitted hours on Sundays, Christmas and Good Friday for those licensed premises situated outside the examination station approved for the airport under section 22 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 but within the parts of the airport ordinarily used by persons travelling by air to and from the airport shall, notwithstanding the provisions of section 60(1)(b) of this Act, be those hours specified in section 60(1)(a) of this Act.".").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move this amendment because it deals with a particular section of our society where a licence to serve drinks is provided. I am hoping to get some sympathy from the Government on the basis of extending the relaxation to international airports. At present there are no restrictions, and drinks are allowed airside 24 hours a day because airports are operating 24 hours a day. But landside drinking is restricted to normal licensing hours.
That may well be the argument which was put by the Minister in another place: the landside drinking restrictions were all right and should not be interfered with. But I and quite a number of other people—certainly all those involved in running the airports—feel that people should be able to buy a drink on the landside of international airports during the afternoons. I say that because airports are unique environments. People leaving the country, either for a holiday, or possibly for much longer periods, may wish to have a drink with their friends or relatives who are not travelling. I must emphasise that it is not the travellers who dictate the times of flights and when they should leave the country or arrive. Travellers are bound by flight times which are outside their control. Sunday afternoon is one of the busiest afternoons in the week for travellers. Those arriving (often business passengers meeting their English contacts for the first time) probably expect to be able to get a drink. They are able to do so abroad. They are surprised and sometimes disappointed when their first impression of England is that they are unable to have a welcoming drink.
Of necessity, additional jobs will be created in organisations such as airports if this licensing law is relaxed. It is a fact that when we fly into European or other countries we land at airports that have a full 24-hour licensed service. That is not just the case in Europe but anywhere that one goes. But here when people fly in they are restricted to licensing hours as soon as they clear the customs and other regulations.
It was said in another place by the Minister dealing with the Bill—I thought it was a pretty weak plea—that if the Government did relax the rules at

1055
the international airports and allowed the 24-hour licensing system it would increase drinking by habitual drinkers who would travel out to the airports to take advantage of that provision. I think that that view is a bit lighthearted or a little nonsensical. Because of the activity in which they are involved, most airports are situated pretty substantial distances away from the centres of population. Manchester Airport, for instance, is about 10½ to 11 miles away from the centre of Manchester. Members of the Committee probably know better than I do how far London and Gatwick Airports are from the real centres of population.
It is a well-known fact that car parking at airports is usually very expensive. I do not believe for one moment that people would get on to the tube in London and travel out to Gatwick or to London Airport or, in the case of Manchester, go out to Manchester Airport in their cars just to take advantage of these licensing hours on a Sunday afternoon.
We are in a business situation in our airports of trying to provide comparable services to those of our partners in Europe in such fields as the provision of alcohol. I should have thought that it would be quite safe to lift the restrictions on Sundays because airports are among the most heavily policed environments that exist. That in itself would be a safeguard against any excessive behaviour caused by alcohol. If a person really wanted to drink on a Sunday afternoon he or she would not need to go to an airport. All he would need to do would be to go to an off-licence, where he could buy what he wanted.
I did not speak in the debate on the previous amendments because of this amendment which I have tabled. But the fact is that the places where alcohol is mainly purchased and where abuse occurs as a result of that purchase are the supermarkets. That is mainly because alcohol is cheaper there. I deplore the sight of youngsters on the tube trains in London swigging beer from cans which they have bought from supermarkets. It has not been bought from other places such as bars—
4.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury: Does the noble Lord agree that it is totally unfair to blame the supermarkets without blaming the many small corner shops which are equally in the wrong if anybody is to blame?
Lord Dean of Beswick: The noble Lord makes a very strong point which I accept. I think that it would be wrong not to admit that the control in some supermarkets is not as firm as it should be, any more than it is in some corner shops. But I believe that, if the Government were to look kindly at this particular relaxation, it would do no harm whatsoever. It would bring us into line with other airports. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I strongly support this amendment because of an unfortunate experience which I had only about five years ago. I caught an aeroplane from Glasgow to London on a Sunday at
1056
12.20 p.m. I must admit that I was surprised to find that there was no provision for the bar to open early. That regulation was enforced particularly strongly in Scotland. I was rather surprised by that but perhaps when I had been in airports before on Sundays I had usually been abroad.
Come 12 o'clock when the bar was just opening and I was about to queue up, we were bidden like sheep to go and wait for the aeroplane. So we climbed into the aeroplane and it took about an hour to fly to London. We arrived in London at about 1.20. A lot of aeroplanes arrived at the same moment and it took quite a long time to get through the basics and a great deal of time to get to the luggage. I remember very clearly that we finally collected our luggage at five to the hour. There was not time to go to the bar at London Airport before it shut again.
I genuinely mean it when I say that such a situation is not funny. One must think of all the visitors who come to this country and who could be subjected to the same treatment. It is absurd that this system exists in airports in particular, where one loses all sense of time and where on the whole one will not be a problem to people on the roads because once one is there one will probably not drive one's own car. Some people do drive their own cars but the vast majority of the visiting public will not be a problem in that way.
If I have understood it correctly, the amendment is only asking for what one might call "weekday rules" to be applied to Sundays. Even with the amendment that we have just discussed this amendment would not add a great deal to the existing provisions.
On the whole I think that this kind of provision is absolutely vital to the success of our tourist trade alone, quite apart from anything else. I do hope that my noble friend the Minister may be able to relax what he said were his very strict rules on this particular point. I also hope that those in another place can understand that some things really are ridiculous and that an example of that is the present Sunday rules as they apply to airports.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am, strangely, happier about supporting this amendment than I was about the previous one. I feel that a different public is being served at an airport. My reservation about the other amendment—that there would be more drivers going to public houses on a Sunday—does not apply to this one. Sundays are like any other day at an airport except that possibly there are more people there. Therefore I should have thought that the situation in an airport presented a special case. I shall be very interested to see how the Minister feels about this because I think that the logic which led me to support the earlier amendment means that I must support this one even more strongly.
Baroness Phillips: I wish to support this amendment because it highlights the total hypocrisy of the British people in this matter. I was once taken on a trip round London which showed that one could drink for about 24 hours a day. Certain laws are relaxed in the case of premises situated near docks even when the docks are no longer there. The point

1057
is that, if one wishes to, one can go right through the night drinking.
I am all for any provision which will civilise our airports. Alcohol is one thing but I would say that I have met people at London Airport at seven in the morning who were unable to get even a cup of coffee or tea because there was nothing available. But why do we still have these archaic licensing laws? If we can cut through them in this way that is splendid. I salute the Government for trying to do that but I think that we must look at this matter sensibly and recognise that there will still he a minority who will abuse any law. Nevertheless, we do make things difficult. One needs a little rule hook to know whether closing time is two o'clock or three o'clock. Wherever one goes there are all kinds of rules which make life difficult if one just wants to enjoy oneself for the day. I heartily support this amendment and I hope that it will be the first of many.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment seeks to provide another, albeit limited, exception to the general licensing hours. Bars and off-licences in the areas of airports which are open to the non-travelling public are subject to the controls on hours in just the same way as any other licensed premises. If this amendment is accepted, airport bars which are used not only by passengers and their friends and relatives but also by any other visiting members of the public, will be able to serve alcoholic drinks from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Sundays. In other words, there will be different licensing arrangements for these premises, which can be frequented by the ordinary members of the public, than there will be for licensed bars and pubs. The restrictions on Sunday trading at airports have been lifted and, as a result of the Licensing (Restaurant Meals) Act 1987, restaurants may serve drinks with meals at any time of the day, seven days a week. To a significant extent, therefore, the needs of the airport authorities and the travelling public have been met. I am not persuaded that a case has been made out for removing entirely the distinction between Sundays and weekdays at airports as compared with anywhere else.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I thank the Minister for his reply. He has given an indication that the Government are only interested in the status quo. I and a lot of other people who use airports extensively, believe that they are quite different establishments. I do not for one moment believe that if the Government were to accede to this request it would lead to any increase at all in drinking on the land side of bars in airports. We ought to come into line with our compatriots in Europe and in the wider world. We are budgeting in this country for a continual increase in airport passengers from abroad. I used to have some connections with Manchester airport (not of a pecuniary nature) and I know that the increase there is pretty dramatic year by year. I am sure that the situation in the South-East is the same.
I believe that it is a rather short-sighted policy of the Government to stand with the present situation and say that there is no need for change. I and other Members of your Lordships' House have flown into airports in Europe where the bars are not restricted in
1058
that way. You do not see people lying about in a stupor. I have never seen anything like that in Spain, France, Germany or wherever else I have been. For the Government to draw the inference that that is the situation and to suggest that British people cannot he trusted on an issue like this is a little bit sad. On that basis I cannot withdraw the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I could persuade the noble Lord of one thing before he thinks too heartily about having a Division. He says that the Government do not trust people and that the travelling public are going to and from the airports. It is perfectly true that on the air side of the airport the travelling members of the public can get drinks at all times of the day and night. But ordinary members of the public who come and go in an airport can use the airport facilities in a way that they would not be able to use pub facilities.
I accept the noble Lord's difficulty in thinking that there is something different about an airport. Where we draw the line, if I may say so, is when people pass through customs and then go on to travel. That is where it becomes internationalised. But where ordinary members of the public can go and get a drink, licensing hours must be the same on that side of the airport as they are in pubs.
Lord Mottistone: My noble friend makes that point, but if as a tourist from the other side of the Atlantic you are travelling from Glasgow to London you do not go through customs. Therefore, it does not apply to you. The thought that there is going to be a great swarm of people going to the airports from the surrounding district is absolute Cloud-cuckoo-land. Airports are horrible places for the ordinary person. The only people who want to be in airports are the people who are going somewhere. Although there might be the odd person, he would only overcrowd the bar and would soon drift away somewhere else. The Government are much too cautious in believing that because the public can get there, therefore, it must not be allowed to happen. I think that is absolute nonsense.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on this point. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, says that airports are horrid places and no sane person would wish to go to one unless he was using a plane. As we all know, certainly from the experience of Heathrow, at the moment large numbers of members of the public go to airports. That is fact. I certainly believe that the noble Earl is right in saying that, were the licensing regulations to be wholly different at airports compared with the situation away from airports, it would attract a significant number of people to airports. With great respect to the noble Lord, I think he is mistaken on this point. I believe that that would be the result were the Bill to be amended in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is suggesting.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am sorry that I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We are only talking about five hours on a Sunday. The fact is that Sunday is one of the busiest travelling days of the week. Many people who are flying out or flying in

1059
are inevitably accompanied by relatives and friends, whether they are going out on business or whether they are coming back. If it is Mum and Dad who have been away, very often they are met by sons and daughters who bring the car to drive them home. It is a little short-sighted to say that the bars cannot be open in those five hours so that they can have a drink together. On that basis I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment.
4.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 97.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Listowel, E.

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Attlee, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Barnett, L.

McFadzean, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bottomley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Molloy, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monson, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Munster, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Onslow, E.

Cromartie, E.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.

Raglan, L.

Ennals, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Foot, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Glenamara, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Gregson, L.

Underhill, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Leatherland, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Derwent, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Allerton, L.

Dundee, E.

Arran, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Auckland, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Belstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Bessborough, E.

Ferrers, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Gainford, L.

Caithness, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Greenway, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Grey, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Halsbury, E.

Carnock, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Coleraine, L.

Harvington, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Cowley, E.

Hesketh, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Hives, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hooper, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Hooson, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hunter of Newington, L.

1060

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Davids, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Shannon, E.

Killearn, L.

Sharples, B.

Kimball, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kitchener, E.

Slim, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Stedman, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strange, B.

Long, V.

Sudeley, L.

Lyell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mancroft, L.

Terrington, L.

Marley, L.

Teviot, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mersey, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Middleton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trafford, L.

Nelson, E.

Tranmire, L.

Orkney, E.

Trumpington, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ullswater, V.

Pender, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Pym, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rees, L.

Wigoder, L.

Richardson, L.

Windlesham, L.

Rodney, L.

Young, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.55 p.m.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Extension of period for consumption of intoxicating liquor outside permitted hours]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: the Committee will be aware that the effect of exclusion of the clause will be a reversion to the provisions of Section 63 of the Licensing Act 1964 with regard to drinking-up time. At present drinking-up time is 10 minutes after time. Last orders are called about five or six minutes before time, be it 10.30 or 11, and there follow some 10 minutes of drinking-up time.
It is the contention of those who support me outside the Chamber that 10 minutes is quite sufficient time to drink up that which remains in the glasses before last orders and—if I may so put it—throwing-out time. If there is a 20-minute drinking-up time, that will enable people to think that they have between last orders being called five or six minutes before time and the end of drinking-up time some 25 minutes of drinking time left. They will therefore order as last order sufficient drink to consume in the time available to them 25 minutes after drinking-up time.
The hassle that now occurs at the end of 10 minutes is merely delayed by a further 10; that is, 20 minutes. It is a well-known fact that in those crucial 10 minutes between time being called and chuck-out time the customer gets control of the drinking time; the licensee in fact loses it. On challenge by the licensee the customer says. "Oh, but I have 10 minutes, so for my two drinks I have plenty of time". A worse position will obtain if there are 20 minutes.
It is interesting that the outcome in another place was the subject of quite considerable debate, which ranged over whether drinking-up time should be five

1061
minutes, remain as it is at 10 minutes, go to 15 minutes or to 20 minutes. It therefore appears at the outset that another place was in some difficulty in deciding what it wanted.
I am advised that the Committee of Registered Clubs Association supporters—these are the so-called non-profit making organisations representing the International Union of Labour Clubs, the National Union of Liberal Clubs, the Royal British Legion clubs, the Royal Naval Association clubs, the Working Men's Club and Institute Union and the Royal Air force Association's branch clubs—sought support of Members in another place for this. Not one licensee, however, supported it or was represented.
It is the licensees who have the problem at the end of the session. I suggest to the Committee that the problem will be exacerbated by extending drinking-up time to 20 minutes. I urge the Committee to reject the suggestion that has come from another place and is contained in the Bill and to oppose Clause 2 of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for explaining his concern about drinking-up time. However, I am hound to say that I think that he is making one fundamental error.
At the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, the Government were persuaded that an extended period of drinking-up time would assist licensees in clearing their premises in a more orderly fashion. By allowing customers time to finish their drinks in a leisurely manner rather than being hurried off the premises, we took the view that the tensions, which can arise between customer and landlord and can sometimes lead to violent incidents, will be reduced.
I know that the amendment to allow a slightly longer drinking-up time has not been universally welcomed, and my noble friend has said that it is not welcome to him. But where my noble friend makes an error—if I may say so with the greatest respect—is that the extended period of drinking-up time is not compulsory; it is an option. By introducing this clause we have increased the options which are open to the licensee in deciding how best to clear his house in an orderly fashion. If he wants the drinking-up time to be one minute he can have it; if he wants it to be 10 minutes he can have it. If he thinks it is more orderly for it to be 20 minutes, he can have it. So I really think that my noble friend is misguided.
Baroness Sharples: I should like to support my noble friend on the Front Bench. I was a pub licensee for two years. I entirely agree with him that 20 minutes is far preferable to 10 minutes because people rush their drinks. I support the Government entirely.
Clause 2 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 3 [Restriction orders]:
Lord Morris of Kenwood Lord Morris of Kenwood moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) the licensing justices;").
The noble Lord said: After the weighty and controversial matters of the last hour or so I hope that my modest little amendment will be totally uncontroversial.
On the extension of the general licensing hours on weekdays from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m., Clause 3 will provide a procedure which empowers the justices to restrict the afternoon hours only, according to the present subsection (6), on a formal application made by the chief officer of police, an occupier or any resident in the neighbourhood. There is no express power for the justices to restrict the afternoon hours of their own Motion and as the Bill stands it is doubtful whether they have an inherent power to do so.
It seems to me that that puts the justices at a great disadvantage. For instance, it may be that having heard an application for the renewal of a licence they may consider it desirable to restrict the afternoon hours in order to avoid or reduce any disturbances and so on. As the Bill stands they cannot do so without the intervention of a third party.
It could also be argued that where there is a sole licensee the justices may consider that he is unable to exercise sufficient control for the full period from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. and consequently may wish to restrict the opening period. Again, their hands are tied.
For those reasons it is felt by the licensing justices—of whom I am one—that they should be specifically empowered to make an order of their own Motion. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Clause 3 provides a safeguard against unforeseen problems which may arise from the afternoon opening of particular premises, whether on-licence premises or registered clubs. It is primarily intended to protect those who live and work in the vicinity of particular premises from the disturbance or annoyance which may arise, but it also provides a locus for the police to prevent the occurrence of disorder which can be associated with particular premises in the afternoon.
I do not find it easy to see what additional role the licensing justices might play in this process as applicants. Since restriction orders are intended to prevent disturbance or disorder in the immediate vicinity, it is unlikely that the justices would be aware that a disturbance was occurring. If someone in the area informed them of the disturbance then that person or his representative would be entitled to apply for an order on his own behalf.
The person who applied for that order could himself be a justice. If the justices, by some other means, become aware of a problem associated with particular premises but receive no complaint from anyone living or working in the vicinity or from the police, then it would seem unnecessary and somewhat oppressive for an application for an order to be made.
Ultimately it is the residents or those working in the area who must decide what is an intolerable level of disturbance or annoyance, and the police must assess the seriousness of any disorder. I am not persuaded that the licensing justices (or the magistrates generally for that matter) should have a similar entitlement to apply for an order.

1063
If the problems associated with particular premises give rise to serious concern, then it would of course be open to the licensing justices to initiate proceedings for the revocation of the licence as opposed to a restrictive order. That is provided in Clause 9 of the Bill. But that is designed to counter different problems and not those arising solely from afternoon opening.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Perhaps I may support my noble friend. As a magistrate many people were brought before me in cases relating to nuisance. The cases had nothing to do with the premises concerned; the people in the premises might have caused a nuisance but that was a criminal matter.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I was very interested by the presentation of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. His proposal seems a very sensible idea. I wonder whether he can give the Committee an example of how it would be beneficial to the neighbourhood if licensing justices were given such power.
Lord Morris of Kenwood: I cited a second instance, that of a sole licensee. That is a point to which the noble Earl failed to address himself, which I find regrettable. It is not suggested that such a power would be exercised to any extent but it is a power which I think the justices ought to have. It is for that reason that I put down the amendment.
Baroness Phillips: I too should like to support my noble friend. After all, he is a licensing justice and speaks with some experience and reason. I do not believe that he is looking for more work—the licensing justices, like all justices, are unpaid and do the work because they believe in it. He is simply trying to tidy up the position, if that is not the wrong expression to apply to a Bill.
"An application for a restriction order may be made by—".
It seems not unreasonable that the licensing justices should be included in that subsection.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I am certain that the Government are right from the point of view of how the licensing laws are applied. Like the noble Lord, I was a licensing justice for something like 35 years until age ruled me out. I had to preside over many cases of the kind to which the noble Lord referred. I never felt that it was my job as a licensing justice to provide the complaint. I felt that it was my job to adjudicate upon the complaint by the people who were being injured perhaps by noise, for example. If there is a disco or something of that kind on licensed premises which is a nuisance to the surrounding area and there are complaints to the police, the police have to do something about it. They do something about it normally by trying to get the noise stopped at once. If the noise is persistent the police, with the support of the local residents who are the victims, lay the complaint and the licensing justices have to listen to both sides in the case and adjudicate upon it.
I feel that there would be some conflict if I were both the judge and the complainant. The Government have to be right. The licensing justices
1064
are there to adjudicate upon the complaints of people who feel injured and the police and local residents are those who are most likely to complain.
Lord Hooson: On the balance of argument I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Kenwood, is right. When magistrates adminster the licensing laws they sit in a different capacity from their normal judicial capacity as magistrates. They have the right to move for the revocation of a licence and it appears to me that they should not be prevented from moving for a restriction order.
As regards the initiative of the local police, it is many years since I was in a licensing court although at one stage I practised extensively in such a court. I found that there was often a difference of opinion between the police and the magistracy as to the introduction of an order. One also found that the business or ordinary residents in a neighbourhood were often reluctant to initiate an order because they thought that they might be victimised for having taken upon themselves such an action. The magistracy would sometimes be aware of that reluctance. On balance I think that there is something to be said for the Government looking again at this matter.
Earl Ferrers: Earlier on I had the audacity to thank and compliment the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, on his wisdom in saying that the Government should move with caution. I hope that that compliment did not go to his head. I fear I must say that he is wrong on this occasion.
A licensing magistrate may be in a big country town and the premises concerned may be some distance away, let us say 12 miles or so. Let us say it is a pub or whatever in a village. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, seeks to give to that magistrate, who happens to live in the country town, the right to say to those premises, "You may not open between the hours of three and six in the afternoon because we, who happen to be 12 miles away, think that it would be unsuitable". The fact that nobody else around the premises has thought it unsuitable or sufficiently noisy to make a complaint is disregarded.
The whole purpose of this Bill is to allow opening from 11 o'clock in the morning to 11 o'clock at night unless there is some specific reason why the premises should close in the afternoon. I suggest that that specific reason must come from the locality. That is why I was glad that my noble friend who sits behind me said that it was right for the justices to be the adjudicating authority and not in this case the promoter of the restriction when those who live locally do not think that it is necessary.
Lord Hooson: Perhaps the noble Earl will forgive me but I think that his argument is illogical. To take his example of the licensing magistrate who lives 12 miles away, that magistrate can take initiating action by revoking a licence, so why cannot he act by restriction order?
Earl Ferrers: Because if nobody in the locality thinks that the premises are disorderly, making a noise or being in any way untoward, it is the right of the licensee to be able to hold his pub open.
Lord Shepherd: It seems to me that in this respect the logic lies very much with the Government. On the other hand I have a good deal of sympathy for the purpose that lies behind this amendment. I did not intervene on the first amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, although some 18 to 20 years ago I was the deputy chairman of the Erroll Committee, which looked into the licensing laws of England and Wales. Among other matters, we came to one very firm conclusion, that we should liberalise, if cautiously, the licensing laws of our country. There was enough evidence that such liberalisation would not have the grievous impact that some people thought at that time.
When the Erroll Committee was looking at the extension of licensing hours it was very clear that those who were likely to be most affected by noise or other disturbance as a consequence of such extension ought to have very firm protection. That protection clearly lay with the licensing magistrates who granted the licence. I well remember many people asking, "If we have a complaint, to whom do we go?" Therefore in a sense I have sympathy with the amendment, because it means that if licensing magistrates are aware of a nuisance they themselves can take the initiative to deal with it.
I am not sure whether licensing magistrates, who I believe sit in a quasi-judicial capacity, ought to be the promoters of possible actions against licensees. However, I hope that the Government can give a very firm undertaking that account will be taken of the genuine anxiety about possible implications of this legislation and that the rights of people who may be affected by the extension of the licensing laws will be made very clear especially as to the procedures to follow and the people to whom they can appeal. I know that the Government have tabled an amendment which will shortly he considered by the Committee. To me at least it is clear, although I find it extraordinary that what may be clear to us in Parliament may be very unclear to the people who may be affected by legislation.
I support the Government in regard to this amendment but certainly on the condition that there is an undertaking given that ways and means will be found by which the general public, and particularly those who may be affected by the new extension of the licensing laws, are made aware of their rights and, more important, the procedures under which their complaints can be heard.
Lord Morris of Kenwood: I regret that in his comments the noble Earl did not take up the point that I made about sole licensees, because it is a rather important one. I hope that the Government will be prepared to look again at this matter and come back at Report stage. I do not wish to press my amendment at this stage and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert—

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

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

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

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 8, with the leave of the Committee I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 9, 30, 31, 32 and 33.
Clause 3 provides a safeguard to protect those who live and work in the vicinity of on-licensed premises or a registered private members' club from any unforeseen disturbance arising from the addition of the afternoon break. At present it enables the chief officer of police for the area and residents and occupiers in the vicinity to apply to the courts for a restriction order preventing the premises in question from opening during the afternoon. The grounds on which an order may be made are that it would reduce or prevent annoyance or disturbance to occupiers or residents in the area or the occurrence of disorderly conduct associated with those premises. Although we do not expect its provisions to be often used, the clause reflects an obvious need to ensure that the greater freedom which the Bill will give to those using pubs and clubs does not inhibit the freedom of other citizens to go about their lawful business.
In view of the concern to protect young people from the harmful effects of alcohol in the widest sense, a view which I know many Members of the Committee share, we think it particularly important that head teachers should be able to apply for restriction orders to curtail the afternoon opening hours of particular premises if their opening is disrupting the orderly running of the school. We recognise too that businesses may also need protection from the disruptive impact which may stem from the afternoon opening of some premises.
The amendment makes clear that head teachers and people in charge of businesses and shops in the neighbourhood of licensed and club premises may make an application for a restriction order. It also makes clear that they make applications as the representatives of their staff, residents or customers. The amendment does not add anything new to the Bill but I believe that it provides an important clarification of our intentions.
The amendments to Schedule 2 to the Bill are consequential on the amendments to Clause 3. They will ensure that if a restriction order has been made following an application by, for example, a head teacher or a manager of a business, he or his successor will be notified in the event of a subsequent application to vary or revoke that order. Without these amendments to the schedule there was a risk that if a head teacher or a manager moved on, his successor in that post would receive no warning that the restriction order was subject to challenge. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The safeguards incorporated in these amendments were introduced by my honourable friend Mrs. Taylor in another place. I am therefore very happy that the Government have accepted them and have seen fit to bring them forward in the Bill on this occasion.
Lord Shepherd: Perhaps I may ask a question of the Minister. Referring back to the committee on which I served, there was some anxiety expressed by those who attend the local church. The extension of the drinking hours on Sundays may interfere with the church service. The amendment is limited to those who live in the vicinity, who have a business in the vicinity, and who are teachers. It does not provide for anyone else who may be affected.
When one considers some churches with the little green sward and the small local pub in fair proximity to them—they are now becoming very attractive to those people coming from out of the towns—some nuisance and inconvenience is created. While supporting the provisions in these amendments, I wonder whether they are not drawn a little too tightly so that bodies such as the churches may well be excluded.
Earl of Arran: I would point out with respect to the noble Lord that the amendment provides for,
"any person living in the neighbourhood".
Therefore the point is already covered.
Lord Shepherd: The local priest—who is not "the church"—may be living there. However, if such nuisance and inconvenience affects the church service does it mean that the local priest can make the application on behalf of the church?
The Earl of Arran: Yes. He can make it on behalf of the church in question.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("occupiers or residents in the neighbourhood") and insert—

("(i) persons living or working in the neighbourhood,

(ii) customers or clients of any business in the neighbourhood, or

(iii) persons attending, or in charge of persons attending, any educational establishment in the neighbourhood.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Discretion with respect to grant, and limitation, of special hours certificates]:
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 22, leave out ("sections 77 and") and insert ("section").
The noble Lord said: This is one of those glorious occasions when I am certain that I speak for the whole Committee—the bipartisans, the Cross Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and also the Government Bench—because I am convinced that the present wording without my amendment was inadvertent from the Government point of view.
I do not think that anyone will dissent when I say we all recognise that the leisure industry is now a major industry which is very important for the successful economy of this country. I do not think that anyone will dissent when I say we all recognise that if we are to regain our economic strength it is vital for people to invest in the leisure industry. I do not think that anyone will dissent when I say that we all want the Government to be able to control the general situation. All those points are covered in my amendment. It also rectifies an omission.
At the moment, if anyone in the leisure industry wishes to build new premises—a new dance hall and so on, all of which are part of the leisure industry that necessitate a licence—he goes to the licensing justices. Provided that they are satisfied with the plan and the general control, and that the layout is in accordance with the high standards that we require, the licensing justices give their approval. Under the present law that approval carries with it the right to have the licensing hours as set out, from 10 in the morning until 12 o'clock that night. At the moment, if they approve the plans and conditions, not only will the normal licensing hours be included but also what is known as the special hours certificate. The special hours certificate means that they can continue their leisure business, in this case for licensing bars, from 12 until two o'clock. Those are the special hours. At the moment, when the licensing justices give their approval it is mandatory that it carries with it all facilities including the special hours certificate.
Under the Bill which now amends the existing licensing legislation, one cannot have the special hours certificate until the building is built. One can apply for the special hours certificate for the extra two hours only after the building is built. I emphasise the extra two hours because if one is arranging a banquet, or a dance, and all the facilities that go with the leisure business, one knows that those extra two hours are when most of the business is done, with latecomers and so on. If one is considering spending £1 million, £0.75 million, £0.5 million, or whatever it is—and this is where the important investment ingredient comes into it—on premises to meet that need, before one lays the first brick and commits oneself to the financial outlay one wishes to know what use the building can be put to when one has spent that amount of money. Under the present law one has the benefit of the normal licensing hours, and the special hours certificate. If someone deviates from the high standards that one ought to adopt in looking after one's premises, my amendment would in no way interfere with the power to deal with such people.
I hope that my amendment is in keeping with what is generally desired in all parts of the Committee. When one applies for permission, which means one will spend £1 million on the new premises, the licensing justices must satisfy themselves that the plans fit the granting of a special hours certificate. At that stage they can impose any conditions they like to ensure that what they consider is the proper way to conduct the premises is carried out. My amendment provides that before the investor commits his money, and builds the building, he knows exactly what is expected of him. He knows that if he deviates from

1069
what he has agreed to do, he will lose his right to the special hours certificate.
At present if one first applies for normal licensing hours—there could be some doubt about whether it would be granted when the building is completed because of something that has been overlooked—then no company or individual will risk spending the amount of money that is involved nowadays in building those premises without knowing the full use that they will be allowed to be put to.
My amendment does not remove the right not to grant from the licensing justices or the powers that be, if there are deviations from the standards that we want the special hours certificates to be put to and used. It merely means that at the time the premises are approved the conditions are laid down regarding how the premises are to be built and how they are to be conducted for a special hours certificate to be granted so that there will be no doubt in the minds of the people spending the money and making the investment. We all want to help the leisure industry. Investors do not want to be committed to all that expense while the building is being built only to find at the end of the day that, because of unforeseen circumstances, they will not get their special hours certificates.
The reason I said that this was a glorious occasion so far as I am concerned has nothing to do with licensing laws, nothing to do with whether it is good to drink, nothing to do with whether it affects somebody driving a motor car if he has had too much to drink. This is a case where we want to encourage people to invest so that the general economy can benefit from everything that flows from the investment. But before people invest, they are entitled to know exactly the conditions that the premises they are investing in can be put to.
I truly believe that the words in my amendment meet the description that I have just given. If for any reason the words in the amendment do not quite meet the point as I have tried to describe it to the Committee, I should be most happy to withdraw it now, perhaps find acceptable words and return with it at Report stage. But the general principle is that if we want to encourage investment and give the go-head to the development of the leisure industry (which is so important) we ought to give to the people who will take the monetary risks the satisfaction of knowing what they can do without in any way removing the ultimate power to regulate it if they deviate from what they promised to do.
I hope that my noble friend will see the point of that and that he will tell us whether the words are satisfactory and acceptable to him. Then away we go. We can get on with our investment and encouraging the growth of this extra industry. But if the words are wrong, I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage and find words that are more satisfactory to all concerned.
In the hope that I carry Members from all parts of the Committee with me, and because I believe it reflects what they truly feel, I am happy to move the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend said that this was a glorious occasion. Despite the fact that it is my noble friend's amendment, I should not have pitched it quite as high as that. He refers to special hours certificates. What his amendment refers to are essentially late night drinking licences. They allow the sale and supply of alcohol up to two o'clock—sometimes up to three o'clock in parts of the West End of London—as an ancillary to music and dancing entertainment and to substantial refreshment. The justices have no option, as the law now stands, but to grant a certificate if certain criteria are satisfied. The existing provisions in Clause 5 give the justices discretion to grant or to refuse a certificate, even though the criteria are met. This will have the result that no longer will it be possible for the night club owner, who finds his certificate revoked on grounds of noise and nuisance to nearby residents, to apply at the next session of the justices for a certificate which then has to be granted as of right simply because the statutory criteria remain satisfied.
Under the Bill the intentions of local district councils, who impose conditions on music and dancing licences in order to curtail noise after, for example, 11.30 at night, will not be frustrated by finding that the sale of drinks until midnight is automatically allowed.
It was those anomalies which caused us to review the existing arrangements for special hours certificates and to propose that the justices should have over these discretion as to their grant and as to the limitations which could be imposed on them to prevent late night disturbance to local residents.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said that the risk involved in putting a sum of money into new premises without any guarantee that a late night drinks licence would be granted is too great a gamble. Instead his amendments envisage a provisional grant of a certificate to premises in the course of construction. I do not wish to make too much of a point about this, but the amendments are defective. The principle is that the difficulties are in the proposed power to enable licensing justices to grant a provisional special hours certificate for premises which are in the course of construction. It does not seem to me to be reasonable to expect the justices to make a decision, even if it is only provisional, which nevertheless carries some form of automatic entitlement with it, when the essential prerequisites for a full certificate are still very much in a provisional form. It is not reasonable to expect members of the public and the police to comment on or to object to the provisional grant of a certificate if the eventual nature of the premises is no more than speculation.
I understand the problem which my noble friend has and I realise that those who invest in an expensive night club or dance hall—I do not know whether that is what my noble friend does and it would certainly be an interesting occupation if he did—would find it helpful on commercial grounds to have a degree of certainty that a late night drinks licence would be available. I doubt whether justices should be put in the position of looking to the future and assessing the likely consequences.

1071
Despite what my noble friend has persuasively said, I do not recognise the need for the facility proposed by the amendment. My feeling is that the would-be licensees of late night ventures would be better advised to have an informal talk with the local court as to the attitudes of the justices and the police to discover their likely reaction.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: It is my fault I suppose, but my noble friend still does not have my point. Indeed, the department he represents did not have the point when I argued this by letters. I hope we can clear it up.
I am not suggesting in my amendment that the provisional special hours certificate should be given without any question. I do not mind if the local justices, when they are looking at the plans and listening to the case when the first application is made, say "In our judgment there ought to be a licence only up to midnight and the special hours certificate will not be allowed." It would then be up to the investor to decide whether or not it was worth carrying on with his investment. But if from the beginning it is made clear that for it to be viable at all it must have all the facilities that our licensing laws give including a special hours certificate, and if the investment is such that in their judgment it needs that to make it an economical proposition, all that I ask is that if they submit a plan of management and the justices lay down that providing the plans submitted and the undertakings given at that stage are adhered to, then they will know that they have that extra special hours certificate which will justify the size and the type of their investment.
The main point in favour of my request is that that is what has been happening until now. I do not think my noble friend can find anywhere details where what now happens—that is, where approval in the first place automatically carries the licensing and the special hours certificate—has caused any trouble. I know of no case.
In his present capacity my noble friend may not be aware that the only reason why the Government have joined in this amendment, which deals with the point I have tried to describe, is that, for another reason to which I do not object, the power to grant a dancing and entertainments licence has been taken away from the justices and given to a local authority committee. That committee has caused this alteration which has brought about what I believe to be a real discouragement to the kind of investment that we should like to see.
My noble friend said that the words of my amendment left room for improvement and I accept that view. I listened to advisers who should know what they are doing and I did my best to find the right words to cover the point as I have described it. If the Government's view is that my words are not good enough, I am perfectly happy to change them, provided that I can have an indication that the general principle of encouraging investment and the extension of the leisure industry—which we should all like to see—is likely to figure.
1072
I can assure my noble friend that if the situation is left in its present position there will be many instances up and down the country where ideas that would be developed in line with the extension of the leisure industry will be jeopardised, and an amendment on these lines should be adopted.
Earl Ferrers: I made no attempt to say that the amendment could not be accepted because the words of my noble friend were defective. They may be defective in some small part but that is of no great difficulty.
I believe that there is a point of substance and I realise my noble friend's desire to obtain investment. However, it is important to note that at present, where permission is given for music, dancing, entertainment and substantial refreshment, the justices have no option other than to permit an extended licence. We consider that they should have an option. With the greatest respect, I can understand that my noble friend likes to have his cake and eat it. He wishes to be able to produce plans and say, "If we build this night club, provided that we have entertainment and refreshments, can we know, before the building is complete, that we have an extension until 2 a.m.?". We take the view that the licensing authorities should be able to consider that matter when the building has been erected.
It may be that on completion the night club will create an awful noise and it will be an offence to the community. We consider that it is going a little too far to suggest that an organisation should have in advance, as of right, the knowledge that it can have an extension until 2 p.m. before the building has been erected. I see my noble friend's point and his anxiety and I shall investigate whether there is any way in which it can be met. At the moment I do not see where it will be.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Perhaps I may press my noble friend a little further. I should like to ask him to look at the practicalities of the issue. Let us suppose that a company or an individual is contemplating building a leisure centre and calculates its potential before spending the kind of money involved. It may be that a good part of the money must be borrowed from the bank, which must be satisfied that the necessary income from the investment will be met. We are talking of bricks and mortar and not something which can easily be put up and pulled down.
One may say to the justices: "Here are the plans for a building which may cost £1 million or more. In order to justify the investment and pay for it we need to hold banquets and the kind of entertainment which is nowadays part of our business. If you grant a licence we want you to know what will take place". If at that stage the justices refuse the special hours licence the businessman can make a judgment as to whether to proceed with the investment and build the centre.
However, at the present time, one must first spend the £1 million and build the establishment. Then if for reasons which should have been known at the first application one is not allowed to generate the

1073
business which will provide the income to make the repayments on the investment, it is much too late. One is then left with a building which cannot be used in an economical way. I am proposing that, instead of the justices making their decision after the completion of the building, after the money has been invested and after the full commitment has been made in the hope of being granted the extra hours, they should make a decision as to whether such a building and its management justifies a special certificate on the first application and then they can carry on. What is the difference between the justices making their decision before the building is completed as compared with afterwards? It is then too late to do anything other than to make the individual or the company bankrupt because the laws have not allowed them to use the building.
At this stage I should like to withdraw my amendment in the hope that the explanation I have tried to give will cause my noble friend and his colleagues to look at the matter again. I hope that by Report we shall have reached a point where the practical common sense issue can be faced. That will mean that in respect of many buildings the situation will remain the same. There is no evidence to show that there is anything wrong with granting permission for a special hours certificate at the time of approving the building. We have the experience of having done so. In the hope that by the time we reach the Report stage we shall have second thoughts from the Government, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Power to vary permitted hours in on-licensed vineyard premises.
. The following section shall be inserted after section 87 of the principal Act—
"Power to vary permitted hours in on-licensed vineyard premises.
87A.—(1) Licensing justices, on an application by the holder of a justices' on-licence for any premises which form part of a vineyard, may make an order varying the permitted hours in those premises on weekdays, other than Christmas Day or Good Friday, if, after hearing evidence, they are satisfied—

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

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

(2) An order under this section may vary the permitted hours either generally or for such days or part or parts of the year as the licensing justices think fit.
(3) In making an order under this section, licensing justices may not so vary the permitted hours as to make them exceed in total more than twelve hours on any day.
(4) A person intending to apply for an order under this section shall give notice in writing of his intention to the clerk to the licensing justices and the chief officer of police at least 21 days before the commencement of the licensing sessions at which the application is to be made.
(5) Licensing justices shall not hear an application for an order under this section unless notice under subsection (4) of this section has been duly given.
(6) Licensing justices may revoke or vary an order under this section; but, unless it is proved that the holder of the justices' on-licence had notice of the revocation or variation, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 59 of this Act in doing anything that would have been lawful had the revocation or variation not been made.").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 34 and 35. This new clause has been tabled to honour a commitment made in another place that we shall consider how best to meet the particular needs of vineyards which sell samples of their products to visitors. In many areas vineyards have become increasingly popular tourist attractions, drawing large numbers of visitors throughout the week from the time when they open in the morning. Approximately 100 vineyards are open to the public.
The Government have much sympathy with the proprietors of vineyards who have become increasingly frustrated by restrictions on licensing hours which prevent them at certain times from complementing a tour of a vineyard by selling to the visitor a glass of their product. Although the main provisions of the Bill will remove most of the difficulties which are at present experienced by vineyard proprietors on weekdays in that it will allow them to sell wine throughout the day from 11 a.m., we accept that there remains a problem as regards the first visitors of the day.
The new clause provides a specific power for licensing justices to exercise their discretion to allow bona fide vineyards to sell wine for tasting from the time when the vineyard opens in the morning on weekdays, subject to a maximum of 12 hours trading per day. In making the orders, licensing justices will be required to satisfy themselves that the sale of samples is ancillary to the main business of growing grapes and making wine and that the hours are necessary to accommodate visitors. We believe that this discretion which is available to the justices and which is accompanied by a power to vary or revoke the additional hours if circumstances change, provides adequate safeguards against misuse and should bring substantial benefits in terms of promoting tourism and encouraging a promising new industry. It may be convenient if, at this stage, I also say a few words about the amendments tabled to Schedule 3 of the Bill. We think it sensible and desirable that, if the licensing justices have made an order varying the permitted hours for licensed premises at vineyards, a notice is displayed in a conspicuous place on the premises explaining the effect of the order. This is achieved by the first amendment to Schedule 3.
It is also important, in terms of enforcing the law, that there should be a requirement on the licensee of the vineyard premises to produce the order granted by the licensing justices if this is demanded by a magistrate or a police officer. This is achieved by the second amendment to Schedule 3.
Both will have the effect of extending existing requirements to display and produce orders to

1075
vineyard proprietors who benefit by the arrangements proposed in the new clause. I beg to move.
Lord Broxbourne Lord Broxbourne moved as an amendment to Amendment No. 12, Amendment No. 13:
Line 6, leave out ("on weekdays, other than Christmas Day or Good Friday").
The noble Lord said: There are three categories of amendment. First, there is a wrecking amendment, which is not usual in this Chamber but not unknown in the other place; secondly, there is the exploratory amendment; and thirdly, there is the helpful amendment. I am glad to say that my amendment falls within that third and, it is to be hoped, favoured category.
I support the Government's amendment moved by my noble friend and I do not seek in any way to diminish it. On the contrary, I seek to complete and fulfil it. The amendment which has just been moved would give the justices power to vary the permitted hours within the specified limits for weekdays. However, it leaves a gap in that it makes no provision for Sundays and the amendment which I now venture to commend to the Committee seeks to fill that gap. In substance it reproduces the amendment moved in the other place by my very respected friend Anthony Steen and which was brought to my attention by another old and valued friend Sir Geoffrey Finsberg. Although the wording is now different, the substance is the same.
I shall now seek, however inadequately, to support the proposals put forward by those two eminent Members of the other place which received the support of many other respected Members there. I do not own a vineyard and I have very little experience of them, although I am not wholly averse to the consumption of their end products. However, I have received some helpful information from the English Vineyards Association and also from Mr. Anthony Steen.
The present law with regard to the consumption of these products in vineyards is that on Sundays visitors to vineyards can taste the product only between the hours of 12 to 2 p.m. and 7 to 11 p.m. If I have that wrong then I am sure my noble friend will correct me. Of course, as the Committee will appreciate, the second category of permitted hours is of little practical use because people do not normally visit vineyards during that period and therefore that is not of practical help. Visitors cannot taste the products between 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. which is precisely the period when they are most likely to be at the vineyard.
My amendment would give a permissive power to the licensing justices to vary the permitted hours for Sundays. It would give the power to permit flexible hours subject to the restriction that the permitted hours as varied could not exceed five and a half hours and could not start earlier than 12 noon. I venture to submit that the advantages of this change are considerable. Perhaps I can brieflly specify four advantages. First, it is not mandatory; it is only permissive. Secondly, it introduces reality and
1076
permits tasting at the hours when people may wish to taste and be there so to do. Thirdly, it does not add to the maximum permitted hours in that it would be subject to a limitation of five and a half hours. Fourthly, it does not inhibit or prejudice Church attendance.
In support of the last proposition perhaps I may make a Proustian evocation. The school which I attended—and I shall not say how many years ago—in conformity with the period of its founding, which was the very beginning of the Victorian era, reflected the ethos of those days. We had—and the right reverend Prelate will be glad to hear this—three Church services on a Sunday in accordance with the rites of the Church of England. If my amendment commends itself to the Committee and reaches the statute book it would not prejudice or inhibit attendance at any or all of those three services. If any Member of the Committee attends more than three Church services on a Sunday—and I am not including the right reverend Prelate in this—then no doubt he will rise in his place and identify himself. In the absence of anyone doing so, Members of the Committee can take it as conclusively shown that these permitted hours would not inhibit attendance at three Church services let alone at one.
Therefore, in conclusion, the proposed changes that this amendment suggests make sense where the existing law does not. That the existing law does not make sense is on record in the discussions in the other place where the Under-Secretary of State Mr. Douglas Hogg, with the hereditary sagacity to be expected of the son of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said:
"There is a Certain amount of nonsense in the existing law".
He also said that if Ministers could resolve the problem then they would do so. The chance has now arrived and I invite my noble friend to seize it. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I strongly support this amendment. We have vineyards on the Isle of Wight which suffer from the present law and which will benefit from the new clause. However, as he said, and as we know, it deals only with weekdays and not Sundays.
We are referring to tastings, as my noble friend the Minister said. As I understand it, on Sundays (assuming that the Committee accepts Amendment No. 12) tastings cannot be given from licensed premises, let alone sold, outside permitted hours. However, it is legal to give tastings at any time on premises that are not licensed. The effect is that visitors who arrive early in the day on Sundays or who arrive on Sunday afternoons have to be ushered out of the licensed premises to be given a tasting. That is absolute nonsense.
My noble friend the Minister said earlier that the Government were being very cagey about Sundays; but I believe that tastings, which are a part of promoting vineyards, do not come in the same category as pub opening hours. Therefore, having gone so far in Amendment No. 12, the Government could perhaps go a little further and accept the

1077
amendments of my noble friend Lord Broxbourne. I hope that the Government will agree that the amendments are in a very different category from the aspects he was cautious about earlier.
Lord Monson: I, too, support this amendment, which I have not previously studied. I have absolutely no interest in any English vineyards; but I am aware that they labour under considerable difficulties, both fiscal and otherwise, as opposed to the Continental vineyards. I believe that the amendments would go some way towards encouaging their very commendable enterprise.
Lord Hooson: From these Benches we support these amendments.
Earl Ferrers: These amendments give greater flexibility to vineyards in respect of Sunday hours. They are not entirely without precedent. Registered private members' clubs, though they are required to take an afternoon break of at least two hours, are otherwise free to fix their own Sunday hours starting from 12 noon and subject to a maximum total of five and a half hours ending at 10.30 p.m. The amendments seek to extend a similar privilege to vineyards in recognition of the problems they face in catering for visitors, and in view of the fact that they cannot normally take advantage of the evening opening hours allowed by law.
I have explained to the Committee previously (and I shall do so again) that the Government have always said that they will not seek in this Bill to tinker with the Sunday licensing laws. We therefore take a neutral stance. The Government neither accept nor resist these amendments. I have outlined the arguments which lie behind them, and I leave it to the Committee to decide on whether to accept them.
Lord Broxbourne: I am obliged to my noble friend. I hope that we can interpret his declaration of neutrality as benevolent neutrality. In that confident expectation, I commend the amendments to the Committee.
On Question, Amendment No. 13 agreed to.
Lord Broxbourne Lord Broxbourne moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 12, Amendment No. 14:
Line 19, after ("section") insert ("with respect to permitted hours on weekdays, other than Christmas Day or Good Friday").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Broxbourne Lord Broxbourne moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 12, Amendment No. 15:
Line 20, leave out ("permitted").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Broxbourne Lord Broxbourne moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 12, Amendment No. 16:
Line 21, at end insert—
("(3A) In making an order under this section with respect to permitted hours on Sundays, Christmas Day or Good Friday, licensing justices may not so vary the hours as to make them—

(a) begin before twelve noon; or

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 12, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 17:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Provisional grant of new licence or removal.)
. In section 6 of the principal Act (provisional grant of a new justices' licence or removal in the case of premises about to be or in course of construction etc.) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(4A) The holder of a provisional licence may also apply to have a provisional grant declared final before the premises have been completed if it is likely that they will be completed as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of this section before the date appointed for the next licensing sessions; and the licensing justices, if they are satisfied that the premises are likely to be so completed and are further satisfied of the matters mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, may direct that the declaration may be made before the next licensing sessions by a single licensing justice.
(4B) In a case where a direction has been given under subsection (4A) of this section, a single licensing justice, after such notice has been given as he may require, shall declare the provisional grant final if he is satisfied that the premises have been completed as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of this section.
(4C) Until a provisional grant has been declared final under subsection (4) or (4B) of this section it shall not be valid.").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 17, with the leave of the Committee, I speak also to Amendment No. 36. The purpose of this new clause, which inserts new subsections to Section 6 of the Licensing Act 1964 is to ease some of the logistical difficulties which may be experienced by those who are opening new licensed premises. It stems from an undertaking given in another place that we would consider how best to simplify present procedures. At present, someone building a new supermarket, renovating a corner shop or opening a new pub may apply in advance to the licensing justices for a provisional licence. Before he can begin to trade, however, that licence must be delared final at a licensing sessions when the justices will consider the fitness of the applicant to hold a licence and will check whether the building work has been completed in accordance with the approved plans. Because of the need to check whether the building work has been properly carried out, the final order can only be made when the licensee is ready to begin business. The timing of the licensing sessions may be such that the applicant may have to wait for several weeks from the time he is ready to start trading to the date he can actually start trading.
This amendment is designed to simplify the procedure. It will enable a person to apply to a licensing sessions for his provisional licence to be declared final if the premises are on the verge of completion and will be completed before the date of the next licensing sessions. The licensing justices will at that stage be able to consider all the relevant questions; in particular the fitness of the prospective licensee to hold a licence, leaving only the question of whether the finished building conforms to the approved plans. The amendment provides that the responsibility for establishing this may be delegated by the licensing committee to a single licensing justice who may decide the application outside the licensing sessions. It will thus no longer be necessary for

1079
provisional licence holders to have to try to arrange their construction timetables to coincide with the date of the licensing sessions or find themselves unable to sell alcohol for several weeks after their premises have been completed. We should hear no further stories of supermarket owners trying to explain to their mystified customers that, although the store intends to sell beer and wine, it may not do so for another three weeks. This amendment represents a sensible streamlining of licensing procedures without sacrificing any of the safeguards which the licensing process provides.
The amendment to Schedule 4 of the Bill is purely a consequential amendment. It repeals a few words at the end of Section 6(4) to take account of the new subsections added by the new clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Revocation of justices' licences and canteen licences]:
Lord Morris Lord Morris of Kenwood moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 8, line 23, leave out ("at any licensing sessions") and insert ("once a year in the year when there is not an application for renewal").
The noble Lord said: Following my previous intervention, it seems to me totally incongruous that under this Bill justices may revoke a licence of their own Motion but are not to be permitted to make a restriction order under their own Motion. That appears to be nonsensical. Be that as it may, under the present Act objectors may be heard on an application to grant or renew a licence.
Clause 8 provides for the extension of the duration of a licence from one to three years. Clause 9 allows an application to be made to revoke a licence at any licensing session. In other words, objections can be made to the continuation of a licence on a separate application and not only in the course of an application for renewal.
That provision would far exceed the present annual right to object to renewal. It would allow applications almost monthly and would be likely to cause a considerable increase in the work of the licensing justices and their already overburdened staff. It is for this reason that I seek to limit the number of occasions on which any objection may be made to once a year in the years when there is not an application for renewal. I feel strongly that Clause 9 would have a most detrimental effect and I urge the Government to think again on the subject. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Clause 8 provides that the licences shall be renewable as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, on a three-year basis instead of the existing annual basis. To balance this, and to provide a safeguard to protect the community from premises which give rise to serious complaints, Clause 9 provides a new power which allows the licensing justices to revoke a licence at any licensing sessions on the same grounds as they may now refuse to renew
1080
one. The present system which enables the continuation of the licence to be challenged only once a year at the time of renewal, is open to criticism. It protects the licensee from complaints which are made in the course of the year. For instance, complaints may arise in April from the police or members of the public, and they may not be fully aired until the following February.
With the move to a three-year system of licences, it would be quite unrealistic to allow a licence to remain beyond challenge for anything up to three years. The annual general licensing meetings, at which renewals of licences are now dealt with, will not remain in the public mind as the occasion to lodge objections. It was for all those reasons that we concluded that the only practicable and fair solution was to allow a licence to be challenged, by means of an application for revocation, at any of the licensing sessions. There is no reason to think that this new provision will lead to a particular increase in the number of complaints against licensees or their premises. Only a very small proportion of licences are the subject of objection now in any event. I think it unlikely that more will come under scrutiny as a result of the new provision in Clause 9.
The amendment would reduce the opportunity for complaints to be lodged on only one occasion in the year. I do not believe that to be right and I hope that the noble Lord will think again and not press this amendment.
Lord Morris of Kenwood: I must be honest and say that I do not find that answer to be very satisfactory. I believe this provision will create a great deal of additional work. It may be only in a small number of cases that objections are made but some of them can be quite vociferous. As a result of this Bill, I expect that we shall find a heavy increase in the number of objections. Be that as it may, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Provisional grant or removal of off-licences.
. In section 6 of the principal Act (provisional grant or removal of licences) after subsection (6) there shall be added the following subsections—
"(7) On granting an application for the provisional grant of a new justices' off-licence for any premises or for the provisional removal of an existing justices' off-licence to any premises, the licensing justices shall attach to the licence conditions to ensure that—

(a) intoxicating liquor shall be displayed out of the physical reach of customers,

(b) payment for intoxicating liquor sold on the premises shall be made in the same part of the premises in which the liquor was selected by the customer,

(c) in a case where a substantial portion of the premises is to be used for the sale of commodities other than intoxicating liquor, the premises shall be arranged in such a manner as to secure that the intoxicating liquor is displayed and paid for by customers in a part of the premises which is physically separate from the remainder."

(8) Licensing justices may vary the conditions specified in subsection (7) above in the case of any premises comprising a self-service store in which no more than five persons will be employed, if it can be shown to the satisfaction of the justices that the methods of sale, display, security supervision and staff training are adequate to prevent the theft and illegal sale of intoxicating liquor.").
The noble Viscount said: One of the features of retailing in this country over the past 30 years has been the growth of supermarkets. Within that retailing environment there has been the burgeoning of off-licences which have doubled within the past 13 years and many of those have been within the areas of supermarkets. This amendment seeks to address some of the problems which have been realised and recognised by many bodies who are concerned with alcohol abuse in this country. These bodies are in addition to the police, the nursing profession and many others.
The licensing committees have generally contributed to the growth of these forms of off-licences because the criteria which they bring to bear when they decide whether or not to permit a licence do not include the criterion of need. What often sets out to be an across-the-counter retail service of alcohol has often converted itself to the self-service sales with all the problems of security and ease of access to people who are not entitled to purchase alcohol that self-service suggests. As the Committee knows, there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of alcohol. Generally speaking, I do not believe that there is any disagreement that consumption and abuse go together in the same proportions.
I do not say this in any perjorative sense, but supermarkets provide a service which has increased the quality of life of the community. I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury is here sitting behind me. I can feel him watching me very carefully as I speak. The majority of supermarkets in my experience (in the London area, at any rate) do responsibly supervise the sale of alcohol. But there are notable exceptions. Probably about 50 per cent. of alcohol sold within Great Britain—within England anyway—is sold in supermarkets. Supermarkets have themselves been responsible for a large increase of total alcohol consumption. I would not go so far as to say that the proportion of abuse necessarily follows in that ratio.
Responsible supermarkets and those responsible bodies who have expressed anxieties, all agree that with the change of habits and the increased taste for alcohol among the young in many areas of the country, that has led to quite an alarming increase in alcohol abuse. Whether that intoxication results in immediate criminal activities, damage to property, and so on, or whether it has effects on the health of young people, alcohol abuse has increased enormously. There is a general recognition that we have to look carefully at how the methods of sale in these outlets are controlled with special emphasis on display, security and supervision.
As I have mentioned before, the police are very concerned about this aspect. Recently, I spoke to one of the officers who was responsible for dealing with the unfortunate disturbances on the Broadwater Farm Estate. He told me that one of the main
1082
problems concerned with violence among young people of the kind that suddenly escalates is that many of them are armed with cans of lager which has high alcohol content. Those are not cans which they have bought from a public house, they are cans of beer which they carry in packs (usually six, I believe) which have been purchased from some outlet or other. That could be from a supermarket which is not properly controlled.
The number of children in Scotland who are getting drunk is alarming. I believe in Scotland that they are thinking very seriously of some quite dramatic changes in terms of separating alcohol from other merchandise which is available in these kinds of outlets. A serious picture of drunkenness was outlined in the Scotsman of 27th November last year. It stated that there was a serious picture of drunkenness among children which mainly affects 15 year-olds. That in itself is a horrifying picture. A boy aged 10 and three girls aged 12 were reported by the police as being drunk and incapable.
The publication Licensing Law in the Eighties which came out in 1983 and was published by the Justices' Clerks' Society, dealt with an important matter that we have to consider when looking at this particular amendment. The publication said that there is no power to attach conditions on the grant of an off-licence, and nor is there power to ask for legally enforceable undertakings. The inability to attach conditions to regulate the operation of this fastest growing type of licence and business is a considerable handicap to licensing justices. Licensing justices know more about the difficulties and the dangers than anybody else because they see them every day but they are not in a position to bring about the kind of changes which I am seeking in the amendment.
The Justices' Clerks' Society has since recommended that licensing committees should adopt various changes and policies for premises engaged in the general purveying of foodstuffs. As a result of their experience, justices prefer the shopwithin-the-shop type of operation. We can see that in the London area and in many of the major cities. Where that method has been adopted there is generally better control, display and security. The counter service methods of sale to the exclusion of self-service methods are generally preferable if they can be arranged. I know that there is some resistance from the trade to the suggestions in the amendment but the enormous escalation in alcohol abuse makes it imperative that those people overcome their difficulties. After all, many responsible outlets do it satisfactorily and maintain very good sales. I hope that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury will agree with me on that point.
When intoxicating liquor is out of the physical reach of customers it is more difficult for theft, especially theft by young people, to take place. A policy of all purchases of intoxicating liquor over the counter being paid for at the point of selection is generally in line with what the Justices' Clerks' Society feels is appropriate in this ever-growing form of retailing of alcohol. The amendment seeks to take cognisance of the fact that society is extremely aware of the alarming increase in alcohol consumption

1083
among the young. Alcohol consumption among those over the age of 25 happily appears to have levelled out but it is still increasing among the young. As we said when discussing previous amendments, attitudes are changing for health and other reasons. However, there is still a long way to go. It would probably shorten by at least two or three years the period when we would expect to make changes in the attitude towards alcohol if the supermarkets and off-licences which have not already been responsible enough to do so were compelled to make the changes proposed in the amendment.
Premises where open shelves of alcohol are adjacent to food or clothes and where there are no separate tills make pilfering and spontaneous impulse buying easier. This adds to the difficulty of controlling alcohol abuse which after all is one of the major concerns in society today. I beg to move
Lord Sainsbury: It may not be altogether inappropriate if I follow my noble friend Lord Falkland. First, however, obviously I have to declare an interest because the business which is associated with my name has 270 licensed premises, opens approximately 20 new stores per annum and would be very affected by the proposed restrictions.
A typical new store will stock some 500 to 600 off-licence products of which 250 will probably be table wines. Most supermarkets have well-established systems of supervision in the off-licence departments. There is rigorous staff training where great emphasis is placed on the need to avoid inadvertent sales to people under the age of 18. While paying tribute to the good intentions of my noble friend Lord Falkland and also to my noble friend—but not in a party sense— Lady Ewart-Biggs, I believe that their proposal is retrograde and discriminatory.
The proposal will force a major change in the way in which off-licence sales in this country are currently operated and will progressively restrict sales in a totally unacceptable manner. It can be expected to damage the market and given the volume of sales involved is a wholly intractable suggestion to operate in large supermarkets. In a typical large supermarket some 20,000 bottles of wine are purchased per week. Approximately one customer in seven purchases off-licence products. At peak times, which I need not enumerate, those numbers increase significantly. It will discriminate between different types of trader, between stores large and small, new and old. The choice of the figure of five as the number of staff is arbitrary and would lead to confusion. Does it refer to part-time or full-time staff? What will happen if the number of staff increases? Therefore for all those reasons, if the new clause goes to a Division, I shall vote against it in the hope that the majority of the Committee will do likewise.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: I too wish to speak against the amendment. I should first of all, like the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, declare an interest as a non-executive director of Marks & Spencer. The concerns of Marks & Spencer are very much the
1084
concerns that were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. It is believed—I am sure it is correct—that the amendment is discriminatory in that it is imposed on outlets employing more than five people.
It does not follow of course that those outlets employing fewer people are able to exercise more vigilance than those employing a larger number. It would also be administratively cumbersome in that it requires large units to employ a dual system of payments as well as a dual operating system within the chain of stores; that is to say, those stores in existence would have one form of operation, and others coming into existence would have another. Therefore the system is confusing and one which I think could be regarded as much more difficult for customers.
However, having listened to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland—I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, will make the same points—I think we are all agreed that it is undesirable and of course illegal that young people should be able to buy alcoholic drinks under the age of 18. There is no possible reason for a reputable store to wish in any way to connive in the breaking of the law. Points have been made about that.
That is why Marks & Spencer put great emphasis on the training of management and staff in their stores. I was most interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said on the subject. That is something which is very well known. Indeed, the girls at the till, who may suspect that a young person is trying to buy alcoholic drinks, are trained to call immediately for the help of a supervisor so that a responsible person can deal with what could be seen as a possibly difficult situation for them. A great deal of trouble is taken on that point. A responsible management will do all that they can to ensure that the law is being upheld and that young people are not able to obtain alcoholic drinks.
We all have sympathy with the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland; namely, that we must do something to prevent young people being able to obtain alcoholic drinks. I think that that is the responsibility of a great many people, not least the parents of young people involved. It is right that stores should train their people to be responsible and to exercise great responsibility in this important matter. I believe that the amendment ought to be resisted for the reasons that have been given: that it is administratively cumbersome, discriminatory and it would unquestionably be a nuisance for customers. Furthermore, it does not help those stores that are aiming to act responsibly and have always done so.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise hoping that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and those who support his point of view, will accept that although the intention to control the sale of alcohol (especially to young people) in a responsible way is accepted, he should, nevertheless take into account the views expressed by the noble Baroness who has just spoken from her position of authority and information, and by his colleague with his unrivalled experience of running a business. We are all in fact aiming to hit the right target. But with the greatest respect, I do not think that this attempt to bother or interfere with the

1085
internal structure of a supermarket or a store is the way to go about it.
Most of us rely upon information that is given to us. The noble Baroness has just mentioned the point that there are a great many people who have responsibility, not least government agencies, education authorities and parents, to ensure that young people are better educated in this connection. The noble Viscount used the illustration of Broadwater Farm. I live within two or three miles of that area. However, that example was just used as an illustration to show that people can go into places and easily buy six-packs of beer. The inference from that might be that one of the places from which they could buy alcohol would be a supermarket.
I can tell the Committee that when one looks at the experience, for example, of co-operative and multiple outlets from studies which have been done by reputable research people, less than 1 per cent. of the customers who visit those places are below the legal age limit at which alcohol can be bought. In other words, there are a great many other places where people, who could well be under the age limit, can purchase alcohol.
I should stress the point that when one looks at the wording of the amendment, one sees that it will ban self-service alcohol sections from future new stores. That provision immediately creates two classes: the present stores—to use the phrase—that will not be inhibited from the new regulation, and those that will. When that issue is raised, one will have an opportunity to see whether that is indeed contrary to the interests of fair trading, because one is creating not an artificial but a real difference between the terms of trade under which an existing supermarket and a new store may well wish to operate.
However, more especially, I think we have to accept the overwhelming responsibility felt by the large supermarkets. I do not think that there can be any doubt, as the noble Baroness said, that they are desperately anxious not to fall foul of the law. They not only support the law but they also support the amendment to the Bill which was made in Clause 15; that is, in no instance will it be legal for someone below the age of 18 to sell alcohol unless they have a supervisor or a management colleague in the place. I shall quickly read out to the Committee what one of the larger chains does to ensure that the supervision of checkout operators is properly carried out. It provides that:
"The Wines and Spirits Department must be exclusively supervised at all times by a person over 18 years of age.
The supervisor will be identified by special clothing or a badge. When this person leaves the store for any reason his/her designated relief supervisor shall be similarly identified.
Badges will be kept in the Branch manager's office to prevent loss.
The badge wearer must prevent any person under the age of 18 from serving themselves and must refer any difficulty or doubt about the age of a customer to the Branch Manager or Deputy Manager.
No person under the age of 18 may be involved in the check-out operation unless under the direct supervision of check-out/cashier management or another member of staff who is 18 years of age or older.
Notices must be displayed in a prominent position to remind staff and customers that it is an offence for any person under the age of 18 to buy or attempt to buy alcoholic liquor."
1086
Reference has been made to the training efforts which are made by reputable companies. I have information here from companies. I would not of course wish to identify the companies; but I hope the Committee will accept from me that they are of the highest repute. The companies endeavour time and time again to ensure that the law is observed and carried out. If the amendment were to be carried, it would be against the wishes of the trade, based upon their experience. So I hope that wiser counsel might prevail.
I should like to put another point. The economics of business in 1988 are very fine. If today one says to any business (even a highly successful one) that we must begin to compartmentalise and separate, then expenses are incurred. That in itself is a factor that needs to be borne in mind.
Therefore I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that we are at one in wanting to ensure that young people shall not easily be able to gain access to alcohol. However, this Bill is not the way to go about it. The Committee can rest assured that I shall be with the noble Viscount on many of the other points that he wishes to raise. However, as I have already said, this is not the best way to deal with the present issue that he has referred to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I have my name to the amendment, which has come in for a great welter of opposition, so perhaps I could make a couple of brief points. All Members of the Committee who have spoken have an interest in the sale of alcohol. I do not say that they do not have an interest in safeguarding young people and so on, but their primary interest is in the sale of alcohol. The only speakers who do not have that interest are the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and myself.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said that strict procedures are followed in the shops that bear his name. I am sure that that is so, but what about the others which perhaps do not reach such high standards? We are concerned with them. It has been said that the consumer will be disadvantaged by the amendment; but the consumer has been advantaged a great deal by the increased outlets in supermarkets. It is forgotten now that the consumer has been enormously advantaged over a short period of time. I should have thought that consumers would accept a balance to safeguard and protect young people whom we know are somehow getting their hands on increased amounts of alcohol. I should have thought that consumers would accept some restrictions to compensate for the greatly increased accessibility that there has been over the years.
Many people have said that it is up to parents to stop their children getting into trouble. Of course it is; but parents need all the support that can be given to them by the law and by the shops that sell alcohol. Worry has been expressed about the wording of the amendment. I am sure that the noble Viscount and I are not concerned with the wording of the amendment; we are concerned that it should be a signal. There is considerable anxiety over the increased accessibility of alcohol. We tabled the amendment with a view to having a restriction and safeguard to balance the greater accessibility of alcohol that has come over the years.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The case against the amendment has been put cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and by my noble friend Lady Young. Their evidence, if it can be described as such, was impugned by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, because it was said that they both spoke with an interest. I have always been brought up to believe that people who know most about the subject on which they are talking are those who are most worth listening to. I hope that it will never be regarded as a disqualification from expressing a view that one may be concerned with the trade in question.
However, I hasten to reassure the noble Baroness that my concern is solely that of the consumer. From time to time my wife is rash enough to entrust me with the supermarket shopping. It is not an experience which I especially enjoy, but it is educative. The supermarkets that we patronise are those which have the widest range of goods on their shelves. That is what customers increasingly want now.
I had to administer the planning law. There is a great deal of planning dispute about the role of superstores and out-of-town supermarkets, but the noble Baroness was right when she said that that has brought enormous advantages to the consumer.
The question is not whether alcohol should be sold in supermarkets but how it should be sold. From my observation—I confess freely that it is a limited, almost anecdotal experience—I should have thought that there were better ways of controlling the misuse of self-service alcohol in the generality of superstores, where there are long, open passages which are regularly policed by the staff (shelf fillers and others) than in what one might call a hole-and-corner shop—the shop within the shop about which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, talked.
I do not accept that it is self-evident that the control of alcohol sales is better done against that background than in the broader, open corridors and the effective check-out systems which the vast majority of superstores have. I question seriously the basis of the amendment. Like my noble friend Lady Young, I speak as a former Social Services Minister. No one can be in the least complacent about the problems of alcohol and the young, but I share the view put forward a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that the new clause is not the way to deal with the problem.
If there are superstores which do not properly control the sale of alcohol from their open shelves, the remedy lies with those who are concerned about the matter. They can go to the licensing justices and seek to have the licence revoked. The remedy is not to impose the requirement upon every new superstore, which is what the new clause does, however detailed the planning may already have been, that it should have an entirely separate outlet for alcohol.
I respect the motives of those who tabled the amendment, but I hope that the Committee will agree with those who have argued that it is misconceived and should not reach the statute book.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has made out a substantial case against the amendment; but there is also a substantial case for it. I remember that as counsel 25 years ago I made many applications for licences for supermarkets. They were unusual in those days. One had to satisfy the licensing justices on all the requirements set out in subsection (7) (a), (b) and (c) of the new clause. One had no hope of obtaining the licence without satisfying them.
Let us look at the problem as it emerges today. We all know that throughout the country there is a great problem of teenage abuse of alcohol. We have abundant evidence of it. There have been a number of special studies about it in Wales. When children are investigated, it transpires that much of the alcohol is obtained by theft from supermarkets and from illegal sales. When one goes into a supermarket these days—I have in mind a supermarket that I use—one sees alcohol displayed on different shelves just before one goes out by the cash desk. It is available for sale.
Some of the cashiers are under age. That is an important point when considering who is to impose a sanction on a child who takes alcohol off a shelf and passes someone at the cash desk. If one considers the changes in public habits over the past 25 years—I am the first to concede from the consumers' point of view that there are enormous advantages in the supermarket, the hypermarket and so on—there is a social price to be paid. I can understand that the trade sees the provision imposing considerable inconvenience, but there comes a point at which the social price is too high. We must consider whether the lack of separate provision, such as is set out in the amendment, would inconvenience supermarkets and hypermarkets. It would be contrary to the trends of recent years, yet the trends of recent years include the gross abuse of alcohol by children and teenagers. We have to consider the contribution made by the free access to alcohol in the supermarkets in the way described.
Lord Graham of Edmonton; I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for giving way. I should like to point out that very often when someone below the age of 18 serves at a supermarket checkout, the inference is that he or she is free to serve alcohol. But they can only take the purchases from someone if there is a supervisor to whom they can refer.
Lord Hooson: That may be the theoretical proposition, but the practicalities of life in a supermarket are totally different. I am not disputing that the best run supermarkets and hypermarkets try to ensure completely adequate supervision but we have to cater in our laws for the average, not the best. Therefore, I think that there is a very substantial case to be made for this amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I will, if I may, say a few words on this amendment. First of all I think it is extremely valuable that my noble friend Lord Falkland put it down because there has been an extremely interesting though brief debate. I very much agree with some, though with not all of the

1089
views of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, when he drew attention to the problem of alcohol abuse—a problem which he recognised as being particularly significant when he was Secretary of State for Social Services.
The only thing which I felt was slightly disappointing in the noble Lord's speech was what precisely he was suggesting we as a society should do about the problem. I am not saying that on the basis of the speech made by my noble friend Lord Falkland we should necessarily pass this amendment, but I have so far heard no significant contribution by those opposing it putting forward any set of proposals for dealing with the problem of alcohol abuse among young people.
Let me speak as a former chairman of a parole board. These statistics have been given in the past but they should be repeated: 50 per cent. of murders in this country, including murders committed by young people, are committed when the person concerned is under the influence of alcohol. Also in 50 per cent. of cases of unpremeditated violence, which distinguishes a fight at a football ground from a bank robbery, the assailant is drunk at the time.
We also know that crime is a young person's problem. The age group in which there is the highest degree of likelihood of people coming before the courts is the 15 to 18 year-olds. One only has to recognise that fact to see the relevance of this issue—the question of alcohol abuse which we have been debating tonight.
I certainly should not fight for every element of my noble friend's amendment and I suspect that he will not press it this evening in any event. But I think that those who are in the retail trade have the responsibility for looking at what can be done in those areas of the trade, which do exist, where no adequate steps are being taken to prevent young people acquiring liquor. Of course, what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said is true. They were speaking as directors of two companies which have a particularly good reputation in this country. I do not doubt for a moment everything the noble Baroness said about the instructions given to Marks & Spencer staff. Both of these are very well managed organisations. But I am afraid we also have to recognise that there is a very large number of other concerns whose reputations are not quite so spotless.
Let me come back to an issue which we debated not long ago: the question of disturbances at football matches. What was the cause of those disturbances? In the overwhelming majority of cases it was alcohol abuse; young people who had drunk far too much.We all recognised that when we were debating the Bill in this House. Despite that legislation, I may say that the disturbances in and around football grounds still take place. The young people concerned are still in many cases heavily under the influence of alcohol when they are involved in these disturbances.
Inevitably, like that of others, my evidence is anecdotal. But from talking to senior police officers who are responsible for the management of public order around many football grounds in this country, I am repeatedly told that young people have been
1090
acquiring alcohol illicitly from retail outlets. I know it may displease the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, to say this, but sometimes it has been made quite clear that these children obtain it from supermarkets where there is no adequate supervision by members of the management. That being so, we look to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he replies to the debate, to tell us what precisely is to be done about the situation.
Many of us accept that there are responsible people in the retail trade who are as concerned about this issue as the rest of us. But I think they also have to recognise that on the basis of consistent advice from the police about what has been taking place in the country over the last few years when there have been serious breaches of public order, there is no doubt whatever that one of the principal reasons has been that significant numbers of young people have been acquiring liquor illicitly.
The Earl of Onslow: I think it is worthwhile remembering that in this country we have the lowest alcohol consumption of most states in Europe. It is also worthwhile suggesting to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that separating alcohol sales in supermarkets would have no effect on the murder rate whatever. I know the noble Lord did not say that it would do so, but he brought in as some minor suggestion that murders were all caused by alcohol. That may be so, but I do not think that where alcohol is displayed in supermarkets will have any effect at all on that.
Earl Ferrers: It has been explained that this amendment is designed to combat several problems associated with alcohol, particularly those which arise at self-service outlets. I think all of us are acutely concerned about where alcohol is abused, and where it is used illicitly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, or is purchased illicitly. I should point out to the noble Lord that this will not alter any illicit purchasing of alcohol.
Noble Lords will be aware that my noble friend Lady Masham produced a report at the end of last year which provided a comprehensive analysis of the problems which surround young people and alcohol. This is a matter about which I know, from what we have heard this evening, most noble Lords are very concerned. Lady Masham's report contained a list of recommendations to help us to combat some of these problems. Oddly enough, those did not include legislating to increase the physical security of off-licence premises.
When we consulted the interested parties on our proposed response to my noble friend's report, we floated the idea of enabling licensing justices to attach conditions to new off-licence supermarkets in order to confine sales of alcohol, as my noble friend Lady Young said, to a shop within the shop. The responses which we received convinced us that such a move would be oppressive and furthermore it would not immediately address the problem which we were trying to tackle. The interested parties said that we needed to strengthen the law on sales to young people. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was concerned about. He asked what we

1091
were going to do about that. That matter is addressed in Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill. These will make the licensee much more responsible for ensuring that his drinks are not sold to those who are under age.
We have also introduced in Clause 15 a new requirement that all off-licence sales which are made by somebody under the age of 18 must be supervised by an adult. I think that the new measures will represent a considerable tightening of the law in this area and they should have a real impact on the problem, which is of such great concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Jenkin all said that if we were to accept this amendment it would have a severe effect upon the ability of individuals to shop in a way which they consider reasonable. I think that my noble friend Lady Young said that the amendment was discriminatory and would be administratively cumbersome.
The Government have a duty to protect the vulnerable, but that has to be balanced against the need to avoid unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of the majority. I respect the intention of this amendment but I am bound to say that I do not believe that it is correct to put it in the Bill because it disturbs that balance.
7 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: I must confess that I felt somewhat friendless at the beginning of this debate but help came like the United States cavalry. I can confirm the prognostication of my noble friend Lord Harris that I do not propose to push this to a Division. It has been an interesting debate.
It is curious that, having taken the trouble to consult a number of police officers, social workers, people in voluntary agencies and others, I have not yet had any dissenting view to that which I put forward in my amendment. Therefore I was somewhat surprised that there was such a strength of opposition from those Members of the Committee who spoke, although I realise and accept that they spoke with utmost sincerity and honesty and that they wish to see alcohol abuse reduced as much as I do.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Young, stated her wish or her desire that parents should take more responsibility she mentioned something which we all share. But the reality is that across the social and economic classes parental control is sadly deficient today. I wish that we were in a perfect world where parents would take control. I agree with her in that regard. We touched on that area when we were discussing other amendments. But it is unrealistic to think that parents can suddenly now jump in, control their children and stop pilfering, violence, football hooliganism and other such matters.
Members of the Committee who spoke and declared their interests were, as has been said, connected with known, large and reputable organisations which have taken every step to see that proper safeguards are included in the way that the product is retailed. But there are many shops and outlets which do not have strict controls and the same
1092
standards. I cannot tell the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, how many murders have resulted from people going into corner shops and putting drink into their pockets because unfortunately in this couuntry we have not yet reached the stage where the attitude is such that we have proper statistics for such things. Perhaps in three years' time we shall be able to tell him precisely how many murders were committed, how many throats were cut or how many people were banged over the head as a result of other people going into supermarkets and taking drink; but at this stage I am afraid that I am as much in the dark as he is.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said, we have put this amendment down as a marker. It has been a useful debate and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Garage Sales.
. After section 9(3) of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) Premises shall be disqualified for receiving a justices' licence if their primary purpose is the retailing of petrol or derv to motorists or other users of motor vehicles or the sale and maintenance of motor vehicles."").
The noble Viscount said: We now come to an amendment that deals with a subject which should be sensitive, although I deal with it with a little more trepidation than I had when I approached my previous amendment. This seems to me and I think to many of the Members of the Committee on these Benches to be one of the most extraordinary contradictions and anomalies in alcohol consumption today. The anomaly is that outlets which dispense petrol and diesel fuel and which supply the needs of motorists, commercial or private, should supply alcoholic liquor, bearing in mind the quite appalling tally of road accidents each year and the enormous amount of public concern that there is in every area that it is possible to buy alcohol where one stops in one's motor car and where one purchases petrol or diesel fuel.
It seems to me that everybody realises now, no matter how much they feel that it may encroach on their habits in driving from place to place, that alcohol and driving are a mismatch. That is something of which people are becoming increasingly aware although perhaps not as aware as some of our neighbours in other countries. However I always hesitate to mention other countries in the Chamber because it seems to create such an extraordinary rise in temperature.
Nevertheless others view as very curious the fact that we do not get to grips with this mismatch between the driver and alcohol in a more positive way. They also view as curious the fact that we do not make up our minds about random testing and how people should be dealt with when they seriously endanger life through irresponsible purchase and consumption of alcohol when in charge of motor vehicles.
The licensing of garages has taken place in a way which is quite alarming, but one must say also that

1093
many licensing committees refuse to grant licences to garages. However 150 licences have been granted in England and Wales. Many benches are under enormous pressure to grant more of these licences because of the precedents that have been set. It seems to me that it is time that we set down a clear standard of approach to the retailing of alcohol alongside that of petrol and fuel for motorists.
My amendment has support from the police. I have mentioned the police a good deal tonight and I am happy that they support this amendment. It is the official policy of the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, as adopted in 1987, to prevent sales of this kind. Policemen have to deal with the results of the consumption of alcohol, which leads to accidents either fatal or otherwise. They have to pick up the pieces and they know what they are talking about
If the Committee agrees to this amendment it will be a very considerable step in the right direction. Apart from being a step in the right direction in terms of the law it is a very good educative step. If one makes it quite clear to young people by a step of this kind that it is unacceptable to drink and drive, and if one makes it more difficult for people to buy drink if they are going to be in control of a vehicle, it brings it home to young people who are starting to drive and who unfortunately have caught on to what I and many other Members of the Committee consider the very equivocal attitude to alcohol in this country that this is a serious matter. It has the dual function of being educative and being a practical step in immediately reducing the possibilities of accidents and fatalities. I do not think that this amendment would cause an enormous inconvenience. Other Members of the Committee may feel differently. It seems to me to be in tune with the way people are beginning to think about the anti-social behaviour of people who consume drink and go out and drive a motor car.
Everyone knows the statistics. Each year more than 5,000 people are killed in motor accidents; 300,000 are injured in road accidents each year; alcohol is directly implicated in 1,500 of these deaths and in no fewer than 30,000 of the injuries; almost half of all drivers killed on the roads have been drinking. I need not continue with the statistics because we are familiar with them. I seriously commend this amendment to the Committee. It is sensible. It is easily implemented. It does not cause inconvenience and I do not think it has any serious economic effects. I beg to move.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I feel very very strongly about this amendment and agree with it wholeheartedly. I wonder why so many licensing justices have been persuaded in 156 cases that we know of to allow the sale of alcoholic liquid with one hand and putting petrol in a motorbike or a car with the other. It seems to be completely against everything that we are trying to do in his country; in other words, to stop people from driving under the influence of drink. It is so amazing that I am afraid words have almost failed me.
This is the most important amendment in the whole Bill. I feel most strongly about it. Unfortunately I cannot stay because I have another
1094
engagement, but I had to remain to support the noble Viscount. I hope that the Government take notice of this. I raised this point on Second Reading and so felt that I was able to speak just for a moment or two about it this evening.
One knows that one can get alcohol practically everywhere, but why on earth one is encouraging people to buy it and then go off on the road, having filled the tank of their vehicle taking a swig of gin with one hand and pressing the accelerator with the other, I just do not know.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: There might have been a time when I should have had to declare an interest in that many years ago I ran petrol filling stations and in those stations sold a variety of goods. I never saw anybody taking a swig of liquor with one hand and filling the tank with the other.
While I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that drinking and driving are a mismatch, I am not proposing to enter into a road safety debate. It is wrong, as new opportunities for retail development occur, that one should single out a particular activity to disbar where there are adequate resources for objection not only from the public but from the police and from the justices. The fact that Members of the Committee may think that a mistake has been made in 156 known cases is, I suggest, immaterial. To have blanket refusal of applications for the sale of liquor by garage or filling station proprietors seem to me to be abundantly wrong. If the noble Viscount wishes to reduce the amount of liquor sold out of retail establishments, including the garage industry, which he has singled out, I suggest he looks for an alternative remedy.
The Earl of Onslow: One would certainly like to support the noble Viscount. I generally take the view that people should be allowed to do almost anything they want with the minimum amount of interference from the state. However it seems fairly silly to sell petrol and alcohol at the same time. We do not allow it at motorway service stations.
There is one possible place where it might be justified. I do not know whether Members of the Committee know the road which goes from Helmsdale across a chunk of the north of Scotland. It is a single-track road with passing bays. Right in the middle of nowhere there is a small garage; there is not another shop for absolutely miles. There is a very small community around it. Such places, which also serve as general stores to a community, should in some way be exempt from what otherwise strikes me as a very sensible proposal.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I add my support to this amendment. I stress that it seems to be the most paradoxical situation that with one hand and with a great deal of expense we try to suppress drink-driving and on the other we allow the garage, the home of the car, to sell drink. The licensing of garages undermines the message: if you drink you do not drive and if you drive you do not drink. Surely this is the message that we want to get out in every possible way.

1095
The noble Viscount said that this proposal had police support. Indeed I believe that the official policy of the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales is to prevent such sales. The association has commented that many garage forecourts are supplying bulk amounts of alcohol to motorists and general shoppers and feels that this is in direct conflict with the duty of the police to reduce drinking and driving. This is the paradox that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, was describing.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, made the point about the isolated shop in a small community. From my understanding, this amendment would not cause any difference there. It is worded so as to allow hypermarkets to continue to sell both drink and petrol. Selling petrol is not the "primary purpose" of hypermarkets and normally the petrol sale point is physically separate from the rest of the sales area. Similarly, grocers' shops in isolated villages which may also have a petrol pump would not fall foul of the amendment. Therefore, this would be safeguarded.
There has been constant reference throughout the Bill to the worry about drink and driving and to the fact that it is innocent people, including children, who suffer. The noble Viscount said that this amendment will not cause any great inconvenience. Surely it should be supported. I very much look forward to hearing what the noble Earl says before he departs.
Lord Gisborough: My noble friend will give serious consideration to this amendment. The noble Baroness opposite mentioned the vital words, the "primary purpose". This leaves any bona fide shop able to sell, but it takes the alcohol away from those garages which virtually sell nothing else.
The Earl of Arran: There are few garages with off-licences. At the last count, in 1986, the total was about 150; so the sale of alcohol at petrol stations is not a widespread phenomenon.
There are no signs that where alcohol is sold at garages it causes any problems. The Government take very seriously the problem of drink driving, and I should not wish to oppose any measure that would reduce this problem. However, I do not share the view that the sale of alcohol at shops attached to garages will incite people to drink and drive. In the vast majority of cases people purchasing alcohol will do so in order to consume it when their journey is over, not en route. It is not unusual, for example, for shoppers to take their cars to supermarkets or off-licences and to drive home with cans or bottles. To that extent it is irrelevant whether the off-licence is a garage or other outlet.
Applications for licences from garages may be opposed by the police if they feel concerned about the possibility of drivers drinking their purchases. In these circumstances the justices would be reluctant to grant a licence. However, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Magistrates' Association have both expressed the view that the existing licensing controls are adequate to control the sales of alcohol from garages, and they would not favour a blanket ban. Such a ban would have an unfortunate effect on
1096
those general stores in rural areas which are attached to garages, but which also sell all kinds of other goods, including alcoholic drinks, for the convenience of customers who may live a long way from other shops. For such premises, it is arguable whether their primary purpose is the sale of petrol with the general store as a secondary business or vice versa. The present arrangements allow the justices to examine each application on its merits and to exercise their discretion to grant or refuse applications from such premises.
It is the case that premises at service areas on motorways are prohibited under the Licensing Act from holding a justices' licence. In those places which provide parking places and exist for the purpose of enabling motorists to take a break from driving long distances there must be a risk that drivers will relax with an alcoholic drink and there is every reason therefore to prevent the grant of licences. The same considerations, however, do not apply to other garages.
In many respects there have been too many over-exaggerated dire warnings in the Committee of what may happen if alcohol is allowed to be sold at garages. For that reason I cannot commend the amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: Although the noble Earl delivered his brief charmingly, needless to say I found the content very complacent and unsatisfactory. I think that this matter needs serious attention. The situation is illogical, nonsensical and dangerous. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, put it very clearly. She has had much experience in the matter and I know feels strongly about it. I fancy that many other noble Lords are of the same view.
The response is so unsatisfactory that I wish to take a different path from that which I had thought to take earlier. I should therefore like the amendment to be put to the Committee.
The Earl of Onslow: Can we not beg my noble friend to go away and reconsider this? He has no support other than his brief.
The Earl of Arran: I have of course noted carefully and seriously what has been said. I may have received a brief on the matter, but it happens to be what both I and the Government believe to be true. In those circumstances, I cannot recommend the amendment.
7.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 64.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Ashbourne, L.

Carter, L.

Avebury, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Blease, L.

David, B.

Brentford, V.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Donoughue, L.

1097

Ennals, L.

Phillips, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gallacher, L.

Raglan, L.

Galpern, L.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gregson, L.

Salisbury, Bp.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Hooson, L. [Teller.]

Selkirk, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jeger, B.

Stockton, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strabolgi, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, I

Swinfen, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Moyne, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mulley, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Nicol, B.

Underhill, L.

Onslow, E.

White, B.

Parry, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Arran, E.

Lindsay, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Attlee, E.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

McFadzean, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Monson, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Munster, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Carnock, L.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Dundee, E.

Pym, L.

Ferrers, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Shannon, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Harvington, L.

Teynham, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trumpington, B,

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Inglewood, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Windlesham, L.

Kimball, L.

Wise, L.

Kitchener, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.33 p.m.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Sale of intoxicating liquor on licensed premises to persons under 18]:
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 11, line 33, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 35.
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 21 and 23 embrace the same principle. These amendments are designed to strengthen the provisions concerned with under-age drinking. In my view—and I think that this view is shared by many Members of the Committee—this is a most important matter which we have to deal with in relation to this Bill. The scale of the problem presented by under-age drinking, which has been
1098
referred to continually during this debate, is enormous. It is a problem which arouses concern not only among the police and others who have to deal professionally with its consequences but also among the general public. The statistics referred to at Second Reading show that the increase in the volume of drinking among very young people is very alarming.
It has been said that the primary responsibility for preventing children and teenagers from drinking illegally must rest with their parents. All of us would agree with that. However, as I have said, the law must surely give support to those efforts. That is the reason for these amendments.
I recognise that the Government have now accepted that the problem of under-age drinking is extremely serious and that one of the causes is the inadequacy of the existing legislation—in particular the difficulties caused by the word "knowingly" in the present Act. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that Section 169 of the Licensing Act 1964 states that it shall be an offence for the holder of a licence or his servant knowingly to sell intoxicating liquor to a person under 18.
The Justices' Clerks' Society pointed out the problems that resulted from that provision. They said:
"Experience has shown that it is difficult to obtain convictions in view of current legislation and the police simply hesitate to prosecute licence holders and young drinkers. In one police area in the South of England only two licence holders were prosecuted for selling to minors, which in the context of the problem nationwide demands action and effective action".
They asked what that should be.
For those reasons the Government decided in another place to remove the word "knowingly" from the section in the principal Act regulating the sale of alcohol by licensees to minors. That is to be welcomed. However, the Justices' Clerks' Society wish to go further. They wish the word "knowingly" to be removed and the selling of alcohol to the under-aged made an absolute offence. They speak with the authority of those who are mainly responsible for the administration of the law.
However, while I understand why the society takes that view, I believe that the Government are right not to make the offence absolute. To do so would be to place an unduly heavy burden on licensees and would almost certainly result in the unfair of some entirely responsible licensees. I think that we all recognise how difficult it can be accurately to tell a young person's age in the best of circumstances let alone in the very difficult and crowded setting of a bar when there is also the necessity to serve people very quickly.
Therefore I believe that it is necessary and right to permit a defence. The defence suggested in Clause 13 of the Bill is:
"That he [the licensee] exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence".
I cannot see that it places an unjustifiable burden on licensees to have to convince the court in cases where there was a reason to doubt the age of a customer that he made a genuine attempt to find it out.
So far, so good, but our concern lies wholly within the second alternative defence proposed in Clause 13:
"That he had no reason to suspect that the person was under 18".

1099
I am sure that many noble Lords will agree with me that the second defence almost totally negates the first. It seems that the burden of proof placed on the licensee is so small as to be negligible. In a disputed case a licensee would simply have to say that the person looked as if he or she was 18 and as he had no information to the contrary he was justified in making the sale. Assuming that the customer looks as if he or she might be 18, the second defence, unlike the first, does not put any obligation on the licensee to take any specific step to ascertain the customer's age, even simply asking what it is. In this sense the second defence is just a different version of the original "knowingly" clause and, in our view, will be equally unsatisfactory.
I can understand why some people with an interest in the licensed trade would be pleased to see the existing legal loophole replaced by—as I see it—another one. However, I think that the Government—whose duty it is to protect the pubic interest—should not have given into their demands. The second defence as it stands in the Bill at present almost totally nullifies the first. It puts at issue the whole point of the exercise, which is that young people should not be allowed to be served so easily in licensed establishments. It has indeed been proved that it is very easy for them to be served with drinks. For that reason the noble Viscount and I have introduced this amendment, which would delete the second defence so that the passage will read:
"Where a person is charged … by reason of his own act, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence".
In our view that is sufficient. It puts the onus on the licensee. The amendment also has the support of the Justices' Clerks' Society and the working party on under-age drinking chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I urge the Committee to support it.
Earl Ferrers: I find the argument of the noble Baroness a trifle curious, if I may say so. Both she and the noble Viscount are concerned to ensure that young people do not drink when they should not and the Bill is designed to strengthen that intention.
The clause reflects the Government's view that the licensee should bear a clear responsibility to prevent the sale of alcohol to young people. That was done primarily by removing the word "knowingly" from the definition of the offence. We recognise the very severe difficulties that face the most responsible licensee in discharging this responsibility. Despite reasonable inquiries it may be difficult to decide beyond any doubt whether a customer is over the age of 18, especially if the young person in question is intent on deceiving. Short of asking him for his birth certificate, one simply cannot know.
I think that it would be unreasonable to expect a licensee to question a customer. The licensee has a real difficulty if he is to observe the law without giving offence also to the young adult. The second limb of the defence which this amendment would remove acknowledges those problems. It protects the responsible licensee who makes a genuine mistake. The defence that we adopted is taken from the
1100
Scottish licensing legislation in which it does not seem to have given rise to any particular problems. The defence protects the licensee who can show that he exercised all due diligence to avoid an offence. I think that that is reasonable.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: We are in total agreement with the first part of the clause but are worried that it is negated by the second part, which says that the licensee had no reason to suspect that the person was under 18. Therefore the licensee could always protect himself with that defence. The young person should perhaps be questioned. I see no reason why not. In America I have seen young people go into a pub and automatically produce some kind of identification which gives their age. If we are worried about underage drinking and wish to stop it, we may have to inconvenience young people a little, because it will prove an even greater inconvenience to them if they go along the road of heavy drinking.
Earl Ferrers: Of course the licensee would be able to show that he had exercised all due diligence although he thought that the person was under the age of 18 and nevertheless sold him or her some drink. It is up to him to try to find out. However, short of literally asking a question and possibly being given a wrong answer, if he has shown all due diligence he is in the clear.
The amendment seeks to leave out the word "knowingly" because that puts the onus much more on the licensee to take reasonable precautions without being able to be fined.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am not one bit convinced by what the noble Earl has said. We are merely trying to strengthen the position in regard to the young person being refused a drink. We are strengthening the possibility that he will be turned away because he is under age.
Under the clause as it stands the licensee may not go to very much trouble to ascertain that the young person is old enough to be served a drink. That is a very great worry. What is more, as the noble Earl knows, in another place the Minister suggested that he would put a greater onus on the licensee and when he came back at the next stage of the Bill he had again weakened it. Therefore, as I say, I am extremely disappointed that the noble Earl has not responded to the points that I have made. However, it is rather late and I shall not put the amendment to a vote. Nonetheless, I cannot accept any of the arguments that the Minister has put. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Sales to or by persons under 18 of intoxicating liquor on wholesale premises]:
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 12, line 14, leave out from ("liquor") to end of line 16.
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to remove what many of us consider is

1101
an absurd anomaly in the law which allows young people under 18 to sell in premises a product which they are not legally permitted to buy. In promoting greater consistency in the law, this amendment is entirely in line with what has been described as a main aim of the Bill. The Home Office Working Group on Young People and Alcohol, which was chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, examined the issue of under-age sales and its recommendations are in line with this amendment. The Justices' Clerks' Society has also expressed its dislike of the anomaly of under-age sales and wishes to see it removed.
The Masham Committee recognised that allowing the sale of alcohol by young people under 18 is an anomaly which could have very undesirable consequences. As the committee pointed out, it may be difficult for a 16 year-old to challenge a 17 year-old who seeks to buy alcohol. This anomaly in the law may help to undermine other legal controls on underage drinking.
I know that there has been a change in that a young person is not allowed to sell alcohol without being supervised by someone else in the store, but I do not think that that is a very satisfactory situation because it means that if an assistant is under 18 two sales people will have to be involved in every purchase of alcohol. There is an argument that maintaining young people under 18 to serve in such shops would have an effect on their employment prospects, but surely it is even more likely to hamper the job prospects of the under-18s since it means that they always have to be supervised when making a sale. I believe that the minimum age for sales staff should be the same in both off- and on-licences.
Of course responsible retailers already impose their own prohibition on under-age sales assistants. We feel that the less responsible ones should be made to follow their example. We also believe that the impracticality of the clause as it stands is likely to lead to the law not being obeyed, and inevitably the delays that will occur at busy check-outs while assistants call for supervision for the sale of every bottle or can of alcohol among a customer's purchases will lead to the law being disregarded. The amendment that we propose has the advantages of greater simplicity, straightforwardness, practicality and also, we believe, enforceability. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Although the law prohibits the employment of young people under 18 in bars we have not thought it necessary to extend the same restriction to those employed in premises which happen to deal in wholesale quantities of alcohol or in off-licences. In this matter we are supported by the Working Group on Young People and Alcohol.
Warehouses and off-licences are establishments which are different from bars. Staff employed in bars need a reasonable degree of maturity to cope with the situations that may occur there; the same considerations do not arise in a wine house or an off-licence. For many shops which hold an off-licence, the sale of alcohol forms only part of their trade. It does not seem reasonable to exclude 16 and 17 year-olds from the employment opportunities which establishments of that kind can offer simply because they might have to sell some drink. Although
1102
large supermarkets may be able to employ young people in functions where they are not required to sell alcohol, that may not be possible for smaller shops which would respond to such a restriction by employing adults only.
In considering the employment of young people in off-licences and wholesale premises, we believed that the main problem that they could encounter was the pressure to sell drink to other young people who may be their direct contemporaries. The requirement that they should be supervised by an adult provides the necessary protection in those circumstances without closing off an important source of employment to school-leavers.
I hope that the noble Baroness will realise that, while one understands the concern that she feels, the Bill is better without the amendment.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am quite sure the Minister agrees that it is highly incongruous that people under 18 are allowed to sell a product which it is illegal for them to buy. I believe that no one can dispute this fact. We are worried that it seems very unlikely that someone under 18 would prevent the sale of alcohol to another minor. It seems likely that he or she would cast a blind eye at it and there would be the danger of an illegal sale. I believe that the arguments for our amendment are stronger than for having the Bill as the Government have written it. However, again it is rather late, and I do not seem to have had any spoken support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Prohibition of unsupervised off-sales by persons under 18]:
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Monitoring.
. The Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Transport shall monitor the effects of changes in licensing law on alcohol consumption and alcohol related problems concerning public order, road safety and public health.")
The noble Viscount said: This amendment seems to be a purely common sense amendment. It is difficult for me, and for those who I hope will support my amendment, to understand that in another place the Government did not see fit to approve of the idea as expressed in amendments in another place to monitor the effects of the Bill. With the very high level of alcohol abuse in this country it would be extraordinary if, with changes in the law, there was not a system of monitoring, reporting and publishing the changes and effects as they take place. Indeed, the principle was accepted with regard to a Private Member's Bill on liquor licensing in 1987, and both the Clayson Committee in Scotland and the Erroll Committee in England strongly recommended systematic monitoring of any licensing law changes.

1103
My amendment is therefore entirely in line with the Erroll Committee's recommendations, and it is only in accordance with common sense. I commend it to the Committee on those lines.
We have debated in this Chamber, in one form or another, alcohol abuse and licensing laws. It has always been very difficult for us to have a clear idea of the effects of the liberalisation of licensing laws in Scotland because of the inadequacy of the information coming from Scotland. It seems to me that it would be sensible now to set up proper monitoring systems so that we can keep closely in touch and amend the law as and when it is necessary in accordance with those findings.
The failure to monitor the Scottish change is very regrettable because it has slowed up legislation in England. We have not been able properly to identify those parts of that legislation that have been successful and those that have not. We do not even know whether offences of certain types have increased or decreased. That would seem to support my view that generally speaking information, properly communicated, is what is needed. The best body to sponsor the promotion of proper information on which one can base further action to combat alcohol abuse seems to be the Government. However, the Government have been noticeably willing to commission various bodies to study alcohol abuse and other areas which affect public health but seem to have been somewhat reluctant to accept the findings. I recall that the Think Tank produced some very interesting findings which were not published. They were extremely difficult to obtain; in fact my copy came from Scandinavia.
I suggest that this is a constructive amendment. I have no hesitation in commending it to Members of the Committee. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The new clause and this amendment seem to assume that there is currently a dearth of statistical data relating to alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems. That is not the case. A range of information is collected from which it is possible to monitor trends of, for example, the incidence of road accidents in which alcohol is a contributory factor or the extent of alcohol-related health problems. My own department maintains records of public order offences and of offences in which alcohol is the primary cause, for example, drunkenness.
In terms of alcoholic consumption the Home Office has commissioned a survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, the field-work of which has been completed, to assess levels and patterns of drinking prior to the introduction of the Bill's provisions. This will provide a useful base against which to compare subsequent surveys. The Department of Health and Social Security will be commissioning such surveys as part of their regular pattern of monitoring alcohol consumption.
There is no suggestion that this range of statistical data will not continue to be available. To that extent, therefore, the new clause is unnecessary. However, that apart, I think that there is a danger in assuming
1104
that statistics relating to alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems will tell us much about the impact of changes in the licensing law. We know, for example, that since the changes in the Scottish licensing laws, charges proved of drunkenness offences have dropped dramatically. I would not suggest that the decrease is the result of licensing changes. There are too many other variable factors at work, not least policing practices and priorities. What we can say, however, is that the Scottish evidence shows no adverse effects.
I would also suggest that it is inappropriate to include a monitoring requirement in this Bill. There are dangers that, in prescribing the matters to which monitoring should apply, it would be limiting the scope of future research. Clearly it is important that arrangements for monitoring and research should be sufficiently flexible to adapt to changing needs and circumstances. To the extent that the new clause imposes statutory obligations on the departments concerned, but with no means of enforcement, I would further suggest that it is defective. For those reasons I recommend that the Committee reject this amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: At this late hour I do not intend to press my amendment. I accept in some measure what the noble Earl has said. It is correct that in the present climate there is a greater willingness to collect and collate proper information. It has not been done until now and I still maintain that it was a very sad business that the Scottish authorities did not see fit to have proper reporting of the effects of the changes of laws in their country. I should be very sad to see the same thing happening here.
The monitoring needs to be improved. There are all kinds of harmful and distressing results of alcohol abuse that need to be examined more closely. We need to draw more information from, for example, the crime statistics. I accept that the Government have access to the findings of the very excellent Wakeham Committee and so on. I accept the remarks and assurances of the noble Earl on this amendment and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Definition of intoxicating liquor.
. In section 201 of the principal Act, in the definition of "intoxicating liquor", in paragraph (a), line 123, leave out "at any time".").
The noble Lord said: The amendment stems in part from the original Alehouse Act 1828, since when the legislation governing the sale of alcoholic drinks has always referred to the excise legislation to define the drinks to which it has applied. The amendment, which I suggest is very largely technical, seeks to remove an anomaly which exists in the Licensing Act 1964 under which drinks which have insufficient alcohol to fall within the definition of "intoxicating

1105
liquor" fall within this definition if they have been fermented at any stage during their manufacture and the original gravity exceeded 1016 degrees.
The present problem is that in order to produce a drink with all the body and taste of alcohol, but without an alcoholic content above 1·2 per cent. alcohol or the ability to intoxicate, certain sugary ingredients must be added during the manufacturing process. When producing low-alcohol or alcohol-free beers, which are now becoming increasingly popular, particularly among drivers, young people and others, the alcohol produced by the addition of these sugars is subsequently removed by distillation. However, in the process it is technically possible that at some stage the original gravity may exceed 1016 degrees, although it falls later. As a result of exceeding 1016 degrees during the processing, the finished product is regarded as an intoxicating liquor within the meaning of the Act and with all its attendant restrictions.
My amendment would facilitate the production of low-alcohol and alcohol-free drinks based on beer. I have described the need and it is important in a growing sector of the trade. It is socially desirable to encourage the production and manufacturers are understandably keen to meet the demand. But, if they are to compete on equal terms with producers of other soft drinks, it is necessary to remove the existing restriction on this sale which the gravity limit creates and which causes some confusion not only with the authorities, but with the producers and sellers.
So far as I am aware, there are no fiscal implications attached to the amendment and I have been advised that the industry has been continually in consultation, since 1984–85 particularly and more recently, with both Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and my noble friend's department, the Home Office. It is my understanding that neither the Home Office nor the Customs and Excise see any objection to it. I trust therefore that my noble friend will be able to join me in commending this technical amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has raised a substantial point. It arises from the modern process of producing non-alcoholic or very low-alcoholic beer from which the alcoholic content has been extracted at a certain stage. I am sure that the right thing in these circumstances is for the Government to look at it again because it may be necessary to provide a further safeguard by the definition of "intoxicating liquor" in the original Act.
It seems to me that something ought to be done to make non-alcoholic beers more readily available to the public and not necessarily through licensed premises.
The Earl of Arran: This amendment seeks to clarify the definition of "intoxicating liquor" found in Section 201 of the Licensing Act 1964 to remove any doubt about the status of low-alcohol and no-alcohol beers and wines.
The definition of intoxicating liquor used in that legislation is identical to that used in the Alcoholic
1106
Liquor Duties Act 1979. It is important, for the sake of consistency and clarity, that the definitions stay in tandem. I accept that inclusion of the phrase "at any time" in the definition is important in taxation terms since most low alcohol products start life as alcoholic brews and thus may fall to be treated as intoxicating liquor. It is argued that the term does not have the same significance in a licensing context and that for licensing purposes the assessment of whether a particular product falls within the definition of "intoxicating liquor" ought to relate to its nature at the point of sale. The antecedents might then, it is suggested, be difficult to prove and might not be strictly of relevance.
I am not aware, however, that the definition is at present causing any real difficulties. I am not persuaded of the need to change it and therefore I really cannot commend the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I must confess to some disappointment at my noble friend's response. At the same time I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who has put his finger precisely on the point. I looked at the Alcoholic Duties Act and was advised that I could do nothing with that Act through this Bill because of the Short Title. I am not very much interested whether that Act is wrong or the present Bill is wrong. I am saying, however, that the authorities, and in some areas the police, will not and do not accept what my noble friend suggests is the right definition at the point of sale. It has led to a good deal of confusion in the retailing industry. It has led to a good deal of confusion in the manufacturing industry. I have sought to put the case as simply and shortly as I can in view of the hour and the fact that the Committee wishes to move as quickly as possible to other business—
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Hear, hear!
Lord Lucas of Chilworth:—which I can well understand.
I shall study carefully what my noble friend has said. I give notice now that I shall return to this matter at the next stage, when I shall seek to persuade a wider audience in the whole House rather than the Committee of the correctness of the course that I put before the Committee. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 27:
Before Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Sales of alcohol on weekdays.
. In section 60(6) of the principal Act (premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises), the words "half past" shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: I declare an interest as a director of the Enfield and St. Albans Co-operative Society. Quite clearly, in operating some stores from eight o'clock in the morning, the society will be affected by this, as will also the Retail Consortium, which represents the largest of the retailers. They support the basis of the amendment.
Briefly we are seeking to bring practice up to date. Very few off-licences which are not supermarkets are open at 8 a.m., but increasingly a great number of superstores and supermarkets are open at that time. If one is not legally allowed to sell liquor until 8.30 a.m.—and one is increasingly urging housewives and other busy people to shop as early as they can, particularly at the weekend—there is the frustrating point at a checkout where someone has purchased quantities of goods including liquor only to find that a purchase at 8.25 a.m. is illegal but a purchase at 8.35 is legal. That causes frustration not only to the customer but also to the staff. I believe that this is a sensible amendment and I hope that the Minister will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I should like to support the noble Lord in this amendment to which I have added my name. As he explained, it is a tidying-up amendment which will make shopping easier for the busy person and the housewife and it will also bring us in line with Scotland. I hope that my friend will give it serious consideration.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Although my noble friend's argument was logical and his explanation makes sense, the amendment means one more liberalisation of the sale of alcohol. The only changes that have been made to the Bill, which in itself is a liberalisation of alcohol, have been to extend the availability a little more. This is yet another extension of that availability and it is on that basis that I cannot support it rather than on the logical arguments which he presented.
The Earl of Arran: The licensing law enables off-licensed premises to operate longer hours than public houses on weekdays in that they may sell alcohol from 8.30 a.m. The new clause seeks to extend those hours so that they may begin at 8 a.m, this being the time when many shops and supermarkets now open. I am not persuaded that the present restrictions seriously hamper the right of people to buy alcohol when they choose but I believe that it is important that we maintain a meaningful limit on the hours when alcohol may be bought.
I am aware that many in the off-licensed trade would like to be able to sell alcohol from 8 a.m. I am also aware that many shops with an off-licence would open even earlier. They would perhaps like to be able to sell alcohol from 7 a.m.
In the past three years my department has received only one letter of complaint from a member of the public about the restrictions on the hours for off-licensed premises. I understand the case that the trade is making but I think this highlights the fact that it is not a strong one. In the circumstances I am not persuaded that the present restrictions are such a serious impediment to trade as to justify licensing hours beginning at 8 a.m. In the light of that argument, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I hope that the Minister will accept the fact that the case is not put
1108
forward that there is a serious restraint on trade. We are trying to be logical and also meet the convenience of the customer. He will not have stood at check-out desks at 8.20 p.m. or 8.25 p.m. and experienced the frustration and aggravation. Nevertheless it is real. I accept that he is not persuaded but I have two more attempts tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 28:
Before Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Off-premises sales on weekdays.
. In section 60(6) of the principal act (premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor off the premises) the words "or Good Friday" shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: I declare once more the same interest and explain that I am trying to be rational. Good Friday is increasingly seen by large operators as a day on which they open to meet the convenience of the public. However, there is the anomaly that stores may legally trade on Good Friday but may not sell alcohol at times other than between 12 noon and 2 p.m. and between 7 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. It often happens that the shelves in shops which contain the liquor are in some way prohibited except between those hours. Alcohol is sold between those hours and then prohibition is imposed in order to comply with the law. On Good Friday the difference is that there is no such prohibition in Scotland. We are asking the Minister to take into account changing habits and not least the need for the retail trade to be as competitive as possible in the interests of the consumer. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: At present the licensing law permits off-licensed outlets and most on-licensed premises only very restricted hours on Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday. The Shops Act however, which in many respects imposes an even more restrictive regime on Sundays, does not impose any restrictions on Good Friday trading.
I understand that many shops now open for all or part of Good Friday for the convenience of their customers who want to stock up in preparation for the rest of the Easter break. For such customers it may be a source of annoyance that they cannot buy alcoholic drinks at the same time as they buy the rest of their groceries unless they shop during the licensing hours of 12 noon and 2 p.m. or during the evening.
I know that for many people the relaxation of Good Friday hours is the first step down the road which will lead to erosion, if not ultimately the destruction, of the specialness of Sundays. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will recognise the delicacy of the amendment and not press it this evening.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I was interested to note that the Minister introduced the general issue of Sunday trading, which I did not seek to do. In reality many of the stores which are open legally on Good Friday are prohibited from selling some of their goods. Why should England and Wales be different from Scotland? I know that the Minister will say that

1109
it is because the law is different. However here is an opportunity for him to take into account this marginal rationalisation of the law in the countries. I am disappointed with his response and I give notice of my intention to return to the issue at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 29:
Before Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Transfer of justices' licence.
. At the end of paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to the Principal Act (application for a justices' licence), there shall be inserted the words "or in the case of a transfer where the applicant has already held a justices' licence within the past five years and there is no objection thereto."").
The noble Lord said: Third time lucky, although I fear the worst because the Minister is not looking at me. I touched upon this amendment at Second Reading. Whenever a licence requires transfer to relocate managers and fill vacancies created by retirements and resignations, not only must the responsible officer of the company attend court but invariably in the case of reputable companies a legal representative also attends.
I should like to give the Minister three statistics which are highly relevant. I am told that last year Tesco's required 146 transfers but that in more than 100 of those cases the officials of the company and their legal representative sat in court but were not called upon to do or to say anything. I am told that Sainsbury's required 150 such transfers and that 77 were required by ASDA.
I quote those statistics to illustrate that such situations are costly and time-consuming to the company and also at times to the court. In response to my statistics the Minister may reply that the cases did not take up much of the time of the court if the officers were not called upon. However, there is nothing more frustrating to a company than to have to pay out good hard-earned money when its officers merely sit in court while the matter is agreed.
The amendment provides for five years of an unblemished character and of no objection being laid. We believe that in those circumstances it is sensible to relieve the courts of the pressure now upon them and to save the expense to good companies. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I should like to support the noble Lord in the amendment, to which I have added my name. It will ease the judicial burden created by the present arrangements and I hope that my noble friend will seriously consider this case of third time lucky.
The Earl of Arran: I can understand that many in the retail trade, particularly the representatives of large companies, may feel that a requirement to attend licensing sessions each time a named licence holder moves from one set of premises to another is unduly onerous. In many cases the nature of the new store will not be significantly different and the fitness
1110
of the applicant to hold a licence will have been established on an earlier occasion.
The law does not now impose a statutory requirement on an applicant for the transfer of a licence to appear before the licensing justices. It simply enables the justices to call him before them. The fact that many choose to do so confirms the importance which the justices attach to the grant of any licence, whether a new licence or its transfer to a different licence holder. I do not believe that we should allow transfer proceedings to become a mere formality. The amendment would have just such an effect, and would represent a weakening of control which I do not believe society would welcome.
The amendment would apply to transfer applications not only in respect of off-licensed premises, but also in respect of, for example, public houses. A licensee transferring from a small country pub to a substantial city centre establishment would no longer expect to appear before the licensing justices to demonstrate that he was capable of maintaining control over the new premises with, perhaps, a record for attracting young people, trouble-makers, or even drug pushers. The licensee may not be known to the licensing justices, particularly if he comes from another area, and I can well understand their feeling that they should see the person intending to run the licensed premises. The amendment would, however, effectively prevent that exercise of the justices' discretion.
The law at present allows the justices to call transfer applicants before them. It does not require them to do so. I cannot commend this amendment to prevent the justices from exercising their discretion in circumstances where they now see a need to question would-be licensees. Therefore, for the third time I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I recognise that I am a three times loser. I appreciate what the Minister has said. He has said some interesting things which will need to be read very carefully by those interested outside the Committee. The whole purpose of the amendment was to reduce costs on businesses. I understood that the Government were in the business of helping to reduce such costs and of relieving the courts of some of their burden. However, I take the Minister's point that a number of bad mistakes of the kind that he illustrated could be more ruinous and costly than the savings made. I shall consult with interests outside the Committee who may well persuade me to bring forward a similar but not identical amendment at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hooson: I shall only detain the Committee briefly on this point. One of the most interesting

1111
debates in Committee in another place was on whether this Bill should extend to Wales at all because of the particular alcohol problems in the Principality. The debate centred on various reports, the most important of which was probably the Health Education Advisory Committee for Wales Report which concluded:
"Compared with England, more alcohol is consumed per person; average expenditure on alcohol is greater; alcohol is cheaper; there are more alcohol licences per 100,000 population; and the death rate from liver cirrhosis is greater in Wales. The consumption of alcohol in Wales is on a par with the two heaviest drinking regions of England; namely, the North and the North-West.".
I shall not go into details of why the Committee reached that conclusion but many reports were considered in another place in Committee. I draw attention to this matter because at present I am tempted to come back to that particular point; namely, whether this Act should extend to Wales in these particular circumstances or whether it should be separately dealt with at Report.
The Earl of Arran: I can only listen and take note of the comments of the noble Lord on this particular clause.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Restriction Orders: Procedure]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 14, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) above to the person or persons on whose application a restriction order was made is, in relation to any person who applied by virtue of a position held by him, a reference to the holder for the time being of that position.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment Nos. 31, 32 and 33:
Page 15, line 2, leave out from second ("to") to ("and") in line 4 and insert ("a person on whose application the order was made if that person is no longer entitled to apply for the making of a restriction order with respect to the premises or, if he applied by virtue of a position held by him, it is not a position which is any longer held in the neighbourhood").
Page 16, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to the person or persons on whose application a restriction order was made is, in relation to any person who applied by virtue of a position held by him, a reference to the holder for the time being of that position.").
Page 16, line 11, leave out from second ("to") to ("and") in line 13 and insert ("a person on whose application the order was made if that person is no longer entitled to apply for the making of a restriction order with respect to the premises or, if he applied by virtue of a position held by him, it is not a position which is any longer held in the neighbourhood").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor Amendments of the Principal Act]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 34 and 35:
Page 18, line 5, at end insert—
("8A. In section 89(1) (duty of licence to post notice where permitted hours modified), after the words "exemption" there shall
1112
be inserted the words", an order under section 87A of this Act".").
Page 18, line 33, at end insert—
("15A. In section 185 (duty of holder to produce certain licences and orders on demand) after the words "canteen licence" there shall be inserted the words ", an order under section 87A of this Act" ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 20, line 5, at end insert—
("In section 6(4), the words after the end of paragraph (b).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Advertisements) (Exemptions) (No. 2) Order 1988
8.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara) rose to move. That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first order standing in my name on the Order Paper and I believe it will be for the convenience of the House if I deal with the three orders separately.
The Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Advertisements) (Exemptions) (No. 2) Order specifies certain exemptions from the requirement imposed by Section 57 of the Act that no person other than a person authorised under the Act may issue or cause to be issued an investment advertisement in the United Kingdom unless its contents have been approved by an authorised person. It complements the Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Advertisements) (Exemptions) Order 1988 which was made on 25th February. Together these orders and Sections 57 and 58 or the Act replace the existing restrictions on the distribution of investment circulars contained in Section 14 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act. The approach adopted, which was the subject of a consultation document issued in November, has been to follow as closely as possible the existing regime. In the order before us most of the exemptions are in fact a reformulation of exemptions either in the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act itself or in general permissions issued under that Act.
In addition to this order and the other two in my name on the Order Paper, certain orders have also been laid recently which were subject to negative resolution procedure. These orders covered the following areas: restriction of the scope of the definition of investment business; exemptions from the investment advertisement restrictions which I have already mentioned; certain supplemental exemptions relating to the management of small

1113
occupational pension schemes; and the investment and borrowing and pricing of authorised unit trusts.
The order on pricing of authorised unit trusts, having been made by the Secretary of State, has been included in the delegation order, so that the board can have responsibility for this as well as the other detailed operational matters relating to unit trusts. An order has also been laid extending the scope of the definition of investment business in certain respects, which will also be subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
With these orders the framework envisaged in the Act is now virtually in place, and we are on course to implement the key provisions of the Act in April. Some will say that this is premature—that they have not had enough time to prepare. Others have complained that we have not implemented the Act quicker. We have taken considerable steps to publicise the Act's requirements and to encourage early applications for authorisation so that the businesses can familiarise themselves with what is needed to be done. Early implementation of the Act is desirable in the interests of investors. I trust that noble Lords will support this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
8.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for introducing the order which he has discussed. I am grateful to him for separating the orders into their own components, because they cover different aspects of the Financial Services Act and its implementation and because some of them raise rather contentious problems about the operation of the Act and the present state of affairs, if I may put it that way, in the regulation of the City of London.
I reserve my comments on those points for the discussion of the second order—the Financial Services Act 1986 (Delegation) (No. 2) Order 1988. On the order that the noble Lord introduced—the Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Advertisements) (Exemptions) (No. 2) Order 1988—I simply note that this is part of a mass of subordinate legislation which has the effect of changing the primary legislation. Under Section 58 of the Act the Secretary of State has powers to change many things which are in that Act. I simply note that in passing, because it is a point we made when the Bill was before this House—that it was in many ways a broad enabling Bill which allowed the Secretary of State to bring in orders to change clauses in due course. I believe that in a way it was suitable for this type of legislation but we would have preferred a much stronger supervisory body without all the delegation business, to which we shall come later, and with much more freedom of operation.
I put one question to the noble Lord before I start on the order he has introduced. I understood him to say that the restriction of scope order was under the negative procedure and therefore we would not have the opportunity of debating it in this House. Am I right in thinking that that is the order which governs
1114
the operation of the Eurobond trading and Eurobond dealing activity? If that order, which I understood would be under the affirmative procedure, is to be under the negative procedure perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to tell me when he replies so that I can consider how we shall respond. From what he said this evening I understand it now appears to be under the negative procedure.
Turning to the order introduced by the noble Lord, I have some questions to put to him on which I should like to have his replies. I turn to the section entitled,
"Investment advertisements issued for the purpose of promoting or encouraging industrial or commercial activity or enterprise".
I refer to paragraph (2)(a) in the typescript that I have. I apologise for referring to a typescript but the order has not been printed as of today. Paragraph (2)(a), which is a definition of a body corporate, reads:
"A body corporate falls within this paragraph if—(a) it is a body corporate which has as its principal objector one of its principal objects the promotion or encouragement of industrial or commercial activity or enterprise in the United Kingdom or in any particular area of it".
I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can spell out exactly what is meant by that. I am sure there is a category of enterprise that falls within this definition of "a body corporate", but I should be interested to know exactly what the Government mean.
My next point refers to page 4 of the typescript, and I hope the noble Lord can follow me because these are typescript documents. Paragraph (3) begins:
"The requirements referred to in paragraph (1)(c) of this Article".
I hope that he can see the point to which I refer. There is a large section on pages 4 and 5 which states that advertisements of this nature are required to carry what I can only describe as a health warning in the terms stipulated in the order.
I have no objections to health warnings as such—in fact, I have some objections but I shall come to those later—but I wonder whether in advertising in any specific media it is convenient to include the entire wording of this health warning. To take the example of a television advertisement, it would be difficult to incorporate all that text into the advertisement.
My particular point on the health warning, as I name it, is on page 5 of the typescript. I refer to the final paragraph of this health warning, which I quote in full:
"The persons to whose order this advertisement has been issued have taken reasonable steps to ensure that the information it contains is neither inaccurate nor misleading".
I ask the noble Lord whether that is consistent with Section 47(1) of the Financial Services Act, which states, I remind the House:
"Any person who—

(a) makes a statement, promise or forecast which he knows to be misleading, false or deceptive or dishonestly conceals any material facts; or

(b) recklessly makes (dishonestly or otherwise) a statement, promise or forecast which is misleading, false or deceptive,

is guilty of an offence".
I can understand that it is right that everyone should check whether the information that is contained in the advertisement produced is not misleading, but

1115
what about the information that is not contained in the advertisement which may be misleading? I ask the noble Lord whether the health warning is sufficient and whether there should not be a further health warning that not only have the advertisers taken reasonable steps to ensure that the information contained is neither inaccurate nor misleading but also that they have gone to great pains to make sure that all the relevant information is in the advertisement in question.
Turning to takeovers of and offers for private companies, Article 4(1)(b), on page 6, describes a "relevant offer". It states:
"'Relevant offer' means an offer of the kind described in Part II of the Schedule to this Order for shares in or debentures of a body corporate of the kind described in Part III of that schedule".
I turn to Part II of the schedule, which defines "relevant offer", and I shall then refer to Part III, which defines "a body corporate". Part II of the schedule defines "an offer" as:
"an offer for all the shares in, or all the shares comprised in the equity or non-equity share capital of, an offeree company".
What is the situation where an offer is made for not all the shares but perhaps for a large majority? Does it mean that all advertisements which are exempted by this order are caught by the provisions of Section 57 of the Act? Furthermore, can the noble Lord define what he means by non-equity share capital? I was brought up to believe that share capital in either ordinary or preference form was part of the equity of a business. It may be I am wrong; but I should be grateful if the noble Lord can assure me that I am wrong, and tell me in what respect I am wrong.
In paragraph (a) at the bottom of page 2 of the schedule the provision is that the offer is only relevant if its terms have been recommended by all the directors of the offeree company. Supposing there are 10 directors of the offeree company, nine of whom recommend the offer and one who says, "I do not recommend the offer." Does that situation immediately vitiate the advertisement and is it then caught by Section 57 of the Act?
Turning onwards towards paragraph (g) in this part of the schedule, I noted the expression "the offer document". I am now looking on my typescript at page 5 paragraph (g) of Part II of the schedule. It refers to the offer document. So far as I can see, this is the first time that the offer document is referred to in the schedule. Does that mean that there has to be an offer document setting out the terms of the offer and that this is not simply a verbal arrangement—which often happens in the case of private companies—between one group of people and another? Does there have to be an offer document setting out the offer as defined in Part II and hence triggering the exemptions from Section 57 in the schedule?
Continuing from there, I am assuming from the definition of the noble Lord of "private company" in Part III of the schedule, that the body corporate to which this order refers (being a private company) has the same characteristics of a private company that is exempt from the takeover code because its shares have not been quoted and because of other rules in
1116
the takeover code of which the noble Lord will be well aware. I assume that Part III tracks the takeover code. I shall be most grateful if the noble Lord can confirm that. If he cannot do so, perhaps he can explain why Part III does not attract the takeover code. It is important to get these matters properly in order.
I am sorry to have taken the time of your Lordships on this order, but it is a very important one. It constitutes almost a Bill in itself. I am not surprised, because I warned the House at the time of the passage of the Financial Services Bill when it was before your Lordships. I said that we would have a lot of this kind of subordinate legislation amending the primary legislation. I am sorry to have asked the noble Lord a certain number of questions which may be rather technical, but I believe that we need the answers.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I have great sympathy for my noble friend being faced with such a complexity of points, many of which are such that I believe that Law Lords would reserve judgment for some time in order to decide what are the correct answers. It is undoubtedly one of the problems with this highly complex piece of legislation and the regulations that flow from it.
I have one simple point for my noble friend, and I hope this is an appropriate moment at which to raise it. It comes under the terms of the Financial Services Act 1986 (Restriction of Scope of Act) Order 1988. That is a negative instrument. I believe it is one about which my noble friend commented in his opening remarks and perhaps I may raise the issue now. Briefly, the effect of that is to permit exemption of international self-regulatory organisations from the scope of the Financial Services Act. This is of some concern to the International Stock Exchange. It is perhaps right that here I should declare an interest. A subsidiary company of a bank of which I am chairman is a member of the International Stock Exchange.
I am sure that my noble friend is familiar with the arguments on that point. It is one which has been put to his noble friend the Secretary of State by Sir Nicholas Goodison, chairman of the International Stock Exchange. In particular I refer to a letter of 10th March of which I am sure my noble friend is aware. I understand that the present intention under the order is to permit the Association of International Bond Dealers to continue to provide bond services within the United Kingdom. I understand that the order as it has been drafted would permit the Association of International Bond Dealers or anyone else, to be granted exemption to run a market in equities. I suggest that goes too far. Organisations which are granted such exemption because they cannot or do not want—whatever the case may be—to comply with the requirements for recognition are given a very considerable advantage over those that are bound by rules.
I understand that there is no objection so far as concerns the International Stock Exchange, to the AIBD continuing to provide services to the bond

1117
market, but an extension of that exemption into equities would give them a very unfair competitive advantage. It would also create a precedent which could be of acute embarrassment and damage to the interests of the International Stock Exchange and to those authorised bodies under the Financial Services Act. I hope that my noble friend can give some reassurance to us on that point.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall try to deal with some of the points that have been raised. I shall first of all deal with the Restriction of Scope of Act Order which is not something which we are debating this evening. It is true that the Restriction of Scope of Act Order is subject to the negative resolution procedure under Section 2(5) of the Act. It is the order which makes provision for the exclusion of the activities of an international securities self-regulating organisation if certain conditions are satisfied. However, the activities of members of the organisation will continue to be regulated under the Act. I am sure that noble Lords do not need my ad vice on the steps that should be taken if they wish to have a debate on that order.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but since he was kind enough to talk about this Act I have to apologise that I thought it was under the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure. I now recognise that it is under the negative procedure. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government are prepared to consider the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, although we are not debating this particular measure?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: With respect to the noble Lord, I was about to launch into a little explanation regarding this matter. I believe it is an important point which has been raised by my noble friend and also by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I should like to stress that the power introduced in the Restriction of Scope of Act Order to exclude certain activities from the scope of the Act is simply a power. No decisions have yet been taken about whether it will be exercised in particular cases. No application has yet been made for the power to be exercised.
I do not believe it is any secret that in introducing the amendment the Government have particularly in mind the representations made to us by the Association of International Bond Dealers. Sir Nicholas Goodison has recently written to my noble friend the Secretary of State expressing concern at the possible effect of this power if it were exercised in a particular way. My noble friend reiterated those concerns tonight. It is important to remember that, as Sir Nicholas said in his letter, the current activities of the AIBD in the United Kingdom fall short of providing all the services of an investment exchange.
That is also the understanding of the Government; and it was on the basis of that understanding that the amendment was made. If an application for approval is made by AIBD, it will be assessed against the criteria laid down, including the very important condition that there should be no undue risk to investors in the light of the circumstances prevailing
1118
at the time. If those circumstances should subsequently change—for instance, if AIBD were to extend its activities in the way that has been suggested—I confirm that the question of approval would be reconsidered. For technical reasons it would be extremely difficult to frame the amendments so that such a review followed automatically with a change in circumstances. I hope that with this assurance my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be somewhat mollified.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me a number of detailed questions on the order before us which I shall do my best to answer. If I do not manage to answer them this evening, I shall write to the noble Lord. He asked about Article 2. The order has been printed. It is designed to cover local enterprise agencies. These are already covered under General Permission 2 under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, but are specified in the schedule. The present order is designed to replace this approach with a general definition.
The noble Lord asked about the concealment of facts in advertisements. The concealment of material facts is an offence under Section 47(1) only if it is dishonest and is intended to induce a person to do any of the things listed in that subsection. If a person, in compliance with the requirements of the order, has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the information in the advertisement is not inaccurate, he can hardly be accused of dishonest concealment of material facts. On the other hand, if he has dishonestly concealed material facts he cannot claim that he has taken all those reasonable steps.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise for intervening again. Section 47(1) refers to:
"Any person who—(a) makes a statement, promise or forecast which he knows to be misleading".
It continues in subsection (1)(b):
"recklessly makes (dishonestly or otherwise) a statement".
In other words, it is not dishonest or otherwise; it is because he is reckless. That is the point I was trying to get at.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that it is a very good point.
The noble Lord also asked me about non-equity share capital. That is any share capital of a company which neither as respects dividends or capital carries any right to participate beyond a specified amount in a distribution. The order defines equity share capital.
The noble Lord asked me about an offer document. That is defined in paragraph 1 of the schedule. Part III of the schedule trails the takeover code. The noble Lord asked about takeovers of private companies under Article 4(1)(b). He asked whether, if an offer is not for all the shares, it is caught by Section 57. The answer to that is, yes. If the offer is recommended by all the directors, that again would be caught by Section 57.
I said at the beginning that I would try to deal with the points as best I could. I know that the noble Lord spent many hours on the passage of the Act and many of those matters were discussed at that time. I shall

1119
read what the noble Lord has said and if I can add any further detail to my replies this evening I shall of course write to him. In the meantime, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Delegation) (No. 2) Order 1988
8.53 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee.].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order transfers certain functions relating to collective investment schemes to the Securities and Investments Board. The Act envisaged that powers conferred on the Secretary of State would be transferred to the Securities and Investments Board provided it met the requirements laid out in the Act. Almost a year ago, Parliament approved the transfer of wide-ranging powers for regulating investment businesses to the board. The purpose of this order is to transfer most of the transferable functions in relation to collective investment schemes. Before laying the draft delegation order, my noble friend is required by the Act to satisfy himself: that the board is able and willing to carry out the functions to be transferred; that it fulfils the requirements in Schedule 7 to the Act; that the regulations and any rules and guidance which it proposes to make afford an adequate level of protection for investors and comply with the requirement in Schedule B that they promote high standards of integrity and fair dealing in the conduct of investment business. My noble friend is also required to be satisfied as to the acceptability of the regulations in competition terms.
The board made a formal request for transfer of functions on 31st December 1987, which was accompanied by its proposed regulations entitled Collective Investment Schemes. It supplemented this application with further regulations on fees and certain amendments to the regulations in the light of comments and also certain supplementary information. Copies of all these documents were placed in the Library. We subsequently received reports on these documents from the Director-General of Fair Trading and also from a number of interested parties.
The administrative functions that are the subject of the delegation order are essentially the authorisation of United Kingdom authorised unit trust schemes, the recognition of overseas schemes—but not the designation of individual countries or territories—and powers of intervention. The legislative functions cover all such functions under Chapter VIII other than designation of countries and territories, the investment and borrowing powers of authorised unit trust schemes and similar powers in relation to single property schemes and the minor function of prescribing the period within which applications under Section 87 must be determined. The board's proposed regulations cover such matters as how far unauthorised schemes can be promoted, and a
1120
number of matters as to the running of authorised schemes, such as scheme expenses, powers and duties of auditors, periodic reports and the content of trust deeds. The board's proposed regulations also deal with the requirements of scheme particulars and what facilities have to be maintained in the United Kingdom by recognised overseas schemes.
Having considered all the material submitted, including the regulations which the board proposes to make, my noble friend has concluded that the board fulfils the conditions and requirements laid in the Act for a transfer of the functions referred to in the draft order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will again be grateful to the noble Lord for moving the acceptance of the draft order. It would have saved a lot of trouble if we had had a statutory body in the first place rather than an organisation which is alleged to be a private body to which certain functions can be delegated. Nevertheless, I shall pass over that point as it is an old argument.
I have two specific questions on the order. With the problem of what I shall refer to, I hope without disrespect to your Lordships' House, as LAUTRO, the self-regulatory organisation that is not yet in place but yet has supervision of collective investment schemes or certain organisations that run collective investment schemes, is the noble Lord satisfied that, in the absence of a properly constituted LAUTRO, whose rules have been approved by the SIB, there will be no complications in the authorisation of collective investment schemes under this delegation order? How will it all work?
I note that on page 6 of my typescript of the order reference is made to the Authorised Unit Trust Scheme (Pricing of Units and Dealings by Trustee and Manager) Regulations 1988. Do the Government endorse the pricing instructions on unit trusts that the SIB has issued? Can the noble Lord please say why the Government endorse these pricing instructions, which go rather contrary to the traditional practice in the market for unit trusts?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on the noble Lord's point about LAUTRO, the Director-General of Fair Trading's report is being considered. It is only the first part of the director-general's report. The Secretary of State must have the director-general's complete report before reaching a decision on whether or not to consent to LAUTRO's recognition. Any change in LAUTRO's rules is a matter for LAUTRO. The Secretary of State's role is confined to giving or withholding consent. Should LAUTRO decide to change its rules, it will have to satisfy the SIB and be subject to a further report from the Director-General of Fair Trading. LAUTRO has nothing to do with the authorisation of schemes. That is for the SIB. Unit trust managers will also be members of IMRO and will get their authorisation in that way. The SIB has not made any regulations for pricing, but Section 114(7) of the Act prevents the Secretary of State from making a delegation order

1121
transferring a function of making regulations unless the designated agency has furnished him with a copy of regulations which it proposes to make in exercise of those functions.
The SIB has supplied the Secretary of State with a copy of the regulations which it proposes to make under Section 81 of the Act. He is satisfied, on the basis of those regulations and in the light of the regulations that he has himself made dealing with certain matters not dealt with in SIB's proposed regulations, that the relevant criteria are met. Since the SIB does not at present propose to make any regulations as to the matters dealt with in the authorised unit trust scheme (the pricing of units and dealing by manager and trustee regulations), and subject to the draft delegation order being approved by this House and another place, it is therefore open to the Secretary of State to transfer to the SIB all or any of the functions of making regulations under Section 81 of the Act. I hope that what I have said covers the two points raised by the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I shall certainly read through what he has said; I hope he will also read through what I have said on the subject. If he has any arriére-pensées about his reply, perhaps he would be kind enough to write to me.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Stabilisation) Order 1988
9.1 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, that the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order specifies circumstances in which the price of an investment may be stabilised in accordance with rules made by the Securities and Investments Board without contravening Section 47(2) of the Financial Services Act. It may be helpful if I were to explain the background to this order.
When a large offering of securities is made it is conventional for certain measures to be taken by or on behalf of the underwriters of the offering in order to prevent short-term disruption of the price. If properly regulated those activities can promote an orderly market. However it is possible that some of those actions might in the absence of specific provision be regarded as technically in breach of Section 47(2). Section 48(7) therefore provides that Section 47(2) is not to be regarded as breached by anything done in accordance with rules made by the SIB under Section 48(2)(i) for the purpose of stabilising the price of an investment falling within paragraphs 1 to 5 of Schedule 1 during a period before or after the issue of those investments. The board's rules on this subject are contained as Part 10 of its conduct of business rules. It contains provisions to ensure that investors are alerted to the fact that stablisation activities may be engaged in.
Stabilisation activities are also sometimes carried out when a security is offered for sale otherwise than
1122
at the time of its issue. The effect on the market of such offerings is the same as the effect of an issue. Section 48(8) therefore permits the Secretary of State to make an order amending Section 48(7) so as to extend or restrict the exemption from Section 47(2) for conduct in accordance with the SIB's rules. This order defines those offerings which are closest in nature to an original issue and permits the price to be stabilised in accordance with the SIB's rules.
It is important to emphasise that nothing in the order or the rules will permit the making of misleading statements or the dishonest concealment of material facts in connection with an offering, because the order does not provide an exemption from the offence in Section 47(1). I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will again be grateful to the noble Lord for presenting this draft order. In his introduction he has answered one of the questions that I had as to whether Section 47(1) would still apply. The answer is yes. I think it is important for the House and the public to know that fact. I hope that he will confirm my understanding of what he said, that this order covers secondary offers as well as primary offers; I think I understood from the text of the order and from what he said that it did and I trust that he will confirm that.
I have two remaining questions. First, why should the order specify "the 30th day"? Is there precedent for that or is there some magic to that date after the end of a certain period? And should there be any terminal date, what is the reason behind it? Secondly, would the noble Lord care to give the House a definition of,
"any other exchange of repute",
which is in the new subsection (7A) introduced by the order? We understand what "a recognised investment exchange" is because it is defined—or at least the criteria for it are in the Act, but I see nothing in the Act, unless my memory is sadly mistaken, as it may well be, which defines,
"any other exchange of repute".
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question about secondary offerings is yes. The order is concerned with secondary offerings, as I think I made clear in my opening remarks when I said that stabilisation activities are also sometimes carried out when a security is offered for sale otherwise than at the time of issue.
As to why we chose the 30th day, it is a feature of Section 48(8) that the order must specify a period. The period extending to the 30th day after the offer confirms with the SIB's rules on the matter. That of course does not fully explain why the 30th day was chosen, but it is the reason for it.
As regards the definition of,
"any other exchange of repute",
this term is used in the Companies Act. It is also referred to elsewhere in the Financial Services Act, and therefore I believe it is already a clearly defined expression. It is not anything especially new.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that the phrase may be referred to in the Companies Act but, because we have a new Act defining financial services and investment exchanges which goes into great detail about what a recognised investment exchange is and what criteria it has to meet, to introduce an expression from the Companies Act, the consolidation of which was before the Financial Services Act, introduces a term of art which existed before the Financial Services Act but which is not relevant to the Financial Services Act itself.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I said that the expression was also referred to in the Financial Services Act. I have no doubt that when the Bill went through your Lordships' House there was an opportunity to raise that matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I recognise that my memory of this large Act is insufficient. Will the noble Lord point me to the schedule or section in the Act which mentions "exchange of repute"? I am sure that he is right, but I have forgotten about it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if the noble Lord cares to turn to paragraph 23 on page 282 he will find the expression there. However, I shall look into the point that he has raised and as I said earlier I shall write to him on any points of detail that he has raised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
Returned from the Commons earlier this day with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at nine minutes past nine o'clock.

  PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION
  PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION
  CONVENTIONAL ARMS CONTROL
  CONVENTIONAL ARMS CONTROL
  RECIPROCAL SOCIAL SECURITY AGREEMENTS
  RECIPROCAL SOCIAL SECURITY AGREEMENTS
  RETAINED FIREFIGHTERS: REMUNERATION
  RETAINED FIREFIGHTERS: REMUNERATION
  AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT RESEARCH
  AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT RESEARCH
  WEEKS CASE: EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS DECISION
  WEEKS CASE: EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS DECISION
  REMAND PRISONERS
  REMAND PRISONERS
  VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY: EVASION CONTROL EXERCISE
  VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY: EVASION CONTROL EXERCISE
  LONDON WEIGHTING: CRITERIA
  LONDON WEIGHTING: CRITERIA
  CIVIL SERVICE: LOCATION
  CIVIL SERVICE: LOCATION