Sitting of 25 May 1988

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

    Health Boards
    Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what allowance was made for inflation and growth, respectively, in his provisional allocation of resources to Scottish health boards for 1988–89.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The provision for expenditure by health boards on hospital and community health services in 1988–89 is 5·8 per cent. over the corresponding provision for last year, which includes an allowance for inflation of 4·5 per cent. and for growth of 1·3 per cent.
    Mr. Graham: Does the Minister sincerely believe that the figure for growth that we have—0·5 per cent.—is sufficient to meet the needs of the Scottish health boards, in whose areas thousands of people are waiting for treatment on the National Health Service?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman obviously prepared his supplementary question before listening to my answer. The figure for growth for health boards this year is 1·3 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that health boards have never been better funded in real terms than under this Government, having had an increase in funding of more than a quarter since 1979.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in cash terms, we are spending more than double what was spent in 1978–79, which followed a period when there had been cuts in building and resources for the Health Service under the Labour Government? Is it not a real demonstration of the Government's concern for the Health Service and for caring that we are spending so much more?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right. The only cuts in the Health Service in the past 20 years were made under the Labour Government, who were forced to cut the capital building programme. My hon. Friend is right to point to our record. Not only are we spending more, but we are getting more value for the money spent in the Health Service.
    Mr. Galbraith: The Minister must be aware that the actual figure for next year's increase as against the previous outcome is only 0·5 per cent. He will also know that that level is barely enough to cope with demographic
    308
    demand, let alone to improve the Health Service. Because of the chronic and continuing under-funding by the Government hospitals such as the Elsie Inglis in Edinburgh will have to close, and as a result patients' choice will be diminished.
    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is also a problem with the nurses' pay award? The Government have allocated £92 million, butt the health boards have told me that they think the figure will be more because of regrading. If it is, will he assure the House that the Government will provide the extra funds?
    Mr. Forsyth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. When he has had the opportunity to do his homework he will realise that the cash uplift is about 4 per cent. for all boards in Scotards in Scotland. The overall cash uplift is 5·8 per cent. The 4 per cent. goes to all boards, plus an additional I per cent. which is being redistributed on the SHARE formula. In addition, there is a further £12 million that has not yet been distributed to health boards, so it is premature to pronounce on their allocations.
    I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome an increase in nurses' pay that will result in their having a real increase of 44 per cent., as opposed to a reduction of 20 per cent. under the Labour Government. The Government have made it clear that we shall fully fund the pay awards over the 4·5 per cent. which has been allowed for inflation.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given the widespread interest in Scotland in the recommendations of the Griffiths report, is the Minister satisfied that within the small increase in the budget for health boards it will be possible for the boards to implement many of those recommendations?
    Mr. Forsyth: We are giving careful consideration to the Griffiths report, which involves funding not just by health boards but by local authorities. We have made substantial increases in funding for health boards and social works depts of local authorities, and we shall certainly consider the recommendations carefully. Resources are not the problem. We must address ourselves to joint planning and organisation.

    Scottish Development Agency
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency; and what matters were discussed.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): My right hon. and learned Friend and I met the chairman and board of the agency on 16 May to discuss strategic issues which might be reflected in the agency's planning and budgeting process, and other matters.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Did my hon. Friend have a chance to discuss the increasing success of the Scottish electronics industry, which has increased its output threefold since 1979? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Scottish people can now deploy their well-known and traditional qualities of doughtiness, courage and entrepreneurial flair in pursuit of economic growth? Is it not a shame that those qualities are so little apparent: on the Opposition Benches?
    Mr. Lang: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The growth of the electronics industry in Scotland has been a

    309
    major contribution to the development of a broader based and more secure economic environment in which prosperity can spread more widely.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister will be aware that Teachers whisky announced over 200 redundancies last week, in addition to the many other redundancies that have taken place in Springburn. Will he involve SDA officers in bringing work, rather than closures, to Springburn?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will know that the agency is engaged on a large number of initiatives in local areas in Scotland, and I am sure that it will note his remarks.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister consider providing extra funding to Locate in Scotland in order to boost Scottish preparation for the single European market in 1992? What is his Department doing to encourage seminars and projects throughout Scotland to maximise Scottish employment and success in that market?
    Mr. Lang: We are already heavily involved in seeking to prepare companies in Scotland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, for the single European market. Part of the great success of Locate in Scotland in attracting inward investment to Scotland over the past few years is because it is perceived as being a good base for European manufacturing operations, particularly in electronics, but also in other industries.

    Scottish Assembly
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding a Scottish Assembly since 5 May.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I have received two letters in favour of an Assembly and two against.
    Mr. Wray: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the district election and the general election results, and that he did a somersault on devolution. He will also be aware that he bestowed on himself powers under the Local Government, Planning and Land (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981 and thereby eroded democracy in Scotland. Is he aware that the only way getting rid of totalitarian demagoguery is by abolishing the poll tax and establishing a Scottish assembly?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am aware that at the local elections the Conservative vote in my constituency increased from 39 to 46 per cent. and, indeed, that in Edinburgh the Conservative vote was greater than the Labour vote for the first time in five years. I doubt whether the Scottish public believe that a tax-raising Assembly would be in the interests of the Scottish economy or the other economic requirements of Scotland.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Scots have seen through the flawed proposals that have been put forward for any type of Scottish Assembly? Does he agree that the proposals, as they now stand, would have no chance of passing through
    310
    the House, whatever its political complexion, because eight out of every 10 people in English constituencies would not want their Members to vote in favour of it?
    Mr. Rifkind: As almost every Labour Government since the war required Labour Members of Parliament from Scotland and Wales to provide them with their United Kingdom majority, it is increasingly puzzling why the Labour party should wish to adopt a constitutional solution that will result in a substantial reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster and the end of any effective voice for Scotland in the United Kingdom Cabinet.
    Sir Russell Johnston: The Secretary of State knows full well that many people in Scotland have strong views on a Scottish Assembly. Does it not occur to him that it is a bad thing that only four bother to write to him—mainly because they know that he will not listen?
    Mr. Rifkind: On the contrary, since the election the Labour party and, indeed, the Social and Liberal Democratic party have been unable to demonstrate any substantial demand in Scotland for constitutional change. I recollect that when the Labour party called for a great rally on Glasgow Green for Scottish democracy, fewer people turned out for that than the number who voted Conservative in the Glasgow, Garscadden constituency.
    Mr. Irvine: Did any of the four letters received by my right hon. and learned Friend address itself to what has come to be known as the West Lothian question? Does he agree that if Scottish domestic issues are to be reserved to a specifically Scottish Assembly it will be difficult to justify Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster retaining their right to vote on and debate the full range of English domestic issues?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend has raised a genuine and serious problem that the Labour party must consider. The Labour party and, for that matter, the Social and Liberal Democratic party, are, by instinct, as Unionist as the Conservative party, yet they have failed to appreciate that the constant adapting of nationalist rhetoric is incompatible with the Unionist position that they have upheld since they were formed. They cannot at the same time argue for a Scottish Assembly unless they are prepared to provide an adequate and credible answer to the question that was so effectively raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who then represented West Lothian.
    Mr. Dewar: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman not spent too much time recently in that painfully unrepresentative gathering, the Scottish Conservative party conference? Is there not a clear wish for some form of constitutional change in Scotland? Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not quite recently say that there was at least a preference for devolution in Scotland, although he still argued whether it was a priority? Is it not a dangerous exercise in obstinacy to try to go back on that, as he is now apparently doing? Has not the message about the Government's unacceptable social and constitutional policies been proclaimed loud and clear this morning in the unanimous decision of the Church of Scotland not to invite the Prime Minister to the General Assembly next year? [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman may laugh at the Church of Scotland, but that will not do him a great deal of good in Scotland. Clearly,

    311
    the right hon. Lady's sermon made few converts, and unacceptable policies remain unacceptable, however cleverly disguised. Is it not time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought again on devolution and an Assembly, as on many other policies?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am amused, and it is significant, that, given the nature of the hon. Gentleman's questions, he clearly considers the General Assembly to be more important to Scotland than his proposals for a Scottish Assembly. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received an extremely warm and genuine welcome from the General Assembly, and the efforts of a tiny minority of the commissioners of the General Assembly, led by a commissioner who is also a Labour councillor on Glasgow district council, were seen to be totally unrepresentative of the views of the vast majority. Of the 1,200 present, only five, including that Labour councillor, showed the discourtesy that is so untypical of the Church of Scotland as a whole.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate that we are about to debate the spring Adjournment motion, but I hope we can have less of a holiday atmosphere at Question Time.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of registration for the community charge.
    Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to what proportion of registration forms for the community charge have been returned properly completed to the registration officer for each of the regional authorities in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: Detailed information on the progress of community charge registration is not available centrally, but it is clear that in many areas very high rates of return of forms have been achieved in the initial canvass. There is every reason to believe that the registration process is going smoothly.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister assure the House that he will seek a detailed statement of the progress of the registration from the poll tax registration officers, because there is evidence in some areas that the registration process is failing substantially? If some areas can achieve only 80 to 90 per cent. registration rates from direct returns from the public and therefore have to pad out the registrations with information from their own resources, will that not lead to registers being substantially appealed against after October, and will that not cause much delay and time-consuming and expensive administrative procedures?
    Mr. Lang: I have every confidence that the registration officers will be able to fulfil their statutory duties without any interference from me. At the moment we are only a quarter of the way through the period for compiling the register, yet the signs from published figures are that the returns are in the region of 75 to 90 per cent. If anything is failing dismally, it is the Labour party's campaign to launch a "Return to Sender" campaign.
    Mr. Doran: Is the Minister aware that in my post this morning I received an invitation from the Secretary of
    312
    State for Scotland to witness the retreat of the bands of the Royal Marines? We have already witnessed the retreat of the Tory party from Scotland, and the cries of anguish were painful indeed.
    My information from the Grampian region is that '70 per cent. of registration forms have been returned, but only 40 per cent. have been completed. That means that 60 per cent. of people in the Grampian region have refused to return their forms or have returned them asking for more information. Will the Minister publish similar figures for the rest of Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: Those figures are not returned to the Government. They are compiled by the registration officers, and they announce the figures if they so wish. I hope the hon. Gentleman shares my view that the most effective way to get the community charge system to fund local government successfully is to spread it as widely as possible across the adult population. If not, those who complete the form and end up on the register will pay a higher share than would otherwise be fair.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that registration for the community charge will take time, as we expected? Does he also agree that it is interesting that Angus district, which is run by the Scottish National party, and Perth and Kinross, where there is a Scottish National party provost, have clearly declared that people should register, comply with the law and pay the community charge? That is contrary to what Scottish National party members have been saying.
    Mr. Lang: I commend the attitude of Angus district council and I hope that its views will percolate through to its parliamentary representatives.
    Mr. Dewar: In his obviously carefully prepared initial answer the Minister referred to published figures. Where are they published, and what are they? As far as I am aware, there has been only some speculation in The Sunday Times, which is virtually a Conservative party house journal. Given the depressing spectacle in another place earlier this week of reactionary hereditary power being marshalled cynically to frustrate the views of public opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—what advice would the Minister give to Scots who recognise and oppose the unjust nature of the poll tax, but who are faced by a Government whose definition of democracy does not involve listening to the electorate?
    Mr. Lang: That was obviously a very carefully prepared question. The published figures to which I referred were published in the press. The press will note with interest the disdain with which its published articles are treated by the Labour party. My advice to members of the public who are opposed to the legislation is to accept the rule of law. In that respect they will differ from the Labour party.

    Electricity Industry
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed the proposals for privatisation of the electricity industry with the chairmen of the Scottish electricity boards.
    Mr. Rifkind: I last met the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board on 1 March and the chairman

    313
    of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board on 3 March to discuss privatisation of the electricity industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State has often said that once privatisation has taken place he would wish a substantial number of shares to be retained within Scotland. Has he given any thought to proposals to ensure that that happens, given that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy, has said:
    "We shall be placing on the American market a proportion of the stock we shall be selling in the existing companies."?
    Does that apply to the flotation of the Scottish companies as well as to those south of the border?
    Mr. Rifkind: In previous privatisations those who are both employees and consumers of a nationalised industry have often been given preference in the acquisition of shares. In respect of the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, almost every consumer, with the sole exception of those living in Berwick-upon-Tweed, lives in Scotland. Therefore, if the Scottish public are interested in acquiring a substantial stake in the ownership of the two companies, they will have a preferential opportunity to do so.
    Mr. Eadie: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman met the chairmen of the electricity boards in Scotland, was he able to assure them that a separate Scottish Bill would be published and that the proposed privatisation would not be hived off on to the Bill that is being submitted for the privatisation of electricity in England and Wales?
    Mr. Rifkind: So far neither of the chairmen has expressed any preference for a particular form of legislation. Whether electricity privatisation should be part of a United Kingdom Bill or dealt with by separate English and Scottish Bills is a matter still to be resolved.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, apart from leading to wider share ownership, privatisation of the Scottish electricity industry will lead to lower prices to the consumer and greater job opportunities in manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. There is no reason why the privatisation of both companies should not have the same benefits for the public as all previous privatisations, despite predictions to the contrary by the Labour party.
    Mr. Maxton: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)? What guarantees will he put in the legislation to ensure that, in the months and years following the privatisation of the two electricity boards, control will remain in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: I cannot guarantee that the Scottish public will use the opportunities that the Government provide. The Scottish public will have a unique opportunity to acquire shares and therefore to acquire the ownership of the companies. Whether they wish to take advantage of those opportunities will be for them to decide. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that that would be a responsible position to adopt.
    Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State has said that he cannot guarantee continued Scottish ownership of the
    314
    Scottish electricity industry. Can he give the House any guarantee that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board will have a social clause that is meaningful to the north of Scotland with regard to reconnections, repairs of lines and other aspects of its activities?
    Mr. Rifkind: The original reasons for the social clause were not those raised by the hon. Gentleman. Those reasons were to ensure that the remote rural areas and island communities had access to the benefits of the board's activities—that has already been achieved—and to achieve common tariffs throughout the area. In the White Paper we have already made it clear that we intend to ensure that there will be common tariffs throughout the board's area.

    Earnings
    Mr. Forth: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the most recent average weekly earnings figures for Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: The average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates in Scotland in April 1987 are estimated to have been £214·6 for men and £139·9 for women. In both cases, only the south-east of England had higher earnings.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that that demonstrates the enormous success and well-being of Scottish people and economy? Therefore, does my hon. Friend accept that in future the Scottish people will look less towards the public sector and more towards their own great economic success? Will my hon. Friend confirm, however, that earnings from self-employment are still disappointingly low, and can he give us any goods news or optimism for the future?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, in that the Scottish economy is responding well to the encouragement of enterprise and the stable economic base generated by the Government's policies. He is quite right also to identify self-employment as an important sector in the Scottish economy. We wish to encourage its growth. I am glad to say that since 1981 the numbers of self-employed have risen by 45,000, whereas in the previous three decades there had been no increase at all.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister not astonished that a leading free market entrepreneur such as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) does not seem to be aware that the private sector Reward Group in its recent study discovered that the cost of food, transport, household goods and even drink in Scotland are considerably higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom? Does that not explain why the hon. Gentleman represents Mid-Worcestershire instead of Mid-Strathclyde?
    Mr. Lang: I do not think that we need lessons on inflation from the Opposition, given the record of the last Labour Government between 1974 and 1979, when the cost of living more than doubled. It is precisely our great success in bringing down the rate of inflation in Scotland as elsewhere that has helped us establish the strong economic base that is leading to the growth of prosperity in Scotland.

    Hospital Building
    Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many major hospital building projects are under construction and at what cost; and what were the comparable figures for 1978–79.
    Mr. Rifkind: Ten major hospital building projects are currently under construction, estimated to cost some £97 million. Comparable figures for 1978–79 are not available, but provision for the health capital programme increased by 23 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1987–88.
    Sir Hector Monro: Bearing in mind the complete failure of the Labour Government in the 1970s, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the capital programme is the biggest ever in real terms? Does he also agree that the increase in nurses' salaries and the very substantial future changes in the structure of the nursing profession must hold tremendous prospects for the National Health Service in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is quite correct. The hospital building programme in Scotland is the largest in the history of the National Health Service in Scotland. Since 1979, 53 major new hospital developments have been completed and there are 33 major developments currently in the programme, of which three are being commissioned, 10 are under construction and 20 are at the planning stage. That shows the commitment of the Government to ensure that Scotland has hospital facilities that we can be proud of and that will last into the next century.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Is it not the case that the hospitals that the Secretary of State was talking about were approved by the last Labour Government? Will he say how many approvals for new hospitals have been given since 1979?
    Mr. Rifkind: I know that the hon. Gentleman is desperately trying to retrieve the situation, but he knows perfectly well that the hospital building programme was cut under the last Labour Government——
    Mr. Ross: How many?
    Mr. Rifkind: We measure Governments not by their claims but by their deeds. The hon. Gentleman has to live with the fact that the Government whom he supported cut the hospital building programme, while under this Government we have the biggest ever hospital building programme.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: While welcoming the real and demonstrable commitment of the Government to new hospital building in Scotland, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that health boards use properly those facilities that they have available? Will he bear that particularly in mind in the consideration that he will shortly be giving to the proper provision of maternity services in rural areas in Grampian, where there are good facilities which are wanted by the local community and which the health board is trying to close?
    Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend is correct. Given the vast resources that health boards have at their disposal, it is particularly important that they ensure that they get the best value for those resources in the interests of patients.

    District General Hospital (Motherwell)
    Dr. Bray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to proposals for the building of a district general hospital on the site of Strathclyde hospital in Motherwell.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: My right hon. and learned Friend has not received any proposals from the Lanarkshire health board for a new district general hospital.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that the Lanarkshire health board has recently discovered mining subsidence on the site of the Law hospital, which makes it quite unsuitable for modernisation and development of that wartime emergency hospital on which Motherwell and Wishaw have depended for the past 40 years? Is he also aware that the Strathclyde hospital site has long been designated as a site for a new district general hospital? Will he tell the Lanarkshire health board to get on with it?
    Mr. Forsyth: I thought that it was the position of Opposition Members that I should not tell the health boards to get on with anything. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Lanarkshire health board, as part of its general review of its long-term acute services strategy, is examining the case for a new district general hospital for the Hamilton-East Kilbride area. If it were to submit a proposal for a new hospital it would need to be backed by a full and detailed option appraisal. I await the board's proposals with interest.
    Mr. Robertson: Is the Minister aware that the saga of the Motherwell district general hospital has been drifting on for about 25 years? Is he also aware that the huge Motherwell-Hamilton conurbation is seriously ill served in acute hospital services? When he considers the allocation of capital for hospital building, will he consider the desirability of building a new district general hospital for the Hamilton-East Kilbride area?
    Mr. Forsyth: It is true that, this matter has been under consideration for some time, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the board decided to give priority to new schemes at Kirklands hospital, Udston hospital and Hairmyres hospital shortly after 1978. Those schemes are now coming to fruition and they reflect the SHAPE priorities and the priority that has been given to services for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped.

    Single European Market (Cecchini Report)
    Mr. McLeish: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has assessed the likely impact on Scotland of the Cecchini report on the single European market; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Cecchini report supports the view that the internal market will create major opportunities. I have no doubt that the Scottish business community will rise to the challenge of 1992.
    Mr. McLeish: Is the Secretary of State aware of the recent speech by Mr. Hamish Morrison, chief executive of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), in which he said that he resented the fact that Government advertising on this issue represented Scottish business men as introspective bumpkins? He went on to say that British industrial policy did not match the realities of 1992 More

    317
    important, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the implications of the Channel tunnel and the need for infrastructural development? Is he also aware of the lack of regional policy and of the tremendous contribution made to Scotland by the financial services sector in Edinburgh? If he is aware of all those aspects, will he prepare a report on 1992 so that the Labour party can take advantage of the opportunities, as the Labour party wants to do, unlike the Conservative party, which is complacent and seems to be uninterested in Scotland benefiting from the single European market?
    Mr. Rifkind: I welcome the Labour party's latter-day conversion to the EEC because, with almost the sole exception of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), the Labour party campaigned against Scotland's membership of the EC and was thoroughly repudiated by the Scottish electorate when the referendum on the Community took place. I also welcome the hon. Gentleman's passionate support for the Scottish financial sector. It would be nice if his Labour colleagues could show the same spontaneous enthusiasm for the development of financial institutions in Scotland as a means of creating employment and boosting our Scottish economy. I agree that the internal market will be in Scotland's interests if we can prepare ourselves in a suitably professional way. For example, it is encouraging that it was a Scottish company that acquired the contract for the initial work on the Channel tunnel. Anything that enables our exports to reach continental markets more quickly and effectively can only be in the interests of the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Douglas: As one of the Labour Members of Parliament, numbering 69, who voted for the Heath Government's White Paper, I have reasonable credentials to enable me to speak on Britain's membership of the EC, and I have the scars to prove it. However, this is a serious matter. The Secretary of State surely has an obligation to report particularly on the economic implications for Scotland of the 1992 proposal. Will he also take into consideration the fact that the economic effects of 1992 are likely to strengthen the case for a Scottish Assembly as a counterpoise, in terms of political decision-making, to the over-centralisation of the United Kingdom decision-making process in London?
    Mr. Rifkind: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's European credentials and his entitlement to speak with some authority on matters involving the EC. However, I must disagree with his latter observation, because I cannot see, in the context of a European internal market, why a Scottish Assembly, with the power to impose additional taxes on Scottish industry, could do anything other than weaken Scotland's ability to compete effectively within that European market.
    Mr. Fallon: Will my right hon. and learned Friend also welcome the Labour party's conversion, not just to the idea of Europe, but to the idea of a market? How does he square the Labour party's new-found enthusiasm for the single European market with its constant wittering about the need for a closed Scottish economy?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the fundamental inconsistencies of those who argue on the one hand that Scotland must be protected by law and by Government from any action of the market, while on the
    318
    other they expect Scotland fully to benefit from that same market. The Labour party must identify where Scotland's interests truly lie. Few people in the modern world would argue that some form of siege economy could be anything other than intensely damaging to Scotland's economic future.

    Housing Statistics
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest estimates of the number of Scottish houses which are (a) damp and (b) below tolerable standard.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Returns submitted by local authorities indicate that at 31 March 1987, 38,100 local authority dwellings required treatment for dampness alone, 78,400 required treatment for both dampness and condensation, and a total of 53,000 dwellings were below the tolerable standard in Scotland.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is it not disgraceful that more than 100,000 Scottish homes suffer from dampness and that more than 50,000 dwellings, most of them in the private sector, are below a tolerable standard? Why is it that the Secretary of State for Scotland rejects a house condition survey when the Secretary of State for Wales has just spent £1·6 million on such a survey so that he may be better acquainted with the housing problems of Wales and produce a programme for the future? Does not the ignorance of the Secretary of State for Scotland about the problems of Scottish housing and his failure to plan for the future ill fit him for his office?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. We are not convinced of the case for a national house condition survey as opposed to the requirement for local authorities to fulfil their statutory responsibility to assess the needs in their own areas. We support local authorities undertaking their own house condition surveys, as Glasgow has done.
    The number of houses falling below a tolerable standard has been reduced from 121,000 in 1979 to 53,000. We hope that substantial progress will continue to be made. I stress that more is being spent on public housing in Scotland this year than last.
    Mr. Lambie: Is it correct to say that when the Minister was a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs investigating housing conditions he not only supported its call to the Government for a housing condition survey but voted for one?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member has a very good memory. We do not rule out a national house condition survey on principle. [Interruption.] The matter is under consideration. We strongly support the principle of local authorities undertaking their own surveys, as Glasgow has done, which will assist both the authorities and their communities.
    Mr. Favell: How many of the councils responsible for housing that is below a tolerable standard are controlled by the Labour party?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I would think a considerable number. However, we expect substantial

    319
    progress to be made. In the early days there was a great deal of demolition, but now houses will be renewed and rehabilitated, so that families may continue to live in them.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Does the Minister agree that if the Government are not to be accused of double standards public housing in Scotland should be brought up to at least the standards enjoyed by the governor general seated next to the Minister, who has an official residence in Edinburgh named Bute House? Is it true that £100,000 was spent on Bute House last year? If so, how can the Minister justify that expenditure?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is important that more should be spent on public sector housing in Scotland this year. The final housing revenue account capital allocations for this year total £58 million more than the provisional allocations and are more than £34 million up on last year.
    As to Bute House, obviously it is necessary that it should be kept in a proper condition.
    Mr. Home Robertson: In this week of scriptural references, is the Minister aware of the words of Matthew 15:
    "if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch?"
    Has he yet taken an opportunity to look at the Prime Minister's complimentary copy of the Church of Scotland's report on housing in Scotland, which refers, among other things, to the lack of any reliable official survey of housing conditions in Scotland? As Scotland is now the only part of the United Kingdom without a house condition survey, may we take it that the Minister is deliberately remaining blind, ignorant and indifferent to the plight of hundreds of thousands of Scots who are living in overcrowded and sub-standard accommodation?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It certainly will not be a question of the blind leading the blind, because we are issuing to authorities a handbook of guidance on the conduct of local house condition surveys. One of the difficulties about a national house condition survey is that the sample might be relatively small. In our view, it is more effective at this stage for local authorities to carry out their statutory responsibilities by making certain that they know the precise details of their own housing stock.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were unemployed in Scotland in June 1983 and March 1988; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: Seasonally adjusted, the number of unemployed claimants was 308,000 in June 1983 and 300,000 in March 1988. Latest figures show a further drop to 295,000 in April, continuing the firm downward trend.
    Mr. Hind: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his reply. Has he noted the figures for unemployment in the long term, which were published yesterday, showing that in Scotland over the past 12 months there has been a reduction of 36,600–16·5 per cent.—in the number unemployed for six months, and a further 28,800–15·6 per cent.—reduction in the number unemployed for 12 months? Does that not vindicate the Government's economic policy and show that it is working in Scotland as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the good news that long-term unemployment is falling in Scotland as well as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I agree with him that that is a result of sustained commitment over a period of years to our economic policies, which are now delivering more increased prosperity.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister now tell us the whole truth about the Government's track record on Scottish unemployment, which is that there has been an increase of 97 per cent. since that woman got the keys to No. 10 in May 1979?
    Mr. Lang: I understand the hon. Gentleman's confusion over the matter, because no Labour Government have ever experienced the phenomenon of sustained falls in unemployment. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that in his constituency unemployment has fallen in the past year by 1,022.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. My attention was distracted, but I remind the House that we should refer to each other by our constituencies or offices in this place.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister accept that in "Just Sharing", the book published by the Church of Scotland, unemployment is given as one of the main reasons why poverty in Scotland has nearly doubled during the years of this Conservative Administration? What steps do the Government intend to take to address themselves to that fundamental question of poverty in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: The best way of countering poverty is by increasing prosperity, and that is what we have been doing in the past few years. We now have falling inflation, falling unemployment, increasing prosperity, increased investment and a rising standard of living for the vast majority of Scots.
    Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that last year's record level of business registrations in Scotland, and the considerable growth in self-employment, not only pay tribute to the growth of the enterprise economy in Scotland but will contribute greatly to further reductions in unemployment?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures for self-employment that I gave earlier this afternoon show the growth of enterprise in Scotland. It is also encouraging that employment during the last quarter of 1987 rose by around 7,000, and that business surveys from such bodies as the CBI and the Fraser of Allander Institute demonstrate that that growth is continuing.

    Scottish and Newcastle Breweries
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what categories of assistance or grant his Department has paid to Scottish and Newcastle Breweries in respect of its Scottish operations since 1979.
    Mr. Lang: The company received assistance from my Department under the old regional development grant scheme, which ended in 1984. It has received no assistance under regional selective assistance since 1979 or under the revised regional development grant scheme.
    Mr. Allen: Was the Scottish Office consulted about the takeover of Charles Mackinlay by Invergordon Distilleries? If the Minister cannot answer now, will he undertake to write to me? Is he aware that hundreds of tenant-publicans in my constituency have been given notice to quit by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries? When Scottish and Newcastle next brings the begging bowl to the Scottish Office, will he tell it that, while the importation of Scottish and Newcastle best bitter is a bad enough imposition on my constituency, the imposition of Scottish and Newcastle's industrial relations practices is not acceptable?
    Mr. Lang: I would not expect my Department to have been consulted on the takeover, but if I find that we were consulted I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman. The details of the relationship between Scottish and Newcastle Breweries and the company that it has taken over are a matter for the company and not for the Scottish Office.
    Mr. Steel: Does the Minister accept that the consumption of the products of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries appears to have played some part in the ugly scenes at Wembley last weekend? Will he take this opportunity to repudiate the offensive suggestion by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) that the effects were visible on one side only, or the idea that they have anything to do with the Government's support of the company?
    Mr. Speaker: That is very wide of the question.
    Mr. Lang: I think it unwise for anybody to comment on such incidents without having access to all the facts.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is spreading despondency among the Home brewery tenants and the company although he knows full well that the National Licensed Victuallers Association has accepted the proposals put forward by the company and is putting the proposals to its tenants tomorrow?
    Mr. Lang: Yes, indeed. I understand that 90 per cent. of the tenants have accepted the new rent levels from Scottish and Newcastle Breweries and that production and employment at the Home brewery has increased.

    Coal Imports
    Mr. O'Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how many tons of coal have been imported by the South of Scotland Electricity Board since 1 April.
    Mr. Lang: The level of coal deliveries to the South of Scotland Electricity Board is a matter for the board and its suppliers. I understand from the SSEB that around 20,000 tonnes have been delivered to date.
    Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister join me in hoping that those figures will not in any way impede the negotiations between the SSEB and British Coal, as I understand that progress has been made on price and tonnage? Will the Minister assure us that he will give his backing to a deal that will secure jobs in the Scottish coal industry for as long as possible into the mid-1990s?
    Mr. Lang: I would certainly welcome a successful outcome to those negotiations, but that outcome must be based on a realistic perception of the competitiveness of British Coal and its ability to enable the electricity board to generate electricity competitively.
    Mr. Darling: Is the Minister not taking the role of a disinterested spectator in the negotiations? Is he not aware that unless the coal side of electricity in Scotland is kept up we shall have to depend more and more on nuclear energy, with all the implications that that has for price and safety?
    Mr. Lang: I am not uninterested in the negotiations but I do not believe that it is right and proper that we should interfere in them. There is every opportunity for Scottish coal to contribute to the generation of electricity, provided that it is available competitively.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that Scotland is fortunate to have a wide variety of fuel resources? Will he also acknowledge that if the coal industry is to invest in deep mining it requires contracts for a reasonable period or years? Therefore, will he use what opportunity may be available to him to ensure that the SSEB takes a realistic view, as the CEGB has done in the south?
    Mr. Lang: I certainly hope that realism will colour the negotiations on both sides. I welcome the signs of increased flexibility over working hours on the part of miners.
    Dr. Moonie: It is just not good enough for the Minister to shrug off the negotiations between British Coal and the SSEB as though they were none of his business. He must be well aware of the problems and delays facing the implementation of the plans for the Torness power station. He must be well aware also of the problems at the Hunterston B power station, which is now 50 per cent. closed and must have a large question mark over its future. Surely he sees a role for the Government in promoting a strategic policy for energy production in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: I believe that Scotland is fortunate to have such varied sources of fuel for electricity generation. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government ought to indulge in the beer and sandwiches approach to the negotiations that got the country into so much difficulty in the late 1970s, I assure him that he is mistaken.

    Secondary School Pupils
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure in 1978–79, at constant prices.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: In 1986–87, net current expenditure per pupil in secondary schools in Scotland at outturn prices was £1,764. This is 26 per cent. more in real terms than the comparable figure in 1978–79, which at 1986–87 prices was £1,403.
    Mr. Knox: How do those figures square with claims that there have been cuts in secondary education expenditure under this Government?
    Mr. Forsyth: Such claims, which have been made by Opposition Members, are untrue. Expenditure has

    323
    increased substantially in real terms. In the current year expenditure provision for education will increase by some 9 per cent., which is a real increase well above the rate of inflation.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister agree that his figure for expenditure per pupil reflects declining school rolls rather than increased Government expenditure? The reality in Scottish schools continues to be chronic under-funding. If there has been the British economic miracle about which Conservative Members keep talking why is it not reflected in expenditure on Scottish schools?
    Mr. Forsyth: Expenditure in Scottish schools is considerably higher than in England. One of the reasons for that is that a substantial part of the resources is spent on property costs, including the additional burden of rates, and on the lower pupil-teacher ratio because there are proportionately more staff. Labour-controlled local authorities in Scotland have made little progress in rationalising school places. In England, since 1979, the number of secondary schools has been reduced by 10 per cent. The comparable figure for Scotland is only 1 per cent.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend give the latest pupil-teacher ratio in Scottish schools and compare it with the figure for 1978–79, when we had a Labour Government? Will he then draw the attention of the House, and that of Scotland and the rest of the nation, to the substantial improvement that has been made since then?
    Mr. Forsyth: I shall he happy to provide that information in the Official Report. The pupil-teacher ratio in secondary schools in Scotland is 13·2:1 as against 15·6:1 in England.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Why is the Minister so reluctant to address himself to the problem of falling school rolls in Scotland, particularly the fall in secondary education? Why does he not accept that such improvement as has been achieved in funding has been achieved by Labour-controlled authorities despite cuts in rate support grant made by the Government? Why does the Minister not admit to these things? Why does he not improve education at the point of use, rather than engage in this useless debate about figures that are utterly meaningless in real terms?
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman is asking me to endorse local authorities' action in rationalising school places, I should be happy to do so. It is a pity, however, that education authorities such as Strathclyde perceive rationalisation as closing full schools rather than empty ones. As for the hon. Gentleman's question about resources, he should ask Strathclyde why it cannot guarantee that any savings that it makes from rationalisation will be used to add to education provision.

    Housing Stock
    Mr. McTaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department has prepared an analysis of the likely effects on the administration of the Scottish public
    324
    sector housing stock of the number of people in Scotland who will face reductions in income as a result of the recent housing benefit changes.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, Sir, but there is no reason to suppose that the housing benefit changes will have any significant effect at all on the administration of public sector housing.
    Mr. McTaggart: Is the Minister aware that many constituents have written to me and, I am sure, to many other right hon. and hon. Members, expressing their genuine fear about the housing benefit changes? Has the Minister produced any figures that show how many people are worse off as a result of the changes, and what the average loss is? Instead of preaching to these people, many of whom are pensioners, why do the Government not do something to deal with their plight?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am responsible for the structure of local government. We believe that housing agencies will be very well able to cope. The new system will be simpler and easier to administer. The administration of public sector housing, involving such matters as management, maintenance arid allocation policy, should not be affected by the payment of housing benefit. On the same night as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) had an Adjournment debate, a letter explaining the situation fully was sent out to every right hon. and hon. Member by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled.
    Mr. Dewar: The Minister says that the changes will have little effect on the administration of housing departments. Does he accept that the changes will have an appalling impact on ordinary people in Scotland'' How does he reconcile the fashionable preaching about morality with the cruel and inhuman changes in housing benefit, which are causing so much dismay and distress in every part of the land?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As the hon. Member knows, housing benefit is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Social Services. However, I can tell him that nearly 90 per cent. will gain, or will get the same amount of cash as before, when the reforms overall—involving family credit and Income support—are taken into account. It is estimated that £613 million will be spent on housing benefit in Scotland this year.

    Scottish Bus Group
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representatives he has received on the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend has received 47 representations, mainly about the form that privatisation might take, and its practical effects.
    Mrs. Michie: Does the Minister recall that when the Secretary of State made a statement yesterday on the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group he said that he was not yet in a position to say what the future will hold for Caledonian MacBrayne? In view of the anxiety in the Highlands and Islands about the future of Cal

    325
    Mac, will he at least give us some idea of when he can make a statement? Is it to be this year, next year, or when?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It remains under consideration. However, I am glad to confirm to the hon.
    326
    Lady that we regard the services to the islands—of which she is a representative—as a lifeline. It will also continue to be our policy to keep down travel costs to the islands. I appreciate that her constituents will want to know as soon as practicable.

Rowntree plc
3.31 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould (by private notice): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the decision not to refer the Nestlé bid for Rowntree to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): This morning my right hon. and noble Friend announced his decision not to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission Nestlé's bid for Rowntree, or Suchard's 29·9 per cent. holding. This decision was in accordance with the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. It is now for Rowntree's shareholders to decide whether to accept Nestlé's bid.
Our policy is that, in deciding whether to refer a merger to the MMC, the main consideration is the effect of the merger on competition. Neither of these proposals raise competition issues which justify a referencé. Nestlé and Suchard have only 3 per cent. and 2 per cent. respectively of the United Kingdom chocolate market.
My right hon. and noble Friend also concluded, after considering the Director General's advice, that there were no employment, reciprocity or other public interest issues which justified a reference.
The United Kingdom has benefited greatly from both inward and outward investment. We believe that open markets are the best means of encouraging efficiency and generating wealth and jobs. This applies to capital markets as well as to markets for goods and services.
The success of the United Kingdom economy is the best evidence of the effectiveness of our policies on competition and investment. My right hon. and noble Friend's decision is consistent with those policies, and is in the best interests of our continued economic prosperity.
Mr. Gould: Is not this decision a betrayal of British industry? Is it not a grave blow to the work force at Rowntree, to the local communities affected and to all those hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who understand the importance of Rowntree to their local economies? Is it not unfortunate that by this decision the opportunity has been missed to take those views and also the national interest properly into account? Is it not unfortunate that the decision will, instead, be taken exclusively by institutional shareholders according to their own narrow interests?
Why was the regional dimension not fully taken into account? Is it not clear that Rowntree, as one of the few major British companies with a headquarters outside the south-east, will lose that regional character if it is absorbed into a Swiss multinational? Should not the lack of reciprocity, in practical terms at least, between ourselves and the Swiss have been taken fully into account? What consideration was given to making a prohibition order under section 13 of the Industry (Amendment) Act 1975?
Given the similar threats that now emerge to similar British companies, the confused state of the Government's competition policy, and the added complications of 1992 and the internal market, may we have a debate on these important issues as soon as possible?
Mr. Clarke: I do not believe that there is any uncertainty about our policy. We have clear competition laws that govern such matters. We recently issued a Blue Paper which clearly set out our policy on monopolies arid mergers. At the time it was not seriously challenged by anybody. We have a clear view of what is required to prepare this country for 1992 and to continue to keep it competitive in markets that are becoming ever more global for large numbers of products. In response, we are faced with extremely uncertain populism, which is not properly thought out and is based largely on short-term lobbies and fear of foreigners coming in.
We realise the importance of Rowntree to all those towns in which it has a manufacturing base. It is not for me to anticipate what the rival management will say about their intentions. However, I do not believe that anybody is seeking to acquire that company with a view to running down or abandoning its manufacturing capacity in this country. It is essentially up to the management—whoever owns it—to ensure that the company is kept cost-competitive and to decide how it manufactures and where it employs in future.
Nestlé has been well-established in this country for over 100 years. The bulk of its work forceé10,000 people, which is more than the company employs in Switzerland—is based in the regions of this country.
We considered the question of reciprocity, because it can be an element in such cases. However, the fact is that a Swiss Minister would not have the legal powers that my right hon. and noble Friend has to intervene to refer or block a merger, using the powers to which the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) referred. Many Swiss companies have a share structure which makes it difficult for them to be taken over, as have many well-known British companies, such as Trusthouse Forte plc and Great Universal Stores plc. In the opinion of the Director General of Fair Trading, with which I wholly agree, reciprocity was not an adequate issue in this case.
It is right that the matter should now be decided by the shareholders. Our approach to inward and outward investment is in the best interests of the continued growth of the British economy.
Mr. Conal Gregory: Is my right hon. and learned Friend not opening a Pandora's box by his statement today? Having heard his statement, I feel that he is bringing about a regional assassination of a major manufacturing base in the north of England.
After today's decision, what protection does any United Kingdom company have against cash-rich Swiss companies which have protection against rival takeovers in Switzerland? Can my right hon. and learned Friend name one United Kingdom company that has succeeded in a hostile bid in Switzerland; nay, can he name any EEC company that has succeeded in a hostile bid in Switzerland?
Finally, did he take into account the employment aspects of this matter as Rowntree plc is one of only six remaining companies that have their international headquarters in the north of England? The House demands answers.
Mr. Clarke: I understand the concern in my hon. Friend's constituency. However, he is wrong to look upon this, as he puts it, as a threat to the manufacturing base. We are talking about the ownership of a major

329
manufacturer of chocolates, especially for the British market. I cannot understand how anybody would make a bid for that company and then propose to close it down as a manufacturer of chocolates in this country. That would be a pointless acquisition.
Investment goes two ways. I take a great interest in the northern economy. I do not think that the northern economy would benefit any more than the midlands or the southern economies would if we suddenly tried to close off our companies from overseas capital investment, or if we tried to inhibit the ability of British companies to buy overseas. The proportion of our manufacturing base owned by foreign enterprises has been falling during the Government's period of office. In 1985, 14 per cent. of manufacturing employment was accounted for by foreign enterprises compared with 15 per cent. in 1979.
There have been takeovers in Switzerland. Piaget, the famous maker of Swiss watches, was recently acquired by Cartier. Opposition Members will say "Oh, Cartier is a foreign name—the company must be foreign," but it is a British-owned company. United Kingdom investors are the main overseas predators and make bids for overseas companies which far exceed the bids made by the Germans, the French or others. That is a good thing. That practice will increase as we run up to 1992. I welcome the fact that United Kingdom companies make bids in western Europe, such as Rowntree when it acquired Candice Martial last year, and Cadbury Schweppes when it acquired Chocolat Poulain in France. These companies have been overseas investors and they benefit from the free market system.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that the Swiss should be able to sit behind the barricade of the Alps and pick off our ripe cherries? Does he accept that his statement means that the Government have no credible competition policy, no credible anti-monopoly policy and no effective or robust regional policy? Is it reasonable that the shareholders of the company should be expected to protect the interests of jobs and a corporate headquarters in the north? Is it not likely that the shareholders, as shareholders generally always do, will take the money and run? How will the Government respond if Rowntree goes for a merger with Cadbury as a logical defence of the company?
Mr. Clarke: I express amazement that someone who represents the Liberal party in this place, or what was the Liberal party, which always claimed to be the great European party, should retreat into arguments about the Swiss sitting behind the Alps. That is rather reminiscent of the talk in the past about Swiss gnomes. I am astonished also that someone representing what was the Liberal party should attack the idea of shareholders exercising any judgment on the best use of capital and the ownership of companies. If the newly emerged party, whose initials I can still never remember, is to try to reach agreements on policy, it will have to reconsider its approach to international market economies, competition-merger policy and the private sector economy.
If any other company starts bidding for another chocolate company, whether the bids come from home or abroad, we shall take the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, who will apply the sensible legal rules that
330
the House has laid down, along with the sensible monopolies and mergers policy that we set up recently in our Blue Paper.
Sir Giles Shaw: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that I deplore the decision that has been made today? Will he accept also that I am astounded that it is not considered by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that there are any public issues involved in it that require examination? Will he confirm, for example, that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is concerned about how much of the confectionery industry is taken into foreign ownership? What percentage would cause a national issue to arise? What do my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Education and Science have to say about the commitment to the Community in the light of an operation of the Rowntree type? What does the Department of Industry have to say about the further reduction in the six corporate headquarters that exist in the north of England? What does the Department of Trade have to say when about the only gain that the Government have achieved is a reputation for offering the maximum amount of encouragement to foreign capital to come here unfettered so that it is a matter of all manufacturing assets to be sold and gazumpers welcomed by 1992?
Mr. Clarke: My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State had many serious issues to consider, including, overridingly, the national interest. That is one of the issues that we are rightly covering in these exchanges—whether it is in the national interest to have a reasonably free exchange of investment and capital movement across the world, given that the British are now the major overseas investors. We considered the reciprocity arguments and found, both in Britain and Switzerland, that some companies are so structured that it is difficult to make a reverse takeover bid. There are many who argue that it would not be to the advantage of an economy to have too many companies that are protected in that way. We considered the effects on market share, competition and the consumer, for example. All these issues have been considered in a reasoned way. There is no public interest and no established policy reason for the Government to intervene and say that the issue should not be decided by the shareholders.
I appreciate the experience and the close local concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) in these matters, but we should not abandon the Government's legal, policy, economic and industrial bases and start acting in a short-term populist way in response to lobbies, managements which fear takeovers, or probably unfounded fears about the impact on particular firms.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does the Minister realise that those of my constituents who are employed at the Girvan factory of Rowntree will be deeply disappointed that he is adopting a Pontius Pilate role, which suggests that he is acting under the influence of his unelected boss?
Is he aware that the Girvan travel-to-work area has the third highest level of unemployment in the country? What guarantee can he offer the people in the Rowntree factory in Girvan that their jobs will be protected?
Mr. Clarke: If anyone is taking any Roman attitudes in all this it is the British investor who, with the encouragement of the British Government, is building up an empire of overseas holdings throughout the world, as British investors move into America and Europe. The average American business man wears a Brooke's Brothers suit, but is not usually worried that that company is British-owned. If one wishes to stay in a Hilton hotel outside America, one finds that one is staying in a British-owned hotel. If, on the other hand, one buys a bottle of good British Ashbourne mineral water, one finds that it is produced by Nestlé in its factory in Derbyshire.
It is absurd to adopt this nationalist approach to policy, and it will become ever more so by 1992. Even the nationality of companies is a matter of argument. We talk about these companies being national companies because their headquarters are in a given place, but the nationality of the shareholders is becoming more international all the time. In our competition policy we have to consider consumers' interests and the impact on the economy as a whole, and that is what we shall do.
I am sure that both competing bidders will make their statements about what the future holds for jobs, manufacturing, cost-effectiveness and any rationalisations that they may undertake. Those are matters for management. They never would be matters for the Government, whether the company remains wholly Rowntree-owned or whether it is taken over by Nestlé, Suchard or anyone else.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that as there are only six firms in the EEC controlling 70 per cent. of the EEC confectionery market there is a prima facie case, on European competition grounds, for blocking this bid, which would reduce their numbers from six to five? Does that not show that there is an urgent need to accept and adopt the EEC merger directive?
Are we not sending a dangerous signal to British industry? If, in preparation for 1992, British firms invest in improving their R and D, their marketing and their general organisation, and their profits drop in the short-term, and if the British Government will not stand by them if they are attacked by predatory bids just at that moment, is that not dangerous?
Mr. Clarke: We do not know whether the bid will be successful. That is not a matter for me or my right hon. and noble Friend. It depends on what happens and on the decision of the shareholders. If it is right that the emergence of 1992 will lead to a concentration of ownership, we have to make sure that the European consumer and the European economy are protected against the problems of monopoly and merger. We are in discussion with the Commission about the future role of European competition policy, on which we have an open mind. We are, however, anxious to ensure that any European-wide agreement should be based broadly on our principles of free investment, not taking nationalist decisions, and acting in the best economic interests of the economy and consumers. We would not want Europe to adopt anything that stopped British investors maintaining the substantial level of acquisitions in western Europe upon which they are now embarked.
Mr. John Garrett: Is the Minister aware that his answer will cause some concern among the
332
thousand Rowntree workers in my constituency, who happen to work on a prime city centre site? Would not a reference to the MMC be the only way of obtaining an objective study of the national interest in these matters? Has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman given the green light to protected European predators to take over any British company that they happen to fancy?
Mr. Clarke: Anyone who wants to acquire a company has to persuade the shareholders that he is making the right price offer for it or has the prospect of developing that company and improving its performance. We must judge bids, from wherever they come, thus: if the Government decide to intervene and stop the shareholders deciding, they must do that on the basis of the national interest, the consumers' interest and the various other things that we have been discussing. The Director General of Fair Trading and my right hon. and noble Friend have carefully considered those aspects and have decided that they are not affected in this case.
At the moment, British investors go overseas much more than others. It is to the advantage of other countries if they open up their markets o overseas investment—they get capital inflows as a result. British predators are more feared than any others across most of western Europe, and long may that remain so.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that all of us realise that British companies are taking over overseas companies, just as British companies are being taken over, and that that is a good thing? Is not the problem that the Government's monopolies and mergers policy has become a shambles and needs to be re-thought? Cadbury and Rowntree would fit ideally together, not just because of their enterprise, but because of their backgrounds, and make an excellent merger. However, because of the monopolies and mergers policy such a suggestion would be flung into the arms of the MMC, so they are hamstrung. If we are to have free competition, let us have free competition, and not stop British firms from doing what is good for Britain.
Mr. Clarke: Our monopolies and mergers policy is crystal clear and has been applied wholly logically in this case. I take my hat off to the management, which, faced with a bidder that happens to be an overseas company, has run an extremely good campaign, implying that this is some sort of overseas threat to British sovereignty, and has tried to get the Government to intervene to decide the matter in its favour.
I bear no to the Rowntree management or to anybody else. I am wholly neutral on the merits of the issue. It is up to Rowntree to persuade its shareholders that their best interests and those of the company lie with the present management. The overall effect of continuing to apply the rules that I have described to any major bid proposal will be that we look after the interests of the United Kingdom economy and the consumer. We shall continue to apply those rules consistently.
We shall cross the bridge of a merger between Cadbury and Rowntree when we reach it. We shall consider that on the basis of the likely effects on the market and the consumer. One must consider the market in these products and the effect of any merger by two manufacturers.
Mr. Doug Henderson: Will the Minister own up to the fact that in reality he is handing over the future of 13,000 jobs in the north-east of England to 30 banks and insurance companies in the City of London? Does that not demonstrate the need to change merger legislation and to give workers and managers, the people who make the companies succeed, a direct say?
Mr. Clarke: If I were being fair to the Opposition, I would at least credit them with consistency. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friends, the Opposition are more consistent in these matters. Most Labour Members dislike the idea of British capital being invested overseas and, like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), try to devise a complicated arrangement for most of the capital. Most Labour Members are against any merger, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would oppose any takeover, whether the bidder was British or foreign. This Fortress England mentality to the economy is an extremely unsuccessful approach to modern trading conditions. The success of the British economy in the past eight years shows that the Labour party's approach is fundamentally wrong and not even in the interests of those employed in our major companies.
Mr. Michael Alison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that in his statement today the Secretary of State expressed doubts about whether the Swiss system of restrictive shareholding barriers suited their system well and said that they appear to be on the point of liberalising it? As that liberalisation would be very much in the interests of British firms seeking to invest in Switzerland, was it not an error of judgment not to penalise the Swiss in this instance and encourage liberalisation by imposing the necessary restrictions on reciprocal grounds on the investments which Nestlé is trying to make in Rowntree?
Mr. Clarke: When we last had an exchange on this subject I said that I was not a Swiss legislator, so I could not give views on Swiss law. So far as I can discover, the law does not arise, and no Minister in Switzerland is given the powers of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State to intervene. If I were a member of the Swiss stock exchange, it is likely that I would disapprove of the capital structure of many Swiss companies, but I am not. Moreover, I understand that there are pressures to change that.
I have already cited companies in the United Kingdom, one of which is the National Freight Corporation, in whose creation I was in a minor way involved, which have a structure which protects them from takeover bids. The British stock exchange does not approve of that so much, but no one has yet suggested that the Government should intervene to stop companies setting up that particular share structure, and I do not think that we can.
Given that background, I do not believe that any substantial issue arises in this case to suggest that we should suddenly impose a total ban on all Swiss bids for British companies until the Swiss change their corporate structure. We would be depriving ourselves of a valuable influx of overseas capital; as valuable as the influx of capital from the Americans, the Japanese and elsewhere.
Mr. Bruce Millan: The Minister keeps talking about shareholders, but is it not against all
334
experience to expect shareholders to protect the national interest, as against protecting their own interests? In this case the management and work force of Rowntree and the local communities are all utterly opposed to the takeover. Does that count for absolutely nothing with the Government?
Mr. Clarke: It is contrary to all experience to believe that an industrial strategy, as managed by Labour Ministers, is in the interests of employees, compared with the decisions of shareholders in the free market economy that we are now operating. The strong growth of the British economy over the past eight years is the best illustration of that. We are now the fastest expanding economy in Europe, which is why we are aggressive investors overseas and why we are attracting so much inward investment. Recent experience shows that that is in our economic interests.
The proportion of manufacturing in this country owned by foreign companies has been dropping, if considered in employment terms, in recent years because, although there has been a great deal of inward investment, the amount of domestic investment has also been rising very rapidly. There is therefore no risk of our losing our sovereignty and of all companies becoming foreign owned. As our recent economic experience proves, the climate is at present much more favourable to growth, enterprise, new employment and continued expansion of the British economy.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Notwithstanding my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks about the application of the principle of reciprocity to Nestlé, will he take time to consider the range of alternative shareholding structures in Europe and the different mechanisms for issuing non-voting shares and restricting voting rights on ordinary shares in particular circumstances, which exist to a certain extent here but are particularly prevalent in Holland and Germany? Will he consider carefully whether he believes that those systems are necessarily in the public interest or, indeed, in the European interest after 1992?
Mr. Clarke: I shall take the time to consider those points, and I shall probably take the time to consider my hon. Friend's advice as he has considerable expertise in these matters. There is a great variety of shareholding structures in western Europe, and it is more difficult to acquire companies in some countries than in others. I have already said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) that I am not sure whether it is in the interests of the countries that have restrictive shareholding structures to keep them as they are. When we consider these issues on a European-wide level, as no doubt we eventually will when we have a common statute for corporate organisation covering the European Community, I am not sure that we should imitate the more closed systems. The more open system in Britain is undoubtedly preferable.
Mr. Greville Janner: The Minister said that no employment issues were involved. Does he know that the workers at the Fox's Glacier Mints factory in my constitutency take a totally different view, that they get on extremely well with the management, and that they have confidence in the company and none whatever in the takeover mechanism, which brings them only anxiety?

335
What guarantee, if any, can the Government give to those employed by Fox's Glacier Mints that they will have any future if the company is taken over?
Mr. Clarke: I understand people's anxiety about employment whenever any major change affects the company for which they work. The only people who can make statements about the future pattern of employment are the management of a company. I do not know what statements Rowntree has been making to the employees of Fox's Glacier Mints in recent years, and I do not know what it will be proposing. However, I know that when Ministers regarded it as their obligation to make statements about employment issues the British economy was performing very badly. As we now acknowledge that management should be given the right to manage its own business, and that the market makes pretty good judgments about the best use of capital, we find that the economy is doing very much better. That means that jobs are being created in Britain at a much faster rate than in the rest of Europe put together.
Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the decision will be met with real regret in my constituency in east Yorkshire? Is he aware that we are worried, not just about the number of jobs in the north, but about the quality of jobs? When firms are taken over and the head office moves to London, or in this case perhaps Geneva, the international market in jobs is affected. Jobs in R and D and in top management will go. Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that one of the main culprits in this case is the Rowntree Trust, which was given 50 per cent. of the shares of the company by the Rowntree family, but has progressively sold its holding and now owns only 5 per cent.?
Mr. Clarke: I shall not comment on what the Rowntree Trust has been spending some of that money which has not always pleased Conservative Members. I shall leave that on one side.
I am pleased to say that the Yorkshire and Humberside economy is doing very well at the moment, with unemployment falling and the regional economy reviving strongly. We must do everything to encourage that. I understand the sensitivities when one of the great names in a region is involved in a takeover bid. That has occurred before, and it will occur again. I am sure that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will be aware that all that Ministers can, and will, do is to apply the national policies for which we answer to the House. We must apply the law laid clown by the House and stick by the principles that we set out in the Blue Paper on monopolies and mergers. We believe that that is essentially in the interests of the Yorkshire and Humberside economy and the national economy. I do not believe that the northern or Yorkshire economies can be protected by introducing special rules to stop the free movement of capital into that area while such capital is moving strongly into the rest of the country.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Before taking the decision not to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, was the Minister aware of the strong feelings of hon. Members on both sides of the House, Cadbury, the Rowntree work force and the Confederation of British Industry? He has said that the employment consequences are not his concern. They should be his concern. He should be concerned for the
336
13,000 people in Rowntree, including the 600 in my constituency, who are worried sick. My constituency has just lost 10,000 jobs because of the rapid rundown of the mining industry. Rowntree is a major employer, and there is no guarantee for the work force that they will keep their jobs. Should the Minister not be concerned?
Mr. Clarke: I did not say that I was not concerned. I said that I do not determine the employment patterns of British companies. It is not for Ministers to decide that. We create the economic climate in which companies are best placed to expand, prosper and increase the amount of employment that they offer. If Rowntree had remained untouched by any offer, I would not have answered questions about how many would be employed at a particular factory. I do not approve of an economic system in which Ministers claim that they determine that. At the moment I do not believe that anyone is threatening the continued manufacture of Rowntree or Cadbury chocolates in this country. We are arguing about the ownership of the capital and whether that should be left to the shareholders to determine in the usual way.
Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon and learned Friend recognise that the decision will be met with deep disappointment by many people in Yorkshire, who will be worried that the bare threat of takeover facing this great Yorkshire company will proceed? Does he agree that this is a lost opportunity for bringing pressure to bear on the Swiss Government and Swiss companies to bring their company structures into line with those in the majority of companies in this country? Will he review the criteria for the terms of reference for referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
Mr. Clarke: I understand the deep concern felt by all my hon. Friends who represent Yorkshire constituencies, and most of them have now been called to express those concerns. We all have local loyalties, and my judgment of issues is often quite properly coloured by my perception of local issues. Normally, most of my hon. Friends who have spoken agree with me on economic and industrial policy. I have a feeling that if we were talking about a great Nottinghamshire company several of my hon. Friends who speak for Yorkshire would not have thought there was anything wrong with our refusal to refer a bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Mr. Pat Wall: Will the Minister reconsider the interests of the Rowntree employees, because their labour has created the wealth over which the predators are now squabbling? Have they not the right to a ballot to defend their jobs., particularly as they cannot go to the courts against this intimidation and the likely secondary picketing by Suchard, General Cinema and Cadbury?
Mr. Clarke: The fact that many people want to own a company is not altogether bad news for those who work in it. I understand that many employees feel unsettled when they discover that someone is competing for the ownership of the company. I believe that the reason why people are trying to buy companies is that they see Britain as an attractive place in which to invest and to use as a manufacturing base for the European market that we are putting together for 1992. I understand all the fears, but I

337
do not believe that there is anything special in this case which justifies referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Mr. John Maples: I want to change the tone a little by telling my right hon. and learned Friend just how welcome his decision is, particularly in view of all the chauvinistic whingeing that we have heard from people who until a few weeks ago had no idea that Nestlé was not a British company. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Britain and British companies have benefited enormously from their freedom to invest abroad and that we are the last country that should erect artificial barriers to international investment?
Mr. Clarke: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is referring to English or Yorkshire nationalism, but I am grateful for his support. I agree that the average consumer and the average employee did not feel so strongly about the nationality of the shareholders until this issue arose. It will be interesting to see in the Tea Room how many people boycott Branston pickle, Ashbourne water and all the goods made by Nestlé, most of which are made in the north of England and Scotland.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that when I visit the Rowntree company in my constituency tomorrow I shall expect anything but a welcome for this afternoon's statement? He suggests that decisions on jobs in my constituency and elsewhere should be left to the shareholders and the two competitors. Will he accept that that will cut very little ice in an area where we were given precisely the same arguments over the Guinness takeover, when those pledges mattered not at all? How many more jobs does he expect us to lose in the pursuit of the philosophy that he appears to endorse?
Mr. Clarke: I do not know the basis on which so many people are asserting that the change of ownership in itself
338
is likely to lead to a reduction in jobs. The number of jobs involved in the manufacturing of chocolate in this country will presumably be determined by the management—under whatever ownership—deciding how to win a share of the United Kingdom and European chocolate market. When the hon. Gentleman visits his constituency tomorrow no doubt he will put forward alternative propositions about what should happen. The Labour party finance and industry group said that merger policy should give
"prime attention to the wider economic aims of a Labour Government."
I know which I would put most trust in. A merger policy simply based on the economic aims of the previous Labour Government would offer little reassurance for jobs or anything else to the hon. Gentleman's constituents or to those of anyone else.
Sir Hector Monro: I appreciate the constituency interests of my hon. Friends. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give them some encouragement by accepting from me that Nestlé took over one of the largest factories in my constituency a year or two ago, since when everything has gone from strength to strength for investment and employment? The future might be much brighter than my hon. Friends expect.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Had we approached these matters differently we would have blocked hundreds of takeovers by foreign companies during the last two or three years which have led to the same reassuring satisfactory consequences for firms as those described by my hon. Friend.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that I have managed to call all those hon. Members with a direct interest in this matter. There will be other opportunities on the Adjournment motion later.

Property Services Agency
4.8 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future of the Property Services Agency.
The Government have decided that the PSA should become a commercial organisation. In reaching this decision, we have taken account of a report prepared by Messrs. Deloitte Haskins and Sells on the introduction of commercial accounting into the PSA. Copies of that report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. We have also paid special attention to the report on PSA which the Select Committee on the Environment prepared under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi).
Last July my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced that, from 1 April this year, there would he a new relationship between Departments and the PSA on major civil projects. Those payment and untying arrangements will now be extended to cover the range of services, defence as well as civil, offered by the PSA. The extended arrangements will be fully in place by 1 April 1990. By 1 April 1990, also, PSA will be reorganised into three businesses, as recommended by Deloittes. Two of these will be services businesses, covering project services and estates services. For the third, PSA will continue to manage, on behalf of the Government, the common user element of the civil estate. A substantial amount of property, however, will become the responsibility of individual Departments. I hope to make substantial progress in implementing that reorganisation before the completion date of 1 April 1990.
PSA will continue to seek opportunities to contract out functions to the private sector. I shall keep the process of contracting out under continuous review.
The changes are designed to expose the PSA to outside competition as rapidly as possible, and to equip the PSA to compete effectively, but further measures are needed if the PSA is to operate on a fully commercial basis. I have therefore decided that the PSA should become a Government trading fund, as proposed both by Deloittes and by the Select Committee. In line with the timetable set out by Deloittes, I look to the PSA to put as much of its operations as practicable on a trading fund basis no later than I April 1993.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has agreed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence should take over responsibility from me in two areas. First, estate agency functions on the defence estate, both in the United Kingdom and overseas, will transfer on 1 October 1988. Secondly, some 200 industrial staff who are employed in the PSA's directly employed labour force to carry out specific and permanent tasks at defence establishments will transfer on 1 April 1989. By 1 April 1990, as arrangements are developed to put PSA's relationship with MOD on to an untied basis, up to 800 more of those industrial staff will be transferred.
Dr. John Cunningham: Is the Secretary of State aware that the reasons set out for the creation of the PSA in its present form are as valid now as they were when it was created by the Conservative Government in 1972?
340
Its role is to provide, manage and maintain Government property, including defence establishments, courts, research laboratories, training centres and land. We see a continuing need for such a role in the public interest.
Is the Secretary of State aware that we support the aim of greater efficiency in the Civil Service and within the public sector? Surely the proposals are aimed at preparing the PSA for its dismemberment and ultimate sale. If better commercial practice and performance is the objective, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the restructured PSA, as announced today, will be totally free to compete on equal terms with the private sector, without ministerial interference, and as recommended by the House of Commons Environment Select Committee? If he cannot give the House that assurance, are not his arguments for better performance on commercial terms simply exposed as bogus?
The PSA has been trusted to build the Clyde submarine base, which is intended for
"The UK Trident strategic system and the expanding fleet of nuclear and conventional submarines. The development is one of the most challenging projects ever undertaken."
If the PSA has been trusted to do that work, is it efficient
in carrying it out? If it is inefficient, why was it trusted with such a critical and expensive project in the first place? Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain that decision in favour of the PSA undertaking such complicated expensive work which the Government have already endorsed.
If the Ministry of Defence, which currently provides some 60 per cent. of PSA work, is no longer obliged to use it, what are the implications for jobs, especially regional employment, and for security? There are, for example, more than 1,600 jobs in the north-east of England that will be at risk as a result of the Government's decision and as many more in Scotland. How many of the 24,000 PSA jobs does the Secretary of State estimate will eventually go as a result of that decision?
In general, the PSA gives the taxpayer a good deal. Its chief executive a—distinguished civil servant—is SirGordon Manzie, who is trusted and whose annual report has been endorsed by the Secretary of State. In that report Sir Gordon says:
"comparisons have shown PSA to be competitive with its private sector counterparts."
If that is true, what can be achieved by the Government announcement today? Surely that announcement exposes as bogus the Secretary of State's claims about commercial improvement. The Government's statement is simply a triumph of dogma and ideology over British public interest.
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) managed to wax himself into a paroxysm of apprehension about what I believe to be a helpful and progressive statement regarding improvements to the efficiency and management of the Government's estate. I agree that it is the PSA's defined role—laid down when it was set up in 1972—that we are now seeking to develop. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement that greater efficiency is something that we should strive for, and that is what the statement seeks to achieve.
Curiously enough, I also welcome the hon. Gentleman's call for the PSA to be able to compete with the private sector. In effect, that is a request for a future Government to privatise suitable parts of the PSA. I welcome that request from the hon. Gentleman, just as I

341
welcomed his enormous concern about the critical and important nature of the Trident base—he was right to stress its importance. I have no doubt in the abilities of the PSA both in that respect and in respect of the many other functions that it performs for Government Departments, including the Ministry of Defence. I believe that it will supply sponsor Departments with the very best service, and in that case it will continue to prosper.
I believe that there will be no threat to jobs. The hon. Gentleman got the figures regarding jobs connected with the Ministry of Defence slightly wrong. In future, however, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will answer for that. As I said in my statement, up to 1,750 PSA staff will probably transfer to the MOD. Those are the staff that the MOD will need to manage its estates. The PSA is already contracting out about 85 per cent. of its physical work, so perhaps the MOD will be able to improve upon that transfer figure slightly. A great deal of work is already contracted out and the people employed on such contracts manage the estates. Therefore, there will be no threat to their jobs.
Sir Hugh Rossi: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement inasmuch as it accepts two main recommendations of the Select Committee: the creation of the PSA as a trading fund, and the untying of the defence establishments. Contrary to the statement made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the Labour Members who served on the Committee listened carefully to all the evidence, studied the effects of the recommendations and were completely in agreement with those recommendations and accordingly, no doubt, with the statement that my right hon. Friend has just made.
May I say to my right hon. Friend in criticism that the way in which answers to Select Committee reports are presented to the House in a piecemeal fashion is more than unsatisfactory. We have had a memorandum, a partial reply in a private Member's motion, and now a statement. It would be far more satisfactory if all these matters could be dealt with by way of Command Papers and we could then properly study the Government's replies to very carefully thought out recommendations of Select Committees. I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is in his place to hear that criticism of matters of procedure.
As far as I can tell, all the recommendations of the Select Committee on the PSA have now been accepted, except that I do not know where we stand on the recommendations that
"a central body of PSA expertise should be retained as one unit for specialist advice and as landlord of the Civil Office and Storage Estate; and … allowed to manage the Civil Office and Storage Estate more positively, as a major property resource".
Where do we stand on those recommendations—the last major recommendations of my Committee?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I consider that the report on the PSA to which we are referring was one of the very best reports that Select Committees have produced for a long time. I pay tribute to all the members of that Select Committee. The report was so good that the
342
Government have more or less agreed to every recommendation, although they were major recommendations.
I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse us for the delay in providing an answer, but the report raised some very complicated matters which had to be pursued and that took rather longer than I should have liked. The delay was to enable us to meet the recommendations. On the other hand, Select Committees like an early Government reply, so we were in a dilemma. I hope that my hon. Friend feels that the delay has been worth while to achieve the results that the Select Committee suggested.
Of course, the PSA will continue to give specialist advice to Government Departments about property management. That function will not be disturbed. The expertise is there at present and will continue.
In regard to the ownership of the civil estate, as I said in my statement, a large common user element of the Government's property will remain the responsibility of the PSA, but where facilities are purely for the use of Departments, such as in many defence matters, the ownership will transfer to the Department concerned. The exact dividing line between the common estate and the property which goes to individual Departments has yet to be defined, but I hope that that definition answers my hon. Friend in principle. As he said, we have accepted the recommendations about the trading fund and about untying.
Mr. James Wallace: Does the Secretary of State accept that if his proposals will lead to Government Departments, not least the Ministry of Defence, having greater flexibility to economise through engaging contractors which offer a price lower than that of the PSA, that will generally be welcomed?
Can the right hon. Gentleman give any guarantee that the reservoir of expertise mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) will be retained and that there will not be a proliferation of mini-PSAs which could lead to the loss of the advantages achieved through economies of scale?
Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to speculate on the implications of commercialisation for the care and maintenance of this building? Does he foresee charges for the showers, for example?
Mr. Ridley: On the first point, any Department will be able to obtain the best price it can for maintenance or work to its own property as a result of untying. The hon. Gentleman welcomed that.
Secondly, the PSA will remain as a body and will continue to have specialist knowledge which will be available to those from any branch of Government who want to consult it and to Government Departments which will be free to use the PSA as the agent for managing their properties.
Thirdly, I propose no change in the arrangements under which the Palace of Westminster is run. In this case, the landlord is a royal one and the PSA manages the building on behalf of the landlord in conjunction with the Services Committee of the House.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: I strongly support my right hon. Friend's announcement. May I put two questions to him? First, is it not more likely that jobs in the economy will be increased by his announcement as the skills within the public sector will be transferred to the

343
private sector and will not only become available to the public sector but will be exploited through the British civil engineering industry across the world?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend consider, in the dispersal of the Government estate to separate Departments, urging those Departments to use contract management from the private sector for the management of those estates, as well as enjoying the additional freedom of overall responsibility that he has given them?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is very likely that the development of the policy will lead to a strengthening of the private sector. There is no reason why it should lead to a reduction in the numbers employed by the PSA if it can continue to justify its activities by winning work from Departments.
On my right hon. Friend's second question, it will be up to the Departments to manage their own property from now on. I hope that he will urge Departments to follow the course of obtaining the best offer for managing their estates, whether it be from the PSA or from the private sector, as well as contracting out maintenance and new construction work.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Secretary of State said that the Select Committee report was a good report. As a member of the Select Committee, I must say that even better reports are still awaiting his response. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance that the statement is not a prelude to privatisation? Will he further give an assurance that the trade unions will be consulted fully and their views given due consideration?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that one of the major problems that the PSA faces is that the Departments that it serves are sometimes very unclear in giving to the PSA work requirements, both in their initial instructions and when changing their minds? That causes major problems for the PSA. Will the Minister try to ensure that it does not occur in future?
Mr. Ridley: Whether reports from Select Committees are good ones must await my view. The hon. Gentleman cannot put those words into my mouth before I have decided.
Privatisation may become a possibility which the staff prefer when the three businesses have been separated. They may well wish to go into the private sector to compete for a greater share of the work available. We cannot prejudge that as it will be many years before we reach that position. Trade unions will be consulted from this afternoon about the announcement that I have just made.
The lack of clarity of the intentions and needs of Government Departments which has made life very difficult for the PSA in looking after its buildings has been in part the cause of the changes that I have announced this afternoon. From now on, Departments will be responsible for managing their own buildings and for paying for that management. They will therefore have a much greater incentive to seek the best value for money than if the costs of whatever changes they make halfway through fall upon the PSA. which is hardly fair on it.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have
344
a busy day ahead of us. I ask for brief questions, and certainly not questions that have been asked before.
Mr. James Couchman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his wise decision to take the PSA into a full commercial position. If I have a criticism, it is that it will take a very long time to establish it as a trading fund and 1993 seems a long way ahead. After all, we have fully privatised greater public utilities in rather less time.
In regard to the Ministry of Defence assuming responsibility for its estates, what will happen to those estate management matters which are currently in train? Will the MOD assume responsibility for those matters ahead of I October, or will the PSA take its responsibility beyond 1 October? My right hon. Friend is very well aware that there are matters in my constituency which are of significant importance to my constituents.
Mr. Ridley: I agree that it is a pity that it will take so long to attain a full trading fund, but that is the estimate of the PSA and our consultants, Messrs. Deloittes, who believe that it cannot be done quicker. That is the time that it will take to move a large organisation from vote accounting to having full commercial accounts in a trading fund because of the immense changes that are necessary, each of which underlines the difference between a Government Department and a commercial organisation.
I shall soon have to ask my hon. Friend to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence how he will manage the contracts that he needs for the defence estate. I am sure that he will wish the smooth transitional arrangements to continue and contracts that are in train will obviously be treated differently from contracts that will be let after 1 October.
Mr. John Garrett: What will be the required rate of return from the three businesses? Will it be rigged in order to make them uncompetitive compared with the private sector? Is it intended to make political appointments to head them?
Mr. Ridley: I shall be able to set targets for the three businesses once we have three businesses in a few years' time, but not now. The staff of the PSA will remain civil servants, as they are at present, until such time as the new era is reached.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Much as I applaud the management changes that my right hon. Friend has proposed today, will he, following his answer to the last question, make sure that the staff understand their forward terms and conditions of employment so that we avoid the turmoil that we are now experiencing on the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers?
Mr. Ridley: I confirm that there will be no change in the status or position of any PSA staff as a result of what have announced this afternoon. They remain civil servants. The PSA is run by a permanent secretary, to whom I pay tribute, as did the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). There is a small advisory board that is purely advisory, but, for the rest, all members, whether they go to the MOD or stay with the PSA, will remain in exactly the same position as at present—as civil servants.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: How much were Deloittes paid for their report?
Mr. Ridley: I have no idea.
Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in evidence to the PAC, it was clear over the years that the PSA needed to be released from some of its shackles, and to that extent my hon. Friend's statement is welcome? However, can he assure us that one of the trading functions—the servicing of boilers, lifts and so on—will not simply result in a major direct labour department under the PSA?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is time that we made the move that I have outlined. Some people are best directly employed in the maintenance and looking after of property, but equally there is always scope for contracting out and from now on it will be for individual Departments which own their own properties to take those decisions. The PSA will continue to decide whether to contract out the sort of work to which my hon. Friend is referring in relation to the common user element in the civil estate.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why could not the Minister give a straight answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) on who will be heading the three companies in preparation for privatisation? Will there be any friends of his, or civil servants, distinguished or otherwise, heading them up? Could ex-Ministers have a lucrative number in the future? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that nobody will be latching on to any of these slush funds?
Mr. Ridley: I have made it clear that as the PSA becomes three separate businesses the whole staff will be civil servants who will be interchangeable with civil servants from other Departments. If new arrangements are proposed in five years' time, that will be the time for the hon. Gentleman to expect an answer to his question.
Mr. Michael Fallon: If, by his statement, my right hon. Friend is preparing the three businesses for early privatisation, is he not to be congratulated? If he is not, is he not astounded by his own moderation?
Mr. Ridley: I do not know which of my hon. Friend's interpretations to claim. It will take the five years until 1993 to obtain the accounts necessary and to separate the three businesses. I make it plain that the business that owns the common user estate is unlikely to be privatised because, clearly, we cannot make ourselves tenants throughout all Government properties, particularly in the Whitehall area. Whether the other two businesses should be privatised will become much clearer when they become established.
Mr. Ian Gow: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the great majority of the land and buildings used by Government Departments is used by individual Departments and so his announcement today means that almost all the owners of the Government estate will be at liberty to use the private sector? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend try to accelerate his timetable for setting up the trading fund? Will he acknowledge that many Conservative Members want him to accelerate a programme of full privatisation for the whole of the PSA?
Mr. Ridley: Those Departments with special user directed buildings, such as the courts buildings of the Lord Chancellor, or the buildings solely concerned with
346
agriculture of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—those are just examples; there are many more—will pass to the Departments concerned. However, a Government office is unlikely to transfer because it may house one Department for a period and later switch to another Department. As such, that is part of the common user estate. I shall be able to give more details of the precise split between departmental property and the common user estate after more work has been done.
I agree that it would be desirable to accelerate the proposals in the statement as fast as possible, but we have already tried to do that and our accountants, Messrs. Deloittes, have advised us that if we meet the target of 1993 for the trading fund, we shall be doing well. However, a Government of the same colour will still be in place then and will be ready to take the next step.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the regional office of the PSA in my constituency welcomes his proposals as being sensible? However, I am sure that the PSA staff would like the reassurance that, if they are to lose their traditional client base, they will be free to win contracts on a new wider client base within the private sector, such as in the nationalised industries, the National Health Service, and so on.
Mr. Ridley: It was on a visit to the regional office in my hon. Friend's constituency, when I discussed this matter a year or two ago with the staff, that I confirmed that this was the right direction for us to go and I am sure that they will feel the same now. The new businesses have a lot of work to do to become established and we should leave matters as they are at the moment. However, if there are invitations and strong pressure for those new businesses to compete in the private sector, that will be a compelling reason for privatising them.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but does he agree that there is a possibility that, in the separation into three units, there may be an increase in the arm's length relationship between those placing the order and those doing the work that has been missing for some time? Secondly, may we hope that there will be a better use of resources and property, in particular property going to the MOD? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be better to leave people living in such property than to leave it empty?
Mr. Ridley: I believe that the separation will lead to more arm's length relationships and less arm twisting, which I am sure is what my hon. Friend would like. It will help the Ministry of Defence to identify surplus property and make disposals, and to ensure that any empty houses are either occupied or sold. However, the majority of empty MOD houses are far away from distressed areas of housing shortage.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for brief questions. It would be helpful if these matters could be raised on the Adjournment.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I welcome this overdue move towards commercial management on a trading fund basis. Will my right hon. Friend elaborate on the third of his new PSA companies, that holding civil land

347
and property? As there is an increasing shortage of commercial sites, particularly in the south of England, will my right hon. Friend oblige the new company to dispose of property wherever possible so that it can achieve its full potential in the market place?
Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend, but disposals from the PSA are currently running at £40 million or £50 million per year, which is a remarkable figure. I pay tribute to the agency for the diligence with which it has disposed of surplus Government land and property. There is not much more scope for increasing that figure, and I do not imagine that my hon. Friend would want us to go as far as selling, for example, the freehold of the Treasury.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents will be heartily relieved if someone moves in to sort out and tighten up on the excesses of the Property Services Agency at Hampton Court palace? Can he say how his policy for improving the administration there will interact with his new proposals?
Mr. Ridley: As my hon. Friend knows, we have already taken steps to establish an agency to manage Hampton Court palace, and those arrangements are going well. That in itself means untying the PSA from being the monopoly building adviser and contractor at Hampton Court palace. In a sense, that decision pre-dates the statement I have just made. In either case, Hampton Court palace will be free to seek the advice, the design and the contracting work which it finds of greatest value for money in what it has to do.
Mr. Chris Butler: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how the management of the British Library project will be affected under the new commercial arrangements he has described? What would happen if the Property Services Agency ran severely over budget in respect of that project?
Mr. Ridley: Contracts already in existence and operating will continue to be managed as at present. That would apply to the British Library. If the Property Services Agency, having bid for the project, fails to make sufficient money to cover its costs and loses money, it will be necessary for it to account to the Treasury. In due course, the Treasury would decide whether or not to make good that which it had lost.
Mr. Richard Holt: As a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) and of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). When it comes to relocating the three new companies, will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to making the north of England the area to which they are directed?
Mr. Ridley: I have asked the PSA to consider what scope there is for relocating its operations and staff well in advance of anything that may arise from my statement. That is now being done. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not expect me to suggest any particular locations, but both the PSA and the Government are keen to devolve as many functions and staff as they can to localities where the resultant jobs will be welcome and where houses will not be so expensive.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. However, in the past there has been a major problem in dealing with defence property because of the PSA's influence. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in future it will be easier to dispose of surplus land and houses currently owned by the MOD as a result of the PSA's reorganisation?
Mr. Ridley: It will certainly be no more difficult. The decision whether to dispose of land or property has always been one for the Ministry of Defence, which has always owned its own property. We are now giving it the personnel necessary to manage the estate agent, maintenance and new build functions. I hope that the Ministry will be able to dispose of surplus properties, as my hon. Friend suggests. I believe it will help the Ministry to be itself in control of the estate agent function in identifying and putting on to the market property which it does not need.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are eight officials in the Box. The Secretary of State for the Environment has a particularly athletic PPS. I asked a very short question about the cost of Deloittes' report. Could not one of the Minister's officials, through his PPS, have provided the information I sought?
Mr. Speaker: The PPS looks to be in very good shape, but I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

Local Authority Searches and Enquiries, Etc.
4.45 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to expedite local authority searches and enquiries and for other purposes.
There are two types of information which potential house purchasers require of local authorities. First, they need to search the land charges register; secondly, they need answers to additional inquiries. Local authorities have a statutory duty under the Local Land Charges Act 1975 to register local land charges. Everyone has a statutory right to inspect those registers at any time. The fee is set by the Lord Chancellor.
Additional inquiries are answered by voluntary agreement. There are 18 basic questions in all. Although the searches and the inquiries are technically quite separate, conveyancers usually apply for both together, and they are known collectively as the local searches. Before a purchaser commits himself to signing a contract, he needs answers to the questions contained in the local searches. Most building societies will not release mortgage money until they are satisfied that such searches and inquiries have been completed.
The problem of delays in completing those searches is not new. It was highlighted by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in his House Buyers Bill in 1983. However, it related only to the statutory search, and it was later dropped. The matter was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), who I am delighted to see is present in the Chamber this afternoon, as someone who is continually vigilant in confronting the problems which face house buyers. My hon. Friend raised the matter in an Adjournment debate in February, when he produced statistical information contained in a report by the conveyancing standing committee of the Law Commission published last December. That report presented options and proposals for improving the system, and it invited comments by March of this year.
This month, the Woolwich building society also took up the question of delays and commissioned a survey in 37 towns and cities in England and Wales. That society's local branch managers were asked to obtain information from solicitors involved in conveyancing. Half of those interviewed responded that the service given by their local authorities is not very satisfactory. The delays revealed by the Woolwich survey averaged four weeks across the sample with the average going up to seven weeks in the metropolitan areas. It revealed a staggering 20 weeks in the London boroughs of Lambeth and Hackney. Most conveyancers in the survey expressed the view that a delay of one to two weeks is acceptable. The conveyancing standing committee suggested as accepable a delay of 10 days. It regards as reasonable a period that will not of itself cause any delay to routine conveyancing procedures.
Various reasons were given for delays. They included staff shortages and pressure of work. That may be true in
350
certain local authorities where the housing activity of the past year or so has increased dramatically. Planning departments in my constituency are receiving twice the number of applications. Organisational difficulties were also mentioned, because the forms are often completed by different departments in different parts of the same building or in separate buildings. Another reason given for delay was fluctuating demand. District councils in my own constituency can turn around searches and inquiries in five to seven days. If it is possible there, why cannot other councils do the same?
Although delays are not universal and they vary in degree, the conveyancing standing committee of the Law Commission believes that the problem needs tackling immediately. The Bill seeks to speed up local authority searches now, and to encourage changes to simplify and streamline procedures for the future.
First, the Bill will seek to penalise local authorities that take more than 10 days to return the completed forms. If, after 10 days, they have not completed them, they will forfeit half the fee. If a further 10 days elapse and they still have not completed the forms, they will forfeit the whole fee. In addition, at that 20-day point, the house purchaser or his conveyancer will have a statutory right to instigate a personal search free of charge. A scheme of similar penalties was suggested by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby in 1983, and by my hon Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire in his Adjournment debate. It has also been put forward as an option by the conveyancing standing committee.
As a help in the longer term, my Bill seeks to promote computerisation of search procedures. The conveyancing standing committee thinks that that would be a medium-term solution for, say, five years. The Association of District Councils, however, considers that unduly pessimistic, pointing out that two authorities, Wigan and Portsmouth, are currently undergoing pilot schemes for computerisation, which should be on stream very soon. If it is successful, there is no reason why other local authorities cannot take it up fairly quickly.
House buyers and vendors alike are justifiably annoyed and upset, and their conveyancers are frustrated and irritated, when it takes an unreasonably long time to exchange contracts on a house. There is no doubt that such delays fuel the practice of gazumping. It is surely unacceptable that some local authorities offer the house-buying public a service that is at times so slow and erratic as to be rendered virtually useless. It is time that this unacceptable inefficiency was stopped.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Malcolm Moss, Mr. John Heddle, Mr. Tony Favell, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Timothy Kirkhope, Mr. Irvine Patnick, Mr. Anthony Coombs, Miss Ann Widdecombe and Mr. Tim Boswell.

Local Authority Searches and Enquiries, Etc.
  LOCAL AUTHORITY SEARCHES AND ENQUIRIES, ETC.
  Mr. Malcolm Ross accordingly presented a Bill to expedite local authority searches and enquiries and for other purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 171.]

Adjournment (Spring)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 27th May, do adjourn until Tuesday 7th June, and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 27th May until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Durant]
4.52 pm
Mr. Harold McCusker: I shall not detain the House for long. In fact, I would not be speaking to the motion at all if the slightest parliamentary courtesy had been extended to the people of Northern Ireland, their elected representatives and, for that matter, the House by the Northern Ireland Office today, when it presented to the House a White Paper. I am sure that only you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and very few other Members of the House are aware of its having been presented. It was presented to us under plain cover, and no doubt was presented to the House under plain cover as well—or they slipped in in carpet slippers to avoid being heard.
Two important issues have already been discussed here this afternoon, and three important issues were discussed yesterday before the debate on the remaining business of the House. Here we have had a White Paper dealing with major issues regarding employment in Northern Ireland, yet once again the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ignores elected representatives from the Province and, indeed, the whole House. That is a disgrace, and it is a disgrace that the House should adjourn before we have had an opportunity to ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland some questions about what he is proposing.
It is nothing new for the Leader of the House to hear this complaint. I have been making it regularly for the past 12 months. He will also know that I absented myself from the House for two years as a protest against the way in which Northern Ireland was being governed. During that period, the one constant whine for me to come back came from none other than the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who continually exhorted me to come here, saying that this was the place in which to discuss the affairs of Northern Ireland, not the streets of the Province. I came back 12 months ago and, with my colleagues, have been treated with nothing but contempt ever since. That contempt reached its pinnacle today with the presentation of the White Paper without a word to the House from the Secretary of State.
Of course, outside the House everything is different. The White Paper, which was not available to me until 3.30 this afternoon, was available at 11 am to the media in Northern Ireland and at midday to the media in London. At this moment the media in Northern Ireland and London are receiving a private briefing on the contents. No doubt they are asking the sort of questions that the Secretary of State wants to hear and no doubt he will answer them, but he will not be hearing the questions that Northern Ireland Members would like to ask.
The White Paper projects the concept of fair employment in Northern Ireland and how it is to be achieved. It makes it a criminal offence for an employer in Northern Ireland not to keep registers of the religious affiliations of his employees and submit an annual return on that basis. That is a significant development. Until comparatively recently in Northern Ireland, employers were criticised for allegedly inquiring into the religious
352
affiliations of their potential employees. Now it will be a criminal offence if they do not do so. Let me say with all the conviction that I can muster—and I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues—that I believe in appointment on merit alone.
Mr. James Molyneaux: The Prime Minister does.
Mr. McCusker: In that regard I agree with what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box last week. If anyone disputes that assertion, I challenge him to go to where I was employed for six years before I came to this House and check my record there. An employer is a fool to do other than employ on merit alone, because in the current extremely difficult business circumstances, particularly in Northern Ireland, it is nonsense for an employer to believe that he can sustain and progress in his business by employing second best simply because he does not like the religion of another applicant. To make it a criminal offence not to register the religious affiliations of the work force is hardly likely to improve the position.
The Government commissioned PA International Consulting Services Ltd. to sell the nation to the business communities and others in Northern Ireland. Of course, the Government continue to contend that it is not in conflict with the principle of merit alone to ask employers to keep such registers. In a commentary on the issue, Mr. Dermot O'Callaghan made an important point:
"It is important to make it clear that equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of outcome."
He has put forward the argument to try to console employers that, provided they can prove that they have provided equality of opportunity, if equality of outcome does not arise they have nothing to fear. I wonder how long that concept will be sustained.
It is almost exactly 12 years to the day that we debated the first Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill, which became the present Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. On that occasion I was told by the Minister responsible that I was guilty of mischief-making, of making misleading statements and of scaremongering by suggesting that the Act would lead one day to employers having to keep registers of the religious affiliations of their employees. I have the relevant Hansard report with me, in case anyone disputes that. I was laughed out of the Chamber.
Just as it was clear then that ultimately the day would come when religious affiliation registers were kept, it is clear now that the suggestion that equality of opportunity is not to be confused with equality of outcome will be forgotten and that we shall move to a sytem of quotas. If an employer's register does not begin to reflect the religious composition of his area, it will be suggested that he prove that he is doing what is right by producing workplace statistics amounting to quotas.
I shall not rehearse all the arguments that we shall have when the White Paper is translated into legislation. Instead I shall pose the questions that my hon. Friend and I might have wanted to pose to the Secretary of State had he had the stomach to come and face us this afternoon. Let us take a look at the right hon. Gentleman's own record. We may expect an English politician presiding over Northern Ireland who produces a White Paper such as this to want to set a good example. Yet the Northern Ireland Office has a worse record of employing Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland than any other Government

353
Department. It employs 14 per cent. Roman Catholics in the Province. I do not believe for one moment that the Secretary of State or those whom he employs are guilty of religious discrimination. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman was put to it he could explain why that is the case. There may be very good reasons that have nothing to do with religious discrimination. But he does not listen to that argument when it comes from other sources.
Lest the House should think that the record of the Northern Ireland Office is only marginally worse than that of other Government Departments, let me give the figures. The DHSS in Northern Ireland employs 49 per cent. Roman Catholics—almost 50 per cent. higher than the proportion of Roman Catholics in the community. The Department of Economic Development employs 40 per cent. Roman Catholics—well over their representation in the community. The overall average for the Civil Service in Northern Ireland is 33·7 per cent—about the same as the proportion of Roman Catholics in the community. Let us ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as he will be asking private sector employers, "Why do you employ only 14 per cent. Roman Catholics?"
I should also have liked to ask the Secretary of State about the implications of the White Paper for the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the prison service. Those services probably employ only between 5 and 10 per cent. Roman Catholics, and they are frequently abused as sectarian organisations because they have so few Roman Catholics. Anyone who knows anything about Northern Ireland knows that that is not because of religious discrimination; there are other reasons. What is the Secretary of State doing to encourage the Catholic community to supply more people to those services, in which they are rightly required? Or is that community to be allowed to say, "We shall opt out of playing our part in certain essential occupations in the Province but we demand our quota and more in other occupations"? I should have been interested to hear what the Secretary of State had to say about that. We must also consider the ancillary staff employed by those organisations. What are the ramifications for ancillary staff who may be occupying very sensitive positions?
Not only will it be a criminal offence not to keep a register; there will be a series of penalties. Contractors and others who fail to comply will not be allowed access to Government grants. They will not be allowed to tender for Government contracts. What will happen to that most critical of Government contracts—a contract to rebuild a bomb-damaged police station or Army camp? Does the Secretary of State really intend to say to the few contractors left that they cannot have the contract? Many contractors have been murdered. The major contractor was murdered a short time ago, as was his general manager, and there is a death threat hanging over all the remaining principals in the company. Through no fault of its own, that company probably employs a majority of Protestants as Roman Catholics are terrified to work for it. Do the Government propose to say, "Sorry. We cannot let you repair our police stations and Army bases because you do not have the right religious balance"? Are they to be denied Government grant and contracts? I should have liked to hear the Secretary of State's answer to that.
354
What would the Secretary of State say to employers in west Belfast? I heard the political correspondent of Radio Telefis Eireann suggest that there was 90 per cent. unemployment in west Belfast. That means that if we go on this way there will soon be 110 per cent. unemployment. Of course that is nonsense. The figure is damnable, but in fact it is about 30 per cent. That means that there is 70 per cent. employment in west Belfast, much of it provided by bona fide Roman Catholic employers. Are we really to suggest to employers who employ a 100 per cent. Roman Catholic work force of necessity that they must set themselves a target for the next couple of years to get rid of 70 per cent. of their employees and recruit people from Sandy row, the Shankill road or east Belfast, as is being suggested to employees in east Belfast?
It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to produce a glossy White Paper which is
"Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by Command of Her Majesty. May 1988"
and fail to come to the House to answer essential questions affecting the well-being of all the people of Northern Ireland.
What is the bottom line? We have 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. unemployment and there will be no real improvement in the balance until there are more job opportunities. My principal question to the Secretary of State concerns the chances of real improvement in job opportunities in Northern Ireland. What policies is the right hon. Gentleman pursuing to improve the number of jobs available? Or is it suggested that to get this imaginary balance right about 25,000 employed Protestants will have to get themselves unemployed over the next few years, and 25,000 unemployed Roman Catholics will have to be slotted into their jobs? Without more job opportunities, that is the only way to achieve the balance.
It is a disgrace that the Secretary of State has not been here to answer my questions, and I hope that even before Friday the Leader of the House will exhort him to come before the House.
5.8 pm
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I wish to raise two matters with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House before we adjourn. I make no apology for raising once more the question of Manchester airport. On Monday 16 May mine was the second motion listed for debate. In my 25 years as a Member of the House it was the first time that I had been lucky enough to get into the first three, but perhaps luck was with the House, because my motion was not reached. We spent most of the time talking about planning procedures, which was of great interest to many of my friends from the south-east. Therefore, I propose to say briefly today what I would have said at greater length had I had the opportunity on 16 May.
Since 1979 Manchester airport has expanded more rapidly than any other United Kingdom airport, and for that I am grateful. I pay tribute to the work done by successive Secretaries of State for Transport in Conservative Administrations, whose efforts have been much appreciated in our area. Like Oliver Twist, we are asking for more. We want more intercontinental flights in and out of Manchester. I find it scarcely credible that there are 360 flights a week from London to the United States, but only 13 from Manchester to the United States.

355
It cannot be right that so many people who want to travel to America from the north of England should have to go to Heathrow or Gatwick when they have a perfectly good airport at Manchester. If there were more intercontinental flights in and out of Manchester, the economy of the north would receive an enormous boost. I believe that the economic situation in the north is improving, and I want the trend to continue. Manchester airport is one of our greatest assets—someone referred to it as the jewel in the crown. I am disappointed that we have not had a satisfactory conclusion to the applications by American Airlines, Northwest Airlines and Pan American World Airways to fly into Manchester and to provide enhanced opportunities for British airlines to fly direct to the United States from Manchester.
Over the years there has been a bipartisan approach to Manchester airport. I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in the Chamber. That bipartisan approach has been supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by local authorities in the north of all political persuasions. People have worked together for the common good, and particularly for Manchester airport. I am saddened by the breakdown of that approach.
Manchester airport now has a board of directors which includes 16 Labour councillors, one Conservative councillor and one Social and Liberal Democrat councillor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too many."] Well, there was a time when the Labour party paraded on a programme of fair shares for all. I cannot see much to do with fair shares in that arrangement. For reasons best known to themselves, the directors ran an advertising campaign in support of more intercontinental flights. I agree about the need for more such flights, but I disagree with the board, in that it puts all the blame on the Government. The board was most unfair, because there are other considerations to be taken into account. The first involves British Airways, which is now running a daily flight from Manchester to New York, albeit that it starts in Gatwick. British Airways is asking for a clear run for at least two years to get the flight fully operational before it has to counter any opposition
The next problem is the view taken by the American Transportation Secretary—my right hon. Friend's opposite number in Washington. Until quite recently that position was held by Mrs. Elizabeth Dole, who unfortunately resigned to try to help her husband gain the Republican nomination. I am tempted to say, "Come back Elizabeth Dole, all is forgiven." She was much more prepared to look favourably on applications for routes than is her successor, who wants his pound of flesh. That is common sense. If the Americans are to give anything, they want something back in exchange.
I hope that that shows that the issue is not as simple as the politically motivated directors of Manchester airport have made out. By a strange coincidence, the advertising campaign was timed to appear just before the local government elections. What could have been more convenient? All my hon. Friends from the north-west were opposed to the campaign. We felt that it was a waste of money.
Having said all that, I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to understand how
356
strongly we feel about the negotiations that are going on between the United Kingdom and the United States. I ask them to press the case for the north as strongly as possible.
American Airlines already flies direct from Manchester to Chicago and has made an enormous success of the route. If its application to fly from Manchester to New York were granted, that would give an immediate stimulus to the economy of the north.
The other issue that I want to raise is, perhaps, more controversial. It is the need to establish in legislation a new upper gestational limit for abortions. I am not now suggesting what that limit should be, but there is no doubt that to millions of people in Britain this is a matter of national importance on which there is a pressing need for Parliament to reach a decision.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) introduced a Bill earlier this year which would have provided the House with the opportunity to arrive at a conclusion on this matter, but the Bill was scuppered by a small but determined group of opponents who used the procedures of the House to prevent it from making progress.
I cannot see what the opponents of the Bill are worried about. All that we were asking for was a little extra time to ensure that all the votes were taken. The arguments have been made. I do not think that people outside the House understand why Parliament can be prevented from expressing its will. They saw a Bill, which had a comfortable majority on Second Reading, being blocked in its final stages. They feel that there is something undemocratic about that.
I was saddened when, on business questions a couple of weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he was unable to make additional time available to compensate for the time lost on Friday 6 May. I say that because the only reason for the Abortion Act becoming law in 1967 was that the Government of the day provided extra time to ensure that the legislation could go through. If that Act, which has led to the abortion of 3 million babies, is not to remain for ever enshrined in stone, the House must find time to have the necessary votes.
All the arguments have been marshalled. All that is required is that a decision be taken. This problem will not go away. If the Abortion (Amendment) Bill fails, similar Bills will keep appearing, and the more the opponents of abortion reform do to prevent a decision being reached, the more the House will be brought into disrepute.
I do not think that there is one right hon. or hon. Member who has not been overwhelmed by the sheer weight of correspondence from constituents on this issue. That shows how strongly many people feel about the matter. There is great public outrage and frustration at the failure of the House to complete the remaining stages of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. I hope that we will be able to reach a conclusion on it before the House rises for the spring recess.
5.16 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Perhaps I might make a passing reference to the motion before raising the matter that I wish to address.
It has been the recent habit to bring the House back on a Tuesday. Unless our other procedures are changed, that will cause chaos when we try to organise our affairs, such as participating in Question Time and getting ticket

357
allocations. Above all, it will cause chaos for hon. Members who are serving on Standing Committees. Whether a Government Back Bencher or an Opposition Member, if one serves on a Standing Committee and the House comes back on a Tuesday rather than a Monday——
Mr. Michael Brown: Simply come down on Monday night.
Mr. Rooker: It is not as easy as that. Hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, who are serving on a Standing Committee and want to meet outside advisers and colleagues to discuss the business for the week ahead cannot do that when the House is closed on a Monday. This may sound a pettyfogging complaint about an administrative inconvenience, but our coming back on a Tuesday is a recent innovation. It came to my attention during the Committee stages of the Local Government Bill and the Local Government Finance Bill. I am pleased to say, however, that I am not serving on any Standing Committees at the moment and I have no intention of serving on any for the rest of the Session.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The change was made entirely for the convenience of the House. Many Members asked for it. I think that I, in a previous incarnation, had something to do with it the first time it happened. The main reason for the change was that hon. Members who live a long way from London would not have to travel down on a Sunday. The change was for the general convenience of hon. Members.
Mr. Rooker: That is the one respect in which I can see that the change is a convenience. In all other respects, however, such as those which I have mentioned, it is negative rather than positive.
Far be it from me to stick to the motion, but I should like now to raise a matter in respect of which we should have some answers before the recess. I freely accept that I shall not get those answers, but the matter must be raised.
This is a follow-up to the matters that I raised with the Home Secretary at Question Time on 21 April. I raised the issue of the Wormhoudt massacre of unarmed British prisoners of war on 28 May 1940. Therefore, this coming weekend is the 48th anniversary of that massacre, about 12 miles from Dunkirk, by one of Hitler's SS units.
About 80 or 90 British troops—we will never know the exact figure—unarmed members of the Royal Warwickshire and Cheshire regiments, were gunned down on the orders of one SS officer. From all the information I have read and according to the survivors, only one officer was known to be with those British troops at the time—Captain Lynn-Allen—who, in fact, was one of the first British soldiers to be killed.
From the history of the period—it happened before I was born, but I have talked to people who participated—the events of that day and of the days previous must have been chaotic. Untold acts of heroism must, and did, take place, as British Tommies fought against overwhelming odds to protect our forces retreating to Dunkirk. Many of those troops were captured. However, the vast majority of those captured were treated properly, under the Geneva convention, by professional German soldiers.
358
Everywhere the SS units went death followed. That is absolutely the case. Of course, there was not just this one incident, but this is the one that I wish to highlight. In fact, there was an incident two days before when an SS unit massacred unarmed British prisoners of war, who were members of the Royal Norfolk Regiment. The officer responsible for giving those orders was executed in 1949. In other words, the matter was followed up and a trial took place.
As I said in the House on 21 April—and as other hon. Members are also aware—it is clear that the responsibility for the Wormhoudt war crime is clear and unambiguous. The man responsible for that order was the then SS Captain Wilhelm Mohnke, later to rise to SS Major General and Commandant of the Reich Chancellery Defence in 1945. He escaped from Hitler's bunker on 1 or 2 May 1945. If anyone doubts that there is a prima facie case against that officer, I put on record two quotes which could be without challenge, but, unfortuntely, they come from documents which have not yet been released.
The first comes from the War Crimes Interrogation Unit Report No. 1500. It is dated 1947, but it was clearly prepared prior to June. On page 12, there is a paragraph headed "Responsibility", which states:
"Responsible for the crime of WORMHOUDT is the CO of—
then there is the particular SS unit—
"MOHNKE, who gave an order to shoot the prisoners concerned."
That report was superseded in June 1947 by Report No. 1650. Again that report related exclusively to the Wormhoudt incident. I do not intend to quote the names of the people mentioned in this report, because some of the Germans who gave evidence are still alive. On page 8 it states:
"MOHNKE gave the NCO of the second party of prisoners … the order to take them all to the Barn and eliminate them."
The next paragraph states
"The evidence to show that MOHNKE gave the order to shoot the prisoners is well and clearly stated by"—
and two Germans are listed as giving statements.
On page 16 the report states:
"His (MOHNKE's) words were, '… What do you mean, by bringing in prisoners contrary to orders'".
Those are the words of a German soldier.
The report further states:
"we had orders from MOHNKE to shoot the prisoners."
The 60-odd pages of this report, relating to this one incident, finger one German SS officer. That officer did not even shoot any British Tommies, but that is not the point. In this case it is the officer who gave the orders. That is the line which I draw and the line which was drawn by the people who conducted many of the trials following the war.
These reports show that there was a prima facie case to answer. The matter was passed to the Judge Advocate General's office. Mohnke's name was added to CROWCASS—Central Registry of War Crimes and Security Suspects—and later the British Government lodged it with the United Nations War Crimes Commission, where it remains today listed as case 128/U K/G/28.
Many attempts have been made to have the truth told about this massacre. I do not claim any credit; I have just added a piece to the jigsaw puzzle. I do not know when Mohnke was first discovered.

359
Since raising this matter in the House, a London bus driver has contacted me and said that he had identified and located Mohnke in 1972 on behalf of his uncle, who was at Wormhoudt on that day but was not put in the barn. He was taken as a prisoner of war by a non-SS unit and was therefore treated properly.
Mr. William Powell: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) raises an important point. One of the most disturbing things about this former SS officer is that not only did he serve later in the war as the commander of the guard around Hitler's bunker, but that he has achieved—though untried—a degree of quasi respectability with historians. He has become a major source of information for international historians, who spend a great deal of their time recreating the events that occurred in Berlin in April 1945.
Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) is quite right, but those are not matters that I wish to go into now. There are many questions to be raised about this former SS officer. What happened to him between 1945 and 1955 when he was in Russian hands'? What happened to him when he came back to the West—if I can use that term—and it was known that he had come back?
As I said, many attempts have been made to get to the truth of this massacre. There must be a degree of embarrassment in certain high places, both military and political, in this country. In fact, the deafening silence in certain quarters is testimony to this. Anyone who has read the stories in the papers during the past few weeks will have noted—by their absence—quotations from certain quarters that one would expect to have more than a passing interest in what happened to those British prisoners of war. Those are points that must be raised later when the Minister of Defence, hopefully, takes positive action.
There is no embarrassment whatsoever in this matter being raised for Reginald West, Charles Daley, Alfred Tombs, Albert Evans and Brian Fahey, who were all privates with the Royal Warwicks and the only known living survivors of the massacre. Of the 12 to 14 survivors, those alone remain. They cannot be precise about the number of survivors; no one will ever know exactly how many British Tommies were murdered and how many survived. All their identification tags were removed. A year after the bodies were buried, they were allegedly dug up and reburied elsewhere. No one knows whether all the bodies were removed. All identification was removed, contrary to the Geneva convention.
Nobody believed the story told by these men when they returned to England—the first in 1943—following repatriation, when they were swapped for Germans. They were not believed. How could they be? Seventy to 80 British Tommies were left at Wormhoudt with one or perhaps two officers, as reference has been found to another officer. There was perhaps one officer to protect the rear of those who had gone to Dunkirk. They never arrived. They never returned. No one knew what happened to them. There were no records. No one knew until 1943 when repatriation had taken place. No one even expected that there had been a massacre. There was no one to tell about it. Of course, officers and the press in Britain were stunned. Originally, no one believed these men when they told their story. In fact, one of my constituents did not return until late 1946 or early 1947.
360
To encourage the Ministry of Defence, I should add that there is no embarrassment among the relatives of those killed at Wormhoudt, or among the relatives of the survivors who are now dead. Sons, daughters and grandchildren have written to me in the past few weeks. supporting the desire to see justice, because it was known among the families and in the close circles of those men that something bad had happened, and nothing ever appeared to be done about it. Many who lost relatives al. the end of May 1940 and who received letters from the then Ministry of War or the various regiments to say that their loved ones were missing in action and presumed dead can never be really certain whether they were in that barn at Wormhoudt.
None of the relatives can understand—nor can many hon. Members—why the two reports from which I have quoted are closed, under the Official Secrets Act, until 2021—to be precise, until 1 January 2021. They are closed for 75 years after the end of the war. Why? Most of the British personnel who are mentioned En the reports are dead and not all the survivors were involved in giving depositions because they were not all known about at the time. At least two and perhaps three out of the four members of the interrogation unit are still alive, although Colonel Scotland, who headed the unit, is no longer alive.
Surely those reports cannot be closed for 75 years to protect Herr Mohnke, or the Germans who gave evidence against him, from embarrassment. I know that in the early 1970s when writers were seeking permission from the Ministry of Defence to look at some of the documents, they were told—I have seen the correspondence—"You must not attribute or refer to those Germans in a derogatory fashion because it may embarrass them or their relatives." Funnily enough, the two Germans who were referred to in one letter were both dead, and anybody who knew anything about the case history would have known that they had been dead for years. However, the Ministry of Defence laid down those rules to British inquirers, writers and academics, and said, "You must not embarrass the Germans. You must not give the source of your information. You must not say that you have been allowed access to reports 1500 and 1650." There is no earthly reason why those reports, or any others, should remain closed for 75 years.
Mr.TamDalyell rose——
Mr. Rooker: Yes, I shall give way to my hon. Friend as I am about to conclude.
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend will recollect that I supported him at Home Office Question Time on this important issue on which he has taken the lead. I asked about Ministry of Defence records. Someone, at some time, when making decisions about shredding, must have seen those documents.
Mr. Rooker: That is right. The fact that I have copies of both reports—not just extracts—shows that copies are in circulation and that they were not all at Kew or in the Ministry of Defence. Clearly, bona fide original copies are available, but not enough people have had sufficient pieces to put the jigsaw puzzle together. Not everyone knew that Mohnke was still alive. Those who knew the background were not certain. In the early 1970s the evidence was that he was either dead or still behind the iron curtain. I have seen that written up as late as 1972. Yet he was seen, as I

361
understand it, at a trade fair in the late 1950s—in 1958 or 1959. The Germans have cleared him twice—in 1974 and in 1976. I do not know whether the German authorities have ever asked the British whether they could look at our information. One reason why I want the Ministry of Defence to take the lead in this is that it is beholden to do so.
Together with my collaborator, Ian Sayer, who publishes "World War II Investigator" and who gave me Mohnke's address, I arranged for Reginald West, my constituent, to make his own private complaint to the Lubeck authorities recently so that they cannot say that none of the survivors has contacted them. As none of the survivors has ever been contacted by the German authorities, that cannot be used as an excuse. We gave the Germans the reference numbers of the two reports and the West German ambassador in London received a copy.
I have told the Ministry of Defence that I am going to be patient. I have been so far, and I intend to continue to be moderate and modest in my demands. However, I will keep the issue before the House in one way or another. Later in the week an early-day motion will be tabled, with support from hon. Members of all parties, including the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine).
Mr. Martin M.Brandon-Bravo rose——
Mr. Rooker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way as I am about to make my final point.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo. rose——
Mr. Rooker: I shall give way, but I have another point to make.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure that he knows that one has the impression that there has been great reluctance to open up or to look again at events which took place 40 years ago. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Home Secretary has set up a small commission to look into the wider issues of unresolved war crimes. Will the hon. Gentleman help us by submitting his evidence to the panel that the Home Secretary has set up?
Mr. Rooker: I am glad that I gave way. That has already been done, but the panel said that the matter has nothing to do with it. The operation that the Home Secretary has set up will not cover this case. I make no complaint about that. I am raising a wholly different issue. I do not seek to confuse matters, but the Home Secretary's operation will not affect and is nothing to do with this case. Contact has been made and the panel politely pointed out that its terms of reference did not cover this case. I make no complaint about that at this point; perhaps later the panel's terms of reference will change.
The youngest of the survivors is 68 and the oldest is 81. They are not getting any younger. Time is not on their side, and they understand that as well as everyone else. In the past few days it has been disclosed that one of this country's eminent lawyers has offered his services free to the survivors, and they have accepted because other avenues can be explored. If the Ministry of Defence says, "Ministers have looked at this and taken a decision; the
362
matter is to remain closed"—I sincerely hope that it does not—that decision must be challenged, and it can be challenged in places other than this House. However, that needs people with better and other professional expertise than I have.
I have sought to raise only a few of the points relating to this case. I do not wish to bore the House or to take up a lot of extra time in raising matters which I know could not be answered today. I gave notice to the Ministry of Defence last week that I would seek to keep the matter before the House and to keep up the pressure on Ministers and on those in the Ministry of Defence. They may not have been under pressure from certain quarters—that is a matter for criticism, and I will make that criticism at the appropriate time—but they will be kept under pressure from myself and from hon. Members of all parties until we get a satisfactory conclusion and justice for the survivors and the fallen.
5.37 pm
Mr. John Carlisle: The House has listened with great respect to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who has taken the lead on the matter that he raised and has earned the appreciation of many Members for the investigation that he is making.
I hope that in the few minutes available to me I shall be listened to with equal respect, especially by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), on the matter that I wish to bring before my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House before the House rises for the spring Adjournment. It is a matter that I tried to raise on the Adjournment some time ago but neither the Home Office nor the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would take any responsibility for it. It is the continuing picket outside the South African embassy.
With the tourist season and the summer approaching, I believe that the House should hear about the terrible scourge of that picket, or demonstration, on Trafalgar square; about the shame that it is bringing to London and to this country by the fact that it is allowed to continue virtually unabated; about the fact that Her Majesty's Government have seen fit not to take any notice of the picket; and about the fact that the police have had great difficulty in the various prosecutions that they have brought in trying to bring some sense of law and order into events outside the embassy.
It is a disgrace that a bunch of Left-wing political extremists, paid, of course, by Camden council, the World Council of Churches and other organisations to attend, should be present on a 24-hour basis outside an embassy in this country. The demonstration bears no comparison with the understandable vigils and other demonstrations that have taken place outside embassies throughout London in the past. For example, candlelight vigils have taken place outside the Russian embassy and many hon. Members on both sides of the House have participated in them. Quiet and peaceful demonstrations and protests have taken place outside the embassies of South American countries and of many other countries. The demonstration outside the South African embassy has nothing to do with peaceful protest. It is a continuing scourge and the House should understand that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are becoming cross at the apparent inactivity of the authorities to do something about it.

363
No other demonstrations are taking place in the capital outside the embassies of countries that equally, if I might use that term, violate human rights. I have always said that I consider apartheid to be a violation of human rights. There are no demonstrations outside any of the black African embassies, for example, which represent countries where some human rights violations are far worse than in South Africa. There are no demonstrations outside the embassies of iron curtain countries. There are no demonstrations outside the Indian embassy or the high commission because of what has been going on in that country. The House should understand that the continuing demonstration outside the South African embassy is becoming rather more than a nuisance.
The demonstration is mounted by an unashamed political body through the anti-apartheid movement, which receives funds from eastern European countries and some British sources. Those who take part in the demonstration might well demonstrate in support of an animal welfare rights campaign along Whitehall, or in a campaign to protest against the recent parliamentary activity of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).
The same people turn up day in and day out, year in and year out, for any sort of protest, and they always exaggerate their numbers. They are known, quite rightly, as rent a mob. They are especially violent and spiteful in the demonstration that they are mounting against the South African Government outside the embassy. I have personally experienced violence on the campuses of universities and polytechnics, which has rightly been condemned by Members on both sides of the House, and the fact that this violent element exists in our capital is a disgrace to us all. The demonstrators are supported by the so-called respectable arm of the African National Congress through its offices in London.
The non-stop picket has taken place in many and various ways——
Mr. Eric Forth: I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought the matter before the House; it has received scant attention until now. Will he deal with the apparent unwillingness of the Metropolitan police or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to pursue the legitimate complaints that have been made, partly by members of the public who have suffered at the hands of these people, and partly by police officers who have been injured by them?
Mr. Carlisle: If my hon. Friend remains patient for a few moments, I think he will find that I shall cover the issue that he has raised. It is one that concerns many throughout Britain.
The activities of the group of demonstrators outside the South African embassy include a continuous presence. There is an unashamed 24-hour protest outside the embassy on the pavement, which is about 20 ft. wide. This tends to spill over towards the embassy and thus causes great inconvenience to passing visitors. The group's activities include the daily use of a megaphone, the loudness of which varies. What do not vary are the slogans that are shouted through the megaphone at the embassy, at passing visitors, at the police and at anyone who is in the vicinity at the time. Typical slogans are, "Ambassador Killen is a Fascist killer" and "Racist murderers, out of
364
Britain." Those who shout the slogans accuse the police of sexism and racism. The slogans are directed at any visitor in the area or those entering or leaving the embassy.
Every Thursday afternoon or evening there is the playing of a brass band, by what might be called a motley crew of musicians. They set up shop outside the embassy and play all types of music, again to the nuisance of those working within the embassy and to those outside.
Street collections have been mounted on many occasions, and these are illegal if they are not supported by the proper licences. Encouragement has been given to various groups, such as the British Communist party and the Labour lesbian group. Who knows, there may be some members of that group on the Opposition Benches. British Labour Members have stood outside the embassy, and in many instances they have deliberately caused themselves to be arrested in the demonstration. On occasion the demonstrators have set up on the pavement outside the embassy a stall at which they have sold T-shirts, pamphlets, stickers and posters. There has been a continuous attempt to coerce members of the public into signing petitions.
Worst of all has been the abuse, both verbal and physical, that has been directed at those legitimately walking in the area. This has been virtually unnoticed by the House. Whoever walks by the embassy these days is accosted by one of the demonstrators. This may he done by young men or young women, if they can he so described.
Mr. Frank Cook: That is not true.
Mr. Carlisle: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Perhaps he has not walked by the embassy recently. Perhaps he does not realise the extent of the picket. On many occasions it spreads across the pavement. which means that pedestrians cannot walk by without being accosted or physically jostled by the demonstrators.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman may be pleased to learn, if he is in one of his rare listening moods, that I walk past the embassy regularly and am never accosted by the demonstrators. I walk past without let or hindrance. The House will note that the Metropolitan police maintain a presence and that their officers rarely have to take a hand.
Mr. Carlisle: I do not have time to list the various offences that have been committed. Probably the hon. Gentleman is recognised by those who maintain the picket, who know him to be sympathetic to their cause. The general public are accosted regularly and the embassy officials are jostled, spat at and abused as they enter or leave the embassy, whatever the colour of their skin. This abuse is a continual nuisance to the public, and especially to those who are working in the embassy.
I suppose the most famous offence in recent times was the one that took place in May 1987, when three canisters of red paint were thrown at the embassy. Perhaps some Labour Members would argue that that was a form of peaceful protest. However, arrests were made on that occasion. When police barriers have been erected, they have been moved. After the red paint incident, the mob was moved to the pavement of Duncannon street, which runs along one side of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, and for about five weeks it carried out its protest there. The House, including my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary

365
should ask why the Metropolitan police allowed the mob to return to a place outside the embassy after it had committed an offence against the embassy.
The police have been involved in violent scuffles outside the embassy on many occasions. In one such incident a policeman was injured by the demonstrators. If the demonstration was peaceful and non-violent, did not harass those working in the embassy and those walking by it, and was a genuine protest—I understand the feeling of some Opposition Members and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends about that which the demonstrators are protesting against—we would have no cause for concern. Unfortunately, that is not the position, and Opposition Members delude themselves if they think otherwise.
I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) that I would discuss the prosecutions that have taken place. This goes back to the incident outside the South African embassy in Kensington in 1984, when some violence took place. Although various arrests were made, no one was ultimately brought to trial, sometimes for technical reasons and, one hopes, sometimes because there was no case to answer. If that is the way the law is, so be it. However, there is no doubt that because of that "success" the police have been extremely reluctant to bring prosecutions against people who are violating the law in no uncertain terms.
In April 1986 there was a discussion between the police, the Foreign Office, the embassy and members of the diplomatic corps. It was promised then that every effort would be made to alleviate the problem. Since then nothing has been done to alleviate the problem. Some prosecutions have been brought, but most of them have failed, and virtually no prison sentences or punishments have been given, although there have been one or two. [HON. MEMBERS "Shame!"] The shame is that these people can flout the law, week in and week out, without attracting the attention of the authorities or the police.
Two questions must be asked about this sorry affair, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to take the first of them to the Foreign Secretary. Are the Government fulfilling their obligations under the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, under which a responsibility is placed on the receiving state to protect the peace and dignity of a diplomatic mission as well as the persons and possessions relating to such a mission? Under the Vienna convention we are ignoring our responsibilities by allowing this demonstration to continue in its present form.
The second question is whether the Government are wholly satisfied that the police have to rely on local byelaws to arrest those who offend, and that cases can be brought only against individuals, not against groups. Will my right hon. Friend ask our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider bringing in legislation to prevent this sort of thing happening to embassies?
Finally, I bring a related issue to the attention of the House. On 11 June the BBC is making a 10-hour broadcast of a concert from Wembley which is organised by the anti-apartheid movement to celebrate Nelson Mandela's 70th birthday. Mandela is a terrorist who was committed to gaol in South Africa 26 years ago. He can walk out of gaol any time he wants to, provided that he renounces violence against the state.
366
Why is this concert going ahead and being sponsored by the BBC? Where will the, presumably considerable, fees come from? I suggest that it is outside the BBC's charter that such an unashamedly political organisation should obtain 10 hours of time and receive the considerable sums of money from the public purse and the licence payers that the concert will generate. I hope that before 11 June the Home Secretary will scrutinise this matter and ask the BBC those questions. It is a disgrace to the House and the country that we consistently support terrorist organisations with our money and time.
5.54 pm
Mr. David Winnick: What has been disgraceful is not the daily demonstration outside the South African embassy but the manner in which the apartheid regime is defended and justified at every opportunity by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). He has made a number of trips to South Africa at the expense of the South African authorities and has never sought to deny that. During the time he has been in the House he has continually used it as a platform from which to put across the point of view of the South African authorities.
The Opposition have made their position clear on numerous occasions. We are against the system in South Africa. It is an outrageous tyranny that discriminates against the majority of the people there because of the colour of their skin. We have been told by the Government that they accept our point of view; the argument is what should be done about it. Time and again, Ministers have said that they agree with our interpretation of events in South Africa—not with that of the hon. Member for Luton, North.
We want sanctions against the South African regime. However much my views may differ from those of some of the people involved in the demonstration, I am pleased that Londoners and all who come here are constantly reminded that there are people in this country who are very much opposed to the tyranny of the South African regime, just as we opposed the Nazi tyranny in Germany before the war.
I come now to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). It is difficult to understand how the Government can be indifferent to the fate of the British and Canadian soldiers who were massacred nearly 48 years ago. If the person responsible is living in Germany under a respectable guise, as the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) said that he was—and I understand that he is a fairly successful business man—I find it difficult to understand how the Government can be indifferent to what happened. After all, the allied Governments in the war—including the British Government—made their position perfectly clear: they said that all those responsible for Nazi crimes against humanity would be brought to justice when the war ended. Surely we should be concerned about the massacre of British soldiers at the hands of this Nazi fanatic, and should bring every sort of pressure to bear on the German authorities to ensure he is brought to justice.
My main point in this debate concerns the partial compensation that will be paid to people who have lost more than £2·50 in housing benefit. We have been informed that a special unit of the DHSS has been set up to deal with applications from such people—pensioners

367
and others—who are now forced to pay £15, £20 or more weekly in rent and rates out of a limited income. Some of those affected are my constituents. These substantial additional payments of rent and rates are expected from those who have had their housing benefit withdrawn or much reduced, and many of the pensioners who have been thus adversely affected are finding it almost impossible to come up with the extra money now required.
An 84-year-old constituent came to my surgery to tell me that she had been asked to pay £18 a week more out of a very limited income. As a result of pressure from Opposition Members and the public, the Government partly climbed down. The Secretary of State for Social Services announced the transitional arrangements, but how long will they last—for one year, or more? I see no reason why the first £2·50 should not be compensated; but it appears now that there will be no compensation for rent and rate increases in the current year, either.
A good deal of red tape seems to be involved in applying for the compensation. It will not be paid automatically. Applicants will have to fill in a form which has to go to the special DHSS unit in Glasgow. Local authorities will have to be consulted about how much housing benefit the applicant was paid before the cuts and how much is being paid now. All that will take time.
The special unit will not be established until the beginning of July, so during the eight weeks or more people on a limited income will pay substantial increases in rent and rates. That is wrong. I hope that tonight the Leader of the House will give us more information about the transitional arrangements. The Secretary of State should be here to make a statement.
My second point concerns the Home Secretary's decision on concessionary television licences as announced in a written answer on 18 May. It could be argued that I have an interest, not because I am a pensioner—I have quite a few years to go yet—but because I introduced a private Member's Bill on this subject. I was fortunate in winning first place in the ballot and on 16 January 1987 my Bill, which would have provided a concessionary television licence fee for all pensioners, was defeated by 21 votes. That was a shameful result arising from the Government's decision to oppose my measure.
A week later in the High Court it was ruled that local authorities could provide concessionary television licences for pensioners where there was some common facility. Several local authorities, including mine, submitted applications, some of which were successful so that pensioners would receive a concessionary television licence where there was, for instance, the Piper warning system. The Home Secretary has now reversed that. Not only has the 5p fee increased to £5, but it will be necessary for the accommodation to be warden-controlled. Pensioners on a limited income were hoping to get a concessionary licence—we should bear in mind how important television is for elderly people, especially in the winter months—but their hopes have been dashed.
It is difficult to understand how in the Budget the Government can provide the richest in the community with hundreds of pounds a week extra—those people certainly do not need that cash—while many of our retired constituents living on the smallest income are denied a concessionary television licence. As I say, the Government have made it far more difficult for them.
If the licence fee were £5 for all pensioners I would have no complaint, but that is not the case. Far from it. I hope
368
that today we shall be given information on housing benefit and concessionary television licences for pensioners, and that there will be a debate on the latter.
6.2 pm
Mr. Kenneth Warren: I wish to address my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the difficult subject of the relationship between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the world which watches and listens to it.
We are enjoying a good, sound boom in economic growth and nowhere is that more clearly visible or wanted than in overseas exports. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your travels around the world have enjoyed the excellent performance of the BBC world service. It is rewarding to hear of students in parts of China listening to the BBC world service and gaining an understanding of this country. But we must recognise the strength of the BBC and how it is often thought to reflect British policies and even how this House views the countries at which programmes are directed. I can find little fault with the BBC world service, but recently the penchant of the BBC in its current affairs programmes has been for trial by television, and one or two examples of that have been discussed in this House. When the BBC gets it wrong, the BBC gets it excruciatingly wrong.
I have not visited south-east Asia for many years, but I was talking to some leading business men who have high hopes of exporting there capital goods on a large scale, providing employment for thousands of British people. They drew my attention to the extraordinary impact of "Newsnight" on 4 May which was about the new Prime Minister of Malaysia. Apparently it was constructed from a 45-minute interview with the Prime Minister which was whittled down to two minutes of him on screen and 18 minutes principally devoted to the views of his political opponents.
The BBC and the press have every right to say whatever they want, but the impact of such a programme should be borne in mind, especially considering the hard time that British exporters have had in building up their exports over the past seven years. Four years ago there was an active "buy British last" policy in Malaysia and other parts of south-east Asia. It not only affected the export of capital goods, but Concorde was denied rights to fly down the corridor to reach Singapore. The BBC is recognised as an important and valuable national institution, so when a programme is biased against a foreigner it is regarded as a direct criticism by this House and our Government of a particular foreign power and its leader.
I shall not dwell on whether a foreign power or its leader is correctly portrayed. I am concerned that British exporters, having spent four years gradually beating back the "buy British last" policy, and being on the verge of substantial orders, could be undermined by such an unfortunate programme. I have illustrated a specific case, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will review the general case and perhaps discuss with the governors of the BBC the impact of that type of programme and the effect of misreporting on the fortunes of and relationships between two countries such as Malaysia and the United Kingdom.
I have no interest to declare. I raise this matter because I am worried about the delicate nature of such a relationship, and how the BBC is regarded around the

369
world. I am rarely a critic of the corporation which in general is excellent, but perhaps my right hon. Friend would be kind enough to review the position and reassure the Malaysians and others interested in trading with us that we base Government policy not on media opinions, but on good relations developed between this Government and those overseas.
6.8 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I wish to contribute briefly to the debate on an issue of great importance to my constituency—an issue that arouses the interest and concern of every hon. Member when it is relevant to his constituency or area. The Leader of the House had experience of this matter this time last year, as he told me in response to a recent business question.
The issue that concerns me is that of Nirex and its consultative arrangements in respect of its document, "The Way Forward", which seeks to find a solution to the thorny, vexed and long-running problem of the disposal of nuclear waste. It is significant that the consultative period will end during our parliamentary recess. Therefore, I bring to the attention of the Leader of the House and of hon. Members the considerable legitimate worries about Nirex's method of consultation and the options in its report. I wish to draw the House's attention to the feelings of people in my constituency which has been listed as being of potential geological suitability for possible further evaluation with a view to long-term nuclear waste disposal.
The consultative document considers three concepts for dealing with the problem. The first is disposal under land, the second is disposal under the seabed with access from the coast, and the third is disposal under the seabed with access at sea. There are several reasons for refuting each of those concepts as a possible way forward, but I shall confine myself to one.
Each of those methods would involve the long-term locking away of nuclear material in an unreclaimable form. It is nonsense, when scientific knowledge at this juncture is not sufficient to offer a full solution to the problem, to lock ourselves away from a possible future solution if scientific knowledge can deliver it. That is the fundamental criticism inherent in each of those possible categories of disposal.
Nirex is not consulting about one form of interim disposal—on-site storage at surface level at existing nuclear installations. There is considerable evidence of public support, if I may call it that, for that approach rather than for the three methods upon which Nirex is currently consulting. Its consultation process is flawed because it has not chosen to evaluate and test public reaction to the perfectly feasible and scientifically sustainable method of storing nuclear waste materials on site at existing nuclear installations.
I hope that the Leader of the House will draw the concern of many hon. Members to the Secretary of State for the Environment who, ultimately, will have to consider whatever recommendations Nirex may make. I hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Scotland will bear in mind that Nirex did not consult upon that evident way of proceeding.
Mr. Michael Brown: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree that, as we are only days from the end of the consultation period, it is crucial that every hon. Member should express his view on the consultation document—I suspect that many hon. Members share his view—by the end of the consultation period so that Nirex is in no doubt about our views?
Mr. Kennedy: I am aware of the prominent and consistent view taken by the hon. Gentleman in respect of his constituency during the last Parliament and I know that he will have made clear his thoughts to Nirex. I echo his plea that the more hon. Members make known their views to Nirex, the greater will be the input that Nirex receives.
I wish to refer to the distinctive form of public consultation which has been carried out at Easter Ross in my constituency. Nirex has not been particularly forthcoming about the geographic knowledge that it is willing to pass on to those concerned about possible disposal sites. However, within those constraints, a mini-referendum was recently held within Easter Ross, supervised by the Electoral Reform Society. The ballot motion stated:
"A company called UK Nirex has found several areas of Britain in which it may be possible to bury low and intermediate levels of nuclear waste below ground level. Part of Easter Ross is one of these areas. NIREX intend carrying out more tests in order to choose an area in which they can site an underground waste repository. Are you in favour of these tests being carried out in Easter Ross?"
That motion was approved by the Electoral Reform Society, and I hope that the House will agree that it was not a loaded question. It is a straightforward, unbiased account of the proposition currently being considered. Of all the valid returned papers, 96·36 per cent. came out against such tests in Easter Ross; 142 people voted in favour of the proposition that further tests could be carried out and 3,761 voted against it. In all, 5,130 papers were distributed and 3,915 were returned, of which 12 were blank or spoilt. The response to the ballot, including blank and spoilt papers, was 76·31 per cent. As a result of that straightforward and unloaded public opinion survey, which required people to mark the ballot paper and then go to the bother of returning it by post, there was a definitive answer that, in common with many other parts of the country, my area categorically said no to Nirex. I hope that Nirex will take that into account.
Nirex has not given a very warm welcome to the result of that ballot. I regret the criticism that it has levelled at the ballot because it was invited to participate, with myself and other members of the local community, in a series of four public meetings in which the arguments for and against were thoroughly aired and the technical matters involved were constructively explained. Nirex chose not to participate in that exercise, which, again, does not reflect much interest on its part in a genuine consultative process.
The way in which Nirex has approached this matter is shot through with flaws and we reject its approach. I also speak for others in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland where there is considerable anxiety about this matter. We share a common view that on-site disposal or storage is more preferable than the options being canvassed by Nirex. We believe that there should have been consultation on the option of on-site disposal or storage.
I hope that before the consultative period ends hon. Members will make known their views to Nirex, and that,

371
in due course, both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for the Environment will evaluate carefully what will no doubt he strong opposition from many parts of the country. It is all too easy on this issue to say, "Not in my back yard," as the referendum in my constituency showed. Surely it is more constructive for the future to say of those three methods of disposal, "Not in anyone's back yard," because it is not a responsible way to deal with the problem. We should choose on-site disposal rather than any of the three methods in the consultative document.
6.19 pm
Mr. William Powell: The charm of these debates lies in the wide variety of issues that are canvassed. I have listened with considerable interest to many of the contributions this evening, not least to that of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). I want to return to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) about an hour ago and deal with the procedures of the House.
The Order Paper is filled with motions on procedure, but matters of procedure do not receive the attention that they deserve. Many misconceptions and misunderstandings follow, particularly outside the House, because people have an inadequate grasp of the reasons for the procedures and the fact—which is vital—that our procedures are impartial and work for the benefit of the whole House, not for any particular hon. Member. In that connection I want to refer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale did, to the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.
I declare with out any hesitation that I am an unashamed supporter of the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I recognise that many people disagree strongly with my views on this subject. If I had my way—and I know that I shall not—we would rely on the old common law relating to abortion and the Abortion Act 1967 would never have reached the statute book. I recognise that many people disagree very strongly with that view.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to draw attention to the fact that I have just entered the Chamber after having a cup of tea in the Tea Room where I saw that my name was on the annunciator screen. I want to bring that to your attention, so that I shall not be recorded as having spoken today and therefore lose my chance to be called later today or tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I note that the hon. Gentleman is very anxious to be called later this week. I hope that he will be.
Mr. William Powell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). In trying to find my way around this place I have from time to time found that there are opportunist advantages in my path in being able to follow the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps from time to time he feels that there is some advantage the other way. Both he and I shared some of the correspondence to the former right hon. Member for South Down. Such are the ways of the House.
Controversial legislation such as reform of the abortion law is quite unsuitable for private Members' legislation. Private Members' legislation procedures, if properly
372
followed, cannot possibly be used to bring about such a controversial change. If only those outside had been properly cautioned not to expect too much of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill when it was before the House, a great deal of disappointment might have been avoided.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will confirm that only one substantially opposed private Member's Bill has become law without Government intervention since 1958. I was not a Member of the House then. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is nodding in agreement, and he has been a Member for most of the time since 1958. I have not.
In the 1960s the Wilson Government allowed private Members' legislation procedures to be altered to allow sufficient Government time for measures of considerable public controversy to be carried. Although I was not a Member of the House then, I deplore Governments making such time available. Although I am a strong supporter of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, I strongly support the view taken by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that Government time should not be made available for this measure, because if it were it would be changing the goalposts in the middle of the game. Time is of the essence in carrying all private Members' legislation. I am fully aware of that. I was fortunate enough to be almost at the top of the ballot for private Members' Bills and I was able to carry through private Members' legislation. I am all too well aware of the loops, difficulties and potential pitfalls in those procedures. However, we must respect the fact that there is only so much time.
The tactics of those who oppose or delay private Members' Bills are governed by the fact that there is only so much time. When people claimed that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill failed the other week simply because another hour and a half or whatever was not made available, they could not be more wrong. If another hour and a half, five hours or 10 hours had been made available and that extra time had been announced in advance, the tactics of the Bill's opponents—people have every right to oppose the Bill and I deprecate all comments from some supporters of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill that the procedures of the House have been abused in some way—would have been different, but I have no doubt that the result would have been the same.
Private Members' Bills are a valuable way of handling certain matters that need to be in the public domain, but they are utterly unsuitable for dealing with matters of major public controversy such as the reform of abortion law. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale was right to say that the issue would not go away, I hope that all hon. Members will bear in mind that if they seek to follow the path taken by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, and others in previous Sessions, the result will be the same. Public opinion should be aware, before the procedures are started, that that is the almost inevitable consequence of introducing such a measure. The public should not be encouraged to imagine that because a Bill has received a Second Reading, or has a measure of support, those who have every legitimate right to oppose measures in the House are in some way abusing the procedures.
The abortion conundrum must be resolved, but the solution does not lie in introducing a private Member's Bill. The Government should grasp the nettle. Fortunately, they will have that opportunity. I understand that in the next Session of Parliament the Government are

373
likely to present a Bill to deal with many of the matters raised in the Warnock report. Such a Bill will deal with many matters of conscience and it is likely that on the Conservative Benches at least there will be a free vote. That is the advice that I have received.
There can be no more sensible way of resolving the abortion problem than for a clause to be inserted in a Government Bill such as the one to which I have referred—if one appears—to amend the Abortion Act 1967. The House would be able to consider that in Government time, with all the differences in procedure which that necessarily involves. No doubt a free vote would be allowed. In that way the House could quite properly deal with a matter that must be dealt with. The House and the public could be spared the unnecessary difficulties that have arisen as a result of absurd expectations about what private Members' legislation can achieve.
I stress that the procedures of the House should be respected by all hon. Members. They are available for use by all Members, and it is wrong to say that they are abused merely because they are used.
I understand that on Report a new clause is to be proposed to the Criminal Justice Bill. It may that the clause will be in order, in that it will lie within the long title of the legislation to which it is to be added, but I hope that when the new clauses and amendments are selected for debate those who are responsible for that selection will be extremely cautious about selecting it, because it amounts to nothing less than tacking.
Tacking was a tremendous game that was played in the early 18th century. There is nothing that more encourages the natural sense of mischief that lies within most of us than the opportunity to tack on to legislation. That happens in the United States Congress, with the utmost mischief and the greatest of joy. Years ago I used to study with considerable interest the career of a notable member of the United States Senate, the former Republican leader Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen. He was a master of parliamentary tactics and he used to tack mercilessly on to every Bill that he could. Much of what he tacked on was thoroughly mischievous.
If we allow tacking to take place here, we will find that it will become an ever-growing industry. It was rightly stopped in the 18th century, and it would be foolish and unwise if it were reintroduced. I hope that that will be borne in mind and that a proper selection of amendments and new clauses will be made. There might be other reasons why the proposed new clause should be selected, but it would be a most undesirable precedent. I say that as someone who supports the efforts that have been made by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. The supporters of change to the abortion law must not try to misuse the procedures of this House and then accuse those who seek to oppose them of being the misusers. That has been going on, and it is undesirable and must stop.
The relationship between Standing Committees and Select Committees is another matter that requires a great deal of thought in the months and years to come. Departmental Select Committees are a welcome and, I hope, permanent feature of the work of the House. They have been running for nearly 10 years. There is a degree of
374
criticism of the work that they do, but that criticism should not be allowed to undermine the part that they can play in the proceedings of the House.
The time has come for the House to give careful consideration to the work that is done by Select Committees. The House should consider whether some of the work that is done by certain Standing Committees should be referred to Select Committees for proper consideration. Obviously controversial major legislation must be dealt with by Standing Committees. That procedure, although it is open to criticism. is by far the best way to handle major legislation in detail.
From time to time all hon. Members receive invitations to attend Standing Committees on statutory instruments. I have served on a number of such Standing Committees, and I must say that in nearly every case they have been a waste of time. Most of the hon. Members who serve on such Committees have no conceivable interest in the subject. Sometimes the work has been completed within minutes, and on one or two occasions I recall it being completed in less than one minute.
Surely some of the delegated legislation that is dealt with by Standing Committees could be referred to the Select Committees. They have a greater expertise in such matters and they could consider whether it would be appropriate for the House to take a greater interest in the legislation, instead of it being considered by a Standing Committee.
It seems to have become regarded as necessary for every departmental Select Committee to make at least one trip abroad every year. It would be something of a surprise if people were aware of some of the matters on which Select Committees spend so much of their time. I note that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is in his place, and he is—he may not have sought the role—one of the most knowledgeable people on the subject of local government. The Select Committee on the Environment has been in existence for about 10 years, but I understand that it has never considered the subject of local government. In the past 10 years, however, every Session of Parliament has devoted an enormous part of its time to local government. Perhaps it is something to do with the fact that local government does not involve travel abroad and is of less interest to members of that Committee than it is to the House and the public.
It comes as a surprise to discover some of the matters that the Select Committee on Transport has considered. Such consideration has enabled that Committee—in the course of its duties, of course—to go abroad on fact-finding missions. I have no doubt that the Committee Members have derived considerable benefit and experience from such trips.
I believe that some of the statutory instruments relating to transport, local government and the environment, which are of no interest to most Members of the House but which are a necessary part of our legislative activity, could be referred to the Select Committees for proper consideration. We should pay particular regard to the fact that statutory instruments are not amendable. If they are laid before Select Committees in draft form for consultation with the Government before they come to the House for consideration, that is likely to lead to better parliamentary scrutiny than currently takes place.

375
I expect that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will say that all these matters are for the Procedure Committee. He may even be kind enough to refer to the fact that he has tabled a motion that has my name to it.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate can last for only three hours—it used to be open-ended but the Establishment cut it down—and there is a convention that hon. Members should try to keep their speeches to a reasonable length, bearing in mind the amount of time available. The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) appears to be filibustering for no useful purpose, and that seems to be an abuse of the procedures that he is discussing.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have heard nothing out of order from the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell). Perhaps this is a suitable moment to remind the House that there are a number of hon. Members who still hope to get in and this debate must end at 7.52 pm.
Mr. Powell: I was in the process of drawing my remarks to a close and I apologise to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) if he feels a degree of impatience. He is able to contribute frequently to the proceedings of this House, and I have raised a matter which I do not believe has been canvassed before on the Floor of the House. It is a matter that needs more careful scrutiny than it has received so far. When my right hon. Friend replies to the debate I hope that he will say that the Procedure Committee will be established soon. It will then be able to get to work on all sorts of matters of procedural reform that are important to the House.
6.38 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: I want to bring to the attention of the House a matter that is of urgent importance to my constituents—the cuts that will be imposed this year on the Health Service in Nottingham. They are causing great concern and distress to my constituents, to the trade unions and to the organisations representing workers in the Health Service.
I have had representations from Nottingham BMA representing the doctors and consultants, from the Royal College of Nursing, NUPE and COHSE representing the nurses, from the General Municipal Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, NUPE, COHSE and other unions representing the ancillaries. If they were free to speak, no doubt I would have received representations from the senior management of the district health authority.
Yesterday, we saw the collapse of the lottery designed to assist the National Health Service. Even if it had not collapsed, the amount of money that it could have contributed would have been minimal, given the needs even of Nottingham's health service, let alone the National Health Service.
Before making any critical remarks, I wish to pay tribute to the staff, the nurses, the ancillaries and all those involved in making the Nottingham district health authority work, papering over the cracks and holding the Nottingham health service together with sticking plaster, working day and night beyond the call of duty. They deserve a tribute from everyone who uses the Health Service. I must, first and foremost, say that to them.
Yesterday, Princess Margaret came to Nottingham to declare open a scanner. As well as the sights that royalty are normally shown, I hope that Princess Margaret was
376
given an insight into the cuts that will be taking place this year in Nottingham district health authority. At every possible opportunity, local Conservatives paint a rosy picture which belies the reality of the health service in Nottingham.
A document produced by the Nottingham health authority, the Nottingham district and medical staff committee's report on the financial situation and its impact on clinical services, outlines how poorly the health service in Nottingham will fare during the next year. It estimates that in the current financial year pay awards in Nottingham's hospital units will be under-funded by approximately £439,000. The report states:
"This factor exacerbates all other problems."
For as long as it is Government policy not to fund all pay awards in full, it will be essential that local financial planning must reduce pressures within the health authority and that will always mean a reduction in services., a reduction in ancillary services, and, now, a reduction in clinical services in the health authority. The district health authority will have to set aside three quarters or 1 per cent. for possible pay award shortfalls in the coming year.
That will cause a number of problems for the Nottingham district health authority and for people in Nottingham who wish to use the health service. In previous years a temporary ward has been funded at the City hospital to cope with the increased intake of medical patients during the months of January and February. This year medical patients will spill over into beds for other specialties, thus reducing their throughput. Therefore, a ward will not be provided this winter through lack of finance. Clearly it is unsatisfactory to leave it to chance that that money will be available should the need for additional beds become obvious. Therefore, it needs to be prioritised. If it is not prioritised through cuts in other areas, there will be no winter ward in the City hospital in Nottingham.
The traditional buffer for overflow of medical patients has been general surgery. However, the scope for that has been reduced following the cut in general surgical beds at the University hospital in Nottingham. It is accepted that additional difficulties are created by trying to accommodate an overflow of medical patients. I propose to consider other areas in which cuts will be affecting the Nottingham district health authority and the service to patients which in many cases will mean a diminished service which I hope will not produce dramatic cases such as that of Matthew Collier. I hope that the Government will have a change of mind and a change of heart and will properly fund the Health Service.
Medical equipment clearly becomes obsolete very quickly. The report states:
"As a result it needs to be replaced regularly … At the two major Units the cost of planned replacement would be in excess of £1 million for this year. Approximately one quarter of this can be funded."
In other words, three quarters cannot be funded. The report goes on to say that £300,000 is required for pathology equipment, £45,000 for endoscopic equipment and £300,000 for X-ray equipment replacement. Those figures cast great shadows on the Government's policy towards the Health Service. The people of Nottingham will suffer for those failures.
The report continues:

377
"As a short-term measure the Authority will be recommended to allow Units to retain a larger proportion of their Cost Improvement Savings in 1988–89 to invest in equipment."
However, it suggests that
"the sensible way forward is to establish a planned replacement and renewal programme rather than the current arrangement of bidding against a limited (and normally inadequate) non-recurrent allocation."
These people are not manning a picket line and demanding the scalp of the Government; they manage the health service in Nottingham. They are at the end of their tether; they cannot make ends meet.
The report, referring to operating theatres, states:
"At the two large Units"—
the City hospital and the University hospital in Nottingham—
"during the summer a total of 175 operating lists had to be cancelled because of the shortage of nursing staff due to holidays. The smaller Units have difficulty in maintaining general anaesthetic lists, because of the lack of ODAs, and it has also not been possible to transfer sessions from Central Notts in order to make an impact on the very long Oral Surgical waiting lists."
Many health authorities have difficulties in maintaining their levels of nursing staff. At the University hospital, where the nursing budget allows only for under-recruitment, the report says that improved recruitment has led to overspend, so that the unit has to return to planned under-staffing. The largest hospital in Nottingham is deliberately under-staffing itself so that it can break even on the targets that have been set by higher authorities. The result is pain and anguish for people in Nottingham who are on the waiting lists, particularly those waiting for hip and joint replacements. A job description for a consultant orthopaedic surgeon has been prepared and agreed.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Allen: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has had more than enough opportunities in other forums to make his points.
The possible revenue consequence of such an appointment at the City hospital unit is a sum of about £200,000. The report states:
"This funding is not available and the appointment is to be delayed with consequent effects upon the ever-increasing waiting lists for this type of operation."
Throughout the report there are clear signs that the health service in Nottingham is falling under greater stress despite the heroic efforts of the people who work in it.
The major constraint at the general hospital is the overspending pharmacy budget because of the escalating costs of cytotoxic chemotherapy which at the moment is not being met by Trent regional health authority.
In the neurosciences there are problems with pathology and nursing. The budget for neuropathology at University hospital is approximately half that provided in equivalent sub-regional centres. The enormous increase in the neuropathology work load has produced an overspending and, as a result, there will be a reduced diagnostic service with all that that implies for therapy and potential litigation. On nursing under neurosciences, dependency studies show that insufficient nurses are available to cope with the work load.
The report highlights the fact that the Nottingham area is faced with increased and uncontrollable work loads at
378
the same time as having imposed upon it cost improvement saving targets. The report clearly and strongly says:
"Existing clinical services will almost certainly have to be reduced in order to demonstrate the savings, as there must come a time when no further savings can be made in non-patient services."
The report goes on—this may be of interest to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell)—to say:
"We are concerned that this is not acknowledged and the public are assured by bland statements in the local press that clinical services will not be affected."
The health service in Nottingham is under tremendous pressure. The Government are doing insufficient to maintain the current services. Services are being reduced and the end result will be more people on the waiting list, more people whose operations are cancelled and more people in desperate need and in desperate pain.
I ask the Leader of the House to take those views away with him. In my view, and I hope in the view of my constituents, the House should not adjourn until something has been done about this situation.
6.50 pm
Mr. Richard Holt: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) rightly referred, in a point of order a moment ago, to a convention regarding debates such as this. Another convention is that hon. Members are supposed to raise matters that need to be discussed before we adjourn for the recess.
To me and to many of my constituents, going home is a pain. It is a pain because the Department of Transport has never been able to get its act together. Anyone who wants to travel to the north-east of England up the A1 will come up against no fewer than six lots of road works, repairs not to minor potholes, but to major sections of the road.
You can imagine my joy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when, on Tuesday or Wednesday this week, I heard on the radio that those thinking of travelling in Yorkshire would find a two-mile traffic jam on the Doncaster bypass, a four-mile traffic jam at Catterick and a six-mile traffic jam at Dishforth. Those who are not too familiar with the English countryside or the glories of the north may think that those places are a long way apart, but they come within a radius of 40 miles. Imagine setting out on such a journey. Imagine a British exporter trying to get his goods to the Channel ports when his lorry driver is faced with that.
Almost everybody acknowledges that it is time for a new motorway to be built on the eastern side of Britain, linking the Channel ports, London and Scotland. We have such a road on the western side of Britain. Why should we on the eastern side be denied such a facility?
Every time I communicate with the Department of Transport, I am told that the evidence does not justify the major expenditure that such a road would require. But who is preparing that evidence? Who is compiling the statistics? Who is advising on the conclusions to be drawn? It is the people who gave us the M25—the same technical experts, the same transport boffins.
The Department of Transport is not ignoring the problems of the A 1; it is making them worse by working almost simultaneously on every junction and stretch of the road to try to upgrade it a little. That is like trying to make a pair of long trousers out of a pair of shorts. It just will

379
not work. To have a dual carriageway for a major arterial road at this end of the century denies us the facilities that people have in other parts of Britain.
Recently, I raised this matter in the House and I was rubbished in The Daily Telegraph by some spotty boy called Simon Heller who said that I threatened to put concrete over the whole of east or west Yorkshire. I did nothing of the sort. However, I must tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and spotty Heifer that I am not alone in my quest. It has the unanimous support of every political party in the north-east, and that includes the Green party. We need to open up the arterial roads between the north-east, London and the Channel ports, yet, as far as I can make out, we are spending billions of pounds on repairing a road that is already inadequate. Even when that money has been spent and traffic can flow on that road, it will still be insufficient for the needs of the future.
I challenged my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to join me in a drive from here to my home. I said, "Come and spend a few days with me. We will spend only six hours in the car." He said that if he had to go to the north-east he would go by train, or fly. That is fine for my right hon. Friend, but it is not fine for families who cannot afford British Rail's fares, and it is not fine for every business man in the north-east who has all the expense of running his business but none of the road facilities that are available to people in other parts of the country.
We have the M4 and the M40, the M1 and the M6. Why cannot we have a major arterial road from Doncaster to the north-east of England? Its route would go through the county of Cleveland—that is if I have not been successful by then in having an enactment of the recommendation of the Teesside chamber of commerce, which again has universal support in my part of the country, to reorganise local government and do away with Cleveland county council.
When I set out on my journey home tomorrow with my wife, daughter, dog and all the other things that I have to take, it is no good my right hon. Friend telling me that I should fly or go by train, because that is no good for families. I urge the Government to stop spending money, stop tinkering with a road that is already there, and give serious consideration to the needs of the north-east. They should take on board the recommendations of all the people who require, need and use that road. They must stop listening to the officials—who play with their abacus and computer and always come up with the wrong answer—and give us what we in the north-east of England need so that in future I can get home in less than six hours.
6.58 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Twenty six years ago to the week, I made my maiden speech in the House. A few months later. Harold Wilson, then Chairman, put me on the Public Accounts Committee, and, as Dick Crossman's Parliamentary Private Secretary, I worked with, and had an admiration for, Dame Evelyn Sharpe, the late Lady Sharpe, the permanent secretary of the Crossman diaries. I say that because I will not have it alleged that I am lighthearted about the Civil Service or insensitive to the rights of individual civil servants or oblivious to the difficulties of their position.
380
In 26 years, I have only brought on to the Floor of the House the names of Miss Colette Bowe and the dramatist personæ of Westland. Pre-1986, in 23 years, I had riot mentioned a civil servant, other than uncontroversially. I was, and am, an admirer of the British Civil Service.
Against that background, I believe that the House should not go into recess until the Prime Minister comes to the House to explain what appears to be deep impropriety at the very heart of Government. She should make a statement tomorrow, after Prime Minister's questions. This is not posturing—it is a matter of belief. Other than introducing the debate on the Queen's Speech, the Prime Minister has not made a speech in the House since the general election. This is a profoundly unsatisfactory state of affairs, which may partly account for the ill-concealed disdain for Parliament which some civil servants seem now to be developing.
I refer to early-day motion 1142 and a series of press reports suggesting that Mr. Charles Powell has turned down the offer of an ambassadorship in Stockholm and is holding out for an ambassadorship in either Washington or Paris. His picture appears on page three of The Guardian for Friday 20 May over the caption
"Charles Powell … waiting for a plum posting."
The Guardian commented:
"Powell has another string to his bow: he knows where the bodies are buried in the Westland affair. He escaped appearing before a select committee, but not their sharpest criticism for his orchestrating role in the leaking of a letter from the then solicitor general, Sir Patrick Mayhew, which ultimately resulted in Michael Heseltine's resignation."
I may add that it resulted in the resignation also of the scapegoat—the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan).
The implication is clear—that knowledge of wrongdoing by the Prime Minister places Mr. Powell in a position to demand the ambassadorship of Washington or Paris and to turn down Stockholm. I cannot imagine what other interpretation could be drawn from that article in The Guardian on Friday 20 May.
I went into great detail about the Westland affair in Hansard for 25 July 1986, for 29 October 1986, and in the Adjournment debate of 22 April 1988. As there remains only a short time and other hon. Members wish to speak, I just mention the long, detailed setting out of that case. The background, and my view of Mr. Powell in particular and of the Westland affair in general, is known to the Foreign Secretary, who took the initiative of writing to me; to the head of the home Civil Service, to whom wrote and who very courteously replied twice; and, prompted by an unusual approach, to Sir Patrick Wright, head of the Diplomatic Service, who also replied most courteously.
The press has clearly implied that the Prime Minister, in saving her own political skin over the Westland affair by misleading the House, has created a situation in which a senior civil servant has something on her—a hold over her—which, if he wished, would enable him to make demands.
Unfortunately, Mr. Powell cannot answer for himself, but the Prime Minister can, and she should. Having made him an accomplice in deceit over Westland, she should now tell the House of Commons what she knew about the Law Officer's letter, and when she knew it. She should also explain why she told my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 27 January:

381
"I did not know about the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's own role in the matter of the disclosure until the inquiry had reported."—[Official Report, 27 January 1986; Vol. 90 c.657.]
We should assert ourselves, as Members of the House of Commons, in order to know the truth. The truth, for the House of Commons, goes far beyond party. The all too clear implication in the press is that we have a Prime Minister—a Head of Government—who by wrong doing and by giving civil servants a string to their bow, in their knowing
"where the bodies are buried in the Westland Affair"—
which is the way in which the press put it, not me—has opened herself to the exertion of pressure or threats in an attempt, especially unfairly, to influence her actions. That phraseology is precisely the definition of the word "blackmail" given by Collins dictionary.
7.5 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Before the House adjourns, it should consider a subject that is of importance to every hon. Member. Despite that, very few hon. Members are interested in it. I refer to the subject of community care, particularly for the elderly but for every other group as well. I imagine that every hon. Member has a relative or friend who is in need or receipt of community care services. In recent years, there has been a plethora of reports on the subject of community care, whether they have come from the National Audit Office, the Select Committee, Griffiths, Wagner, or the Firth working party. Those reports are now being digested by the Department of Health and Social Security, but in my view we are missing an important opportunity.
It is appropriate for this House to have the opportunity of discussing such matters before any decisions are taken about where responsibility for community care should properly reside. I say that knowing that there are thousands of social workers working under difficult and frequently dangerous conditions. They are overstressed and exceedingly anxious about both the extent of their powers and the degree of protection they can secure from the law, in the knowledge that if they make the slightest error they will be hauled before the bar of public opinion, either through the press or through this House, as if it were entirely their fault that some of the most difficult, distressing and dangerous cases with which anyone in society has to deal have gone wrong.
Social workers' morale is now low. Uncertainty about the future of community care and about the recommendations of the Griffiths report are contributing in no mean way to that lack of morale. Complex issues are involved. There are anxieties about, for example, the fact that this week has seen a three-year training term granted to nurses which has been refused to social workers. That raises many questions about where the responsibility for community care lies. If it is left to officials of the Department to take final decisions as to what should be done, and which are only then brought to the House for debate, it would be as though the whole of the jigsaw was assembled by someone else with only one small corner left for social workers and the social services. That would be the wrong way of making decisions about a service of such complexity and importance.
382
The social services embrace housing, social security benefits, and difficult issues such as child abuse and who should or should not be asked to leave home. They are also concerned with the question of how people should spend a dignified old age. It is entirely appropriate that the House should discuss those matters as a matter of urgency so that hon. Members may contribute their views and experiences into the mix before any decisions are taken.
7.9 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I am pleased to have been called, having been here throughout the debate. I have seen some Conservative Members wander in and be called after five minutes, which seems to suggest a somewhat unbalanced view of the way in which debates should be conducted. I should have thought that some preference would be given to those who had troubled to attend the whole debate.
I do not intend to speak for long, because my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who has been here throughout the debate, wants to contribute. However, before the House rises for the recess I want to draw attention to the subject of school buildings in Bradford. This is a fairly mundane subject with none of the glamour of some of the topics that have been raised, but the facility is none the less vital for our schoolchildren in a major city.
Forty per cent. of Bradford's schools were built before 1906 and need refurbishing. Some are attractive, and I do not urge that they be replaced by modern concrete and steel-frame buildings, which are often ugly and unsatisfactory. But refurbishing Victorian schools, often affected by such radical difficulties as dry rot, is expensive. Refurbishment and replacement will require a great deal of money.
Bradford has an expanding school roll. It is one of the few major cities in this country to be in that position. Most of the problems being considered by education committees relate to diminishing rolls and what is to be done with school buildings, but over the past few years Bradford has seen the development of what might be called shanty-town schools, with temporary classrooms to accommodate the increasing numbers. In March this year, for example, there were 451 temporary units housing 567 classes, 17 nursery classes, three halls, 13 kitchen and dining units, five administration units and 11 toilets. Such accommodation should not be allowed to be based in temporary units to that extent.
There are other difficulties. In many cases the temporary units are becoming permanent, which means that they need repair. A mounting bill is inevitably placed on the local authority—which has a duty to provide the accommodation—to ensure that the temporary units fulfil their function and are kept wind and water tight. That means, in some cases, the local authority having to use capital expenditure to maintain temporary units when priority ought really to be given to permanent extensions to schools or, in some instances, completely new schools.
There was a fire in one of the temporary classrooms not long ago. It was reported by the local evening paper, the Bradford Telegraph and Argus, a copy of which was sent to the Secretary of State for Education and Science by the chairman of the education committee. As the Leader of the House will know, Bradford is an acutely fire-conscious city after the Bradford city football club fire disaster. It is felt

383
that the temporary units, constructed of rather more inflammable materials than brick and mortar, may be more vulnerable than the ordinary permanent buildings. As one of the units has been set on fire, probably through arson, the citizens of Bradford are concerned that the units should be replaced at the earliest opportunity. Some temporary units are inevitable, but not on the current scale.
More money is needed to finance the permanent construction of schools in Bradford. I recently visited a school in Queensbury in my constituency where there are four temporary classrooms. Another two are to be added because of the expanding numbers, and a toilet block is to be built to serve all six. In 1988, a local authority, because of central Government meanness, is to build an open-air toilet block to serve a number of temporary classrooms. The children will have to troop outside their classrooms across an open space to go to the toilet. For years in Victorian schools we have been trying to get rid of open toilets at the bottom of playgrounds. In winter, children have had to go out in bad weather and cross wet playgrounds. Yet, in 1988, those circumstances have been recreated because there is not the money to provide permanent extensions that have been badly needed for a number of years.
In another school in my constituency, in Wibsey, 12 temporary units are housing virtually a complete school. When I made representations to the local authority I was told that it did not have the money to do anything about the matter, although it acknowledges the need for a permanent extension to the existing school.
The Government have the money if they have the political will. They have given nearly £2 billion to the well-off. People in Bradford who are concerned about the issue may well bear in mind that the tax concessions to the rich in the recent Budget—indeed, a tiny fraction of that amount—could have been used to embark on a serious and wide-scale programme of building new schools and refurbishing tried and trusted but well-used Victorian schools which are badly in need of it.
The Government are embarking on the building of a new nuclear power station at Sizewell B. That is not necessary—our coal measures can supply us for the next 300 years—but we are to spend £1·5 billion at Sizewell. The Government have put through a statutory instrument that makes objections rather more difficult. Public inquiries will be held more speedily, so that Hinkley Point B nuclear power station can be given the go-ahead more quickly. That means a minimum of another £1·5 billion. We could be using some of that money for a basic construction purpose: providing new schools in my constituency, and no doubt in others as well.
Eleven billion pounds have been forked out by the Government on Trident. Only yesterday the Prime Minister spoke about Christian values and morality. Is the mass extermination of innocent men, women and children part of her Christian morality, and that of the Leader of the House? What section of the Bible will the Prime Minister quote to justify mass extermination by the use of nuclear weapons? We are to get more of them than ever before, and at a cost of £11 billion.
I plead with the Leader of the House for increased resources for Bradford—not even the money spent on nuclear power stations or nuclear weapons, but just the £3·5 million spent by the Department of Trade and Industry on giving prominence to the cronies of the
384
Secretary of State and saying how wonderful the internal market of 1992 will be. What a waste of money. Would it not have been better to put the money into schools in Bradford to give our children a decent start in life?
Mr. Allen: I do not know whether Bradford is blessed with a city technology college, but my constituency has a CTC nearby. That one CTC in my patch will cost more than the combined capital programme of all the schools in Nottinghamshire. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) is present. All the schools added together will not account for more expenditure than that one project. I do not know whether similar circumstances apply in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Mr. Cryer: I shall respond briefly because I know that we are rather short of time due to various Conservative Members' interventions.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science had the cheek to comment on the schools in Bradford and the enormous shortages that I have outlined to the effect that the local authority could find the money. He did not know whether the local authority could find the money or not. He is ignorant about education. In reality, Bradford is hard-pressed. That self same Secretary of State for Education gave the chairman of the chamber of commerce £30,000 simply to investigate the possibility of establishing a CTC in Bradford. That is a measure of the absurdity of the Government's priorities. I am happy to say that the investigation came to naught because Bradford has more than adequate facilities in the public sector for the provision envisaged in CTCs.
If we are to provide a proper education for our children and young people, we need adequate facilities. Bradford's schools are under pressure and they do not deserve to be. I hope that the Government will come up with some money to ensure that we have proper schools because children in Bradford deserve no less.
7.21 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: I am wholeheartedly in favour of the motion. It would be hypocritical of me not to say that, as last week I introduced the Working Life (Reduction in Hours) Bill, which provides for longer statutory holidays. Therefore, I could not possibly object to the suggestion that we should take our holidays. I take this opportunity to remind the House that that Bill is to have its Second Reading on 8 July. As it is a pretty enlightening and far-sighted measure in the interests of working people, I am confident that the Government, true to form, will ensure that it is thrown out on 8 July.
My hon. Friends have drawn attention to the inadequacy of the Government—their failure to deliver on promises, the inadequacy of their funding for key services and the mistaken priorities that they have chosen. I am sure that the House will forgive me if I refer to a major development in my constituency.
A near-unique state of affairs is developing. Wrekin district council is beginning legal proceedings against the Telford development corporation because of the Government's repeated failure to deliver on their promise of a ballot for Telford development corporation tenants who are anxious to know who their future landlord will be. Ministers repeatedly promised a ballot among tenants. Then they heard the devastating news that in a ballot held

385
last November Peterborough tenants opted overwhelmingly for the local authority as the appropriate landlord to take over the houses after the conclusion of the development corporation.
As soon as the Government realise that a ballot will have results that they do not like, they postpone that ballot. In my constituency, tenants are now faced with a long period of uncertainty—up to two years—before being asked whether they want the district council or housing associations to take over their houses when the Telford development corporation is concluded. That delay is disgraceful, and the message from my constituency is that we must consult tenants on the matter.
I do not want to be entirely churlish in my concluding remarks. One heartening thing has come out of the Government in the past few days. It is perhaps in the spirit of the religious festival that we celebrated last week at Whitsuntide that the Prime Minister has at last decided that the political debate is a moral debate. I have held that view for many years, and I welcome the Prime Minister's conversion to it. I look forward to our debates on the subject because I am quite sure that her decision that we should now deal with the moral aspects of political argument will turn out to be the most monumental own goal in recent political history.
I have read the Sermon on the Mount many times. I have also read the 1987 Conservative party manifesto many times—purely for professional reasons, I may say. The only similarity that I have been able to discern between the versions of the two documents that I read was that they were both written in English. My hon. Friends have drawn attention to some of the moral issues that I hope will be at the forefront of political debate in the months and years ahead.
I am sorry that only five of my hon. Friends were able to contribute to the debate. They had a common theme, however. Every one of them drew the House's attention to the values that need to be espoused and the choices that need to be made by the country and the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who told us that he would be absent at this stage, rightly drew our attention, albeit 48 years after the event, to one of the profound evils of Fascism as it affected a case that came to his attention—the massacre by the SS of British troops. I know my hon. Friend's tenacity is such that he will persist in drawing that case to our attention.
I find it ironic that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr was followed by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who took a selective view of Fascism. He congratulated my hon. Friend on drawing our attention to Nazi atrocities but went on to act in his usual role as an apologist for the South African Government, ignoring the fact—which he should know as an expert on the subject—that key members of the Broederbond and the National party which has ruled South Africa for 40 years were active and keen Nazi supporters during the second world war.
Mr. Winnick: He is paid by the South African Government.
Mr. Grocott: They wanted Hitler to win. I hope that the hon. Member for Luton, North declares his position on that, and I hope that he will condemn them when he gets
386
the opportunity. He appears to think that the major moral issue facing the nation is the can of red paint thrown at the South African embassy. Nothing could contrast more dramatically with the issues that concern Opposition Members.
Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you heard the comment made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who said, "He is paid by the South African Government." Is that an aspersion on an hon. Member's character?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear a comment from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to that effect, but if a comment was made that cast aspersions on the integrity of an hon. Member, I am sure that it will be withdrawn.
Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman was right—I did make that comment and I would not wish to deny it. Perhaps I can seek your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has not denied that he has visited South Africa at the expense of the South African authorities. That assertion has not been challenged, so surely I am right when I say that the hon. Gentleman is paid by South Africa.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Time is short. All I am saying is that it is not in order for an hon. Member to cast aspersions on another hon. Member. If the hon. Member felt that that is what happened, I hope that, with his usual courtesy, he will make it clear that that was not his intention.
Mr. Winnick: I do not basically withdraw anything that I said, but if you ask me to withdraw because you require it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in those circumstances—and only in those circumstances—I shall make the remarks that you wish me to make.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Grocott: The values of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) were shown clearly in his speech. He described how he would like the country to develop and spoke about the effects of the social security changes. Almost any right hon. or hon. Member could give examples of difficulty. My hon. Friend gave the example of an 84-year-old constituent who is paying an additional £18 a week in rent. We all know about the delays involved in making minor concessions such as the Government say that they will make.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the need for a fairer system of television licences for pensioners. I am sure that, if we appeal to the country not on the level of self-interest but on the basis of values and caring for other people who need assistance, my hon. Friend's appeal will be understood.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) spoke about the effects of Health Service cuts in his constituency. Once again, we return to priorities and the moral choices that a Government have to make.
We then heard a speech characteristic of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). It is a clear illustration of Conservative Members' failure of judgment that they cannot see that tenacity, even in the

387
face of ridicule and constant prevarication and blocking tactics by Ministers, is the essence of parliamentary democracy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow will not let this matter go, whatever the jeers or sneers from Conservative Members. The issue will not go away, whichever party is in power. Anybody who thinks that this is an anti-Tory vendetta does not know my hon. Friend very well. He pursues injustice wherever it occurs. He is entitled to an answer to his questions. I regret to say that I doubt whether he will get an answer, but one will be forthcoming, even if it has to be written in the history books.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) also considered priorities and choices. He talked about the Victorian school buildings which are characteristic of much of his constituency. Once again we return to the choices which the Prime Minister told us that we should be making—the moral choices in politics. I suppose that our political opponents can say that the electorate is much more cynical than we in the Labour party would like it to be and that almost one year ago—we were all campaigning one year ago today—it opted for the party with the creed of self interest and rejected the idealistic approach.
I take heart from some recent polls. I wonder whether the Prime Minister knew the result of one of them before she decided, quite suddenly, to address herself to some of the moral issues in politics. A Harris poll shows that, although 48 per cent. of the population think that the country is richer than it was 10 years ago that is hardly surprising, in view of the bonus of North sea oil—no fewer than 61 per cent. of the population believe that people are more selfish. Only 19 per cent. think that people are more generous.
When asked whether, by and large, people are happy, the clear majority said that people are unhappier than they were 10 years ago and that the quality of life has deteriorated. For all the supermarkets and the phoney gloss of commercialism, the majority of our fellow citizens believe that the quality of life has declined in the past 10 years.
Although we shall undoubtedly adjourn for the spring recess, I welcome the political debate that will come when we return. I hope that hon. Members will find a few moments during the recess to skim again through the New Testament, as the Prime Minister has advised. I look forward to seeing to what extent the Government's actions match up to the New Testament. We all look forward to the debates that we shall have after we return.
7.35 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): We have heard several good speeches, in which hon. Members have raised many constituency, national and international issues. As always on these occasions, I shall do my best to reply to all the points that have been raised, but in the event of time running short I shall refer any outstanding matters to my right hon. Friends to ensure that an appropriate reply is given.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) asked why there was no oral statement on the fair employment White Paper for Northern Ireland. As the White Paper, which has been published today, develops
388
proposals that have already been announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he thought that a statement today was not appropriate. The hon. Gentleman knows that Northern Ireland questions come top tomorrow, and I shall be surprised if some of the issues in the White Paper are not raised by the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends then.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have repeatedly made clear the Government's determination to eliminate religious discrimination in Northern Ireland and to promote genuine equality of opportunity. Compulsory monitoring is central to the success of that policy, and the fact that the Government propose that failure to register with the Fair Employment Commission or to submit monitoring returns should be a criminal offence reflects the seriousness that they attach to solving this serious economic and social problem. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing some of the arguments that he will make in the debates that we shall have on this issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) spoke about Manchester airport. He has raised the subject before, and I make no complaint about his raising it again. The Government have made repeated attempts to persuade the United States Government to negotiate traffic rights for United States airlines to serve Manchester airport. The United States Government finally agreed in March this year to negotiate on the issue, but no agreement was reached because the United States Government insisted that all their demands should be met, or none at all. They rejected a very reasonable package offered by the Government. The package would have permitted the immediate commencement of a daily non-stop service from Boston to Manchester, and a daily one-stop service from New York to Manchester. The United States Government have put off any further negotiations until early next year, but the Government hope to raise the matter before then if there are any suitable grounds for doing so.
My hon. Friend also mentioned Manchester airport's campaign against the Government. I am pleased to note that the airport board has decided to discontinue its confrontational and counterproductive campaign.
Manchester airport's efforts would be better used to encourage interested United States airlines to bring pressure on the United States Government to negotiate quickly and realistically.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, about which I know he feels strongly. As I have said on a number of occasions, it is a well-known and long-standing practice of this Government not to provide additional time for any individual private Member's Bill. The rules that govern the conduct of private Member's business are decided upon by the House, and it is important that the Government, as much as individual hon. Members, should abide by them.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—who told me that he unfortunately had to leave—raised the question of General Mohnke and the serious allegations that have been made against him. The evidence is being examined as a matter of urgency. This country has no jurisdiction in the matter—this was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo)—and that is why it is not covered in the Home Secretary's review of some of these matters. When

389
the evidence has been assessed, we will know what basis exists for approaching the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Mr. Winnick: With some urgency.
Mr. Wakeham: As I have said, the matter is being pursued as a matter of urgency, because we believe it to be important. However, it is not right for me to speculate on matters connected with the evidence now that it is being reviewed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) referred to the demonstrations outside the South African embassy. I admire the courage with which he puts his views, often unpopularly and at great personal and physical risk to himself. I do not always agree with what he says, but I admire the courage and the tenacity with which he puts his views. The day when hon. Members are not able to speak their minds will be a bad day for democracy.
The right to demonstrate, assemble and protest peaceably within the law is, of course, fundamental to our democratic way of life. However, the police can, and do, take action when demonstrators step over the line from peaceful protest to behaviour amounting to criminal conduct. There have been 46 arrests so far this year for offences such as the obstruction of police officers and a breach of the Westminster city council's noise byelaws. I shall refer my hon. Friend's concern to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) raised the question of housing benefit and the transitional unit. On 5 May my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled sent a helpful letter to all right hon. and hon. Members. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained during oral questions how the special unit that is being set up will operate. There is no need for the Minister or the Secretary of State to make a further statement to the House, but it is proposed that the special unit should last for two years, and the situation will then be reviewed.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North also raised the question of concessionary television licences. As we have made clear on a number of occasions, we do not consider that it would be right or sensible to give free or concessionary television licences to all pensioners, irrespective of need. That would be very expensive and would mean that other licence payers would have to pay a lot more. On 18 May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department explained that many of the people for whom the scheme was never intended would have qualified under the previous regulations. The new regulations restore the scheme to its original intention, which was to benefit pensioners and disabled people in residential care or in equivalent sheltered accommodation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) rightly raised the question of the British Broadcasting Corporation. As he says, the Government have no control over the programming of the BBC, which is editorially and managerially independent. It is clearly a matter of regret if the BBC strays from its normally high standards of programme making, thereby causing offence to the Governments of the countries with whom we have friendly relations and with whom we hope to do economic
390]
trade. It was right for my hon. Friend to raise the matter in the House and I hope that those responsible will take note.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) referred to Nirex. I recognise the concern of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. I remind him that I had to express the concern of my constituents during the time that I was not able to make a speech in the House. Fortunately, my right hon. Friend the Father of the House at that time seemed from time to time to utter thoughts that were not completely dissimilar from mine and those of my constituents. I have shown how grateful I was to him during my period of silence.
I cannot say very much about the issues that have been raised. Nirex has a responsibility. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that Members of Parliament should make known their views and the views of their constituents on the issues for which Nirex has responsibility. When I made my views and those of my constituents known to Nirex, I found that it listened to me, even though, as I said, I had to remain silent in the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) raised two matters, one about abortion and the other about Select Committees. I listened with interest to what he said about the procedures of the House and whether the reform of the abortion law is a suitable subject for private Members' legislation. I am not completely persuaded by his arguments, although he put the point persuasively. The Government do not take a collective view on the moral issue of abortion, but consider that any new legislation of this kind is best kept to the initiative of private Members.
I noted what my hon. Friend said about the possibility of combining the abortion issue with any future Bill on the Warnock recommendations, but I am not sure that the issues are quite as comparable as he suggested.
The House of Commons Commission has approved the total amount of expenditure for overseas travel by Select Committees and has delegated to the Liaison Committee—as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) tells us from time to time—the responsibility for allocating that sum to individual Select Committees. I do not think that it would be very wise of me to interfere at this time.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) rightly raised a number of questions about the Health Service in Nottingham. I do not know as much about the Health Service in Nottingham as he knows—or at least he should know—but I thought that his comments were to some extent unbalanced. For instance, he did not say anything about the fine teaching hospital and the fine work that is done on breast cancer in that area. I join him in the tribute that he paid to the nurses and staff who work in the Health Service in Nottingham.
I do not believe that any reasonable comments on the position would ignore the fact that Nottingham is a RAWP gaining area. There have been substantial increases in resources in Nottingham, there are about 200 more nurses in Nottingham this year than last year, the waiting lists have reduced over the past five years by about 30 per cent., there has been an enormous increase in the number of patients treated, and there has been a substantial increase in the capital expenditure in that area. Although there may still be some shortcomings, if one were to set the factors that I have mentioned against those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, one would get a more balanced view.

391
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) told us of the difficulties of getting home to his constituency. I shall make sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport takes on board the points that he made. There are three major schemes on the A1(M) and we regret that they inevitably cause delay. On that highly trafficked section of the route, as on other sections of the A1, we are accelerating the work to the maximum extent possible through the use of lane rental contracts. Our programmes have improved the A1 to dual three-lane standard and have increased the capacity of the road generally. However, I recognise that my hon. Friend will be inconvenienced for some time to come.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) carries on his campaign with increasing extravagance. However, I have to tell him—I do not think that he had the slightest expectation of anything else—that I have nothing further to add.
Mr. Dalyell rose——
Mr. Wakeham: No, I shall not give way.
Mr. Dalyell rose——
Mr. Wakeham: No, I shall not give way. I am about to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who raised the question of community care.
The Government are considering the recommendations of the Sir Roy Griffiths and Lady Wagner reports. We have said that we will bring forward our proposals on them in due course. The issues raised are complex and there is no obvious perfect solution. However, it is right that we should devote the necessary time to identifying the right answers. In the light of that, it is too early for me to comment on the form and timing of the Government's eventual response.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South referred to the level of capital allocations in his area. He is right to do that. I accept that Bradford has substantial capital problems in the school sector. Three main factors are responsible: rising rolls in the inner city, an unusually high proportion of very old buildings, and a serious accumulation and backlog of maintenance. In recognition of especially the first of those problems, Bradford has received comparatively large capital allocations for some years. Its allocation for 1987–88 was £6·303 million—the third highest among the metropolitan authorities and the eleventh highest in England. The hon. Gentleman was right to voice his concern and we recognise that there is a problem.
From the tone of the debate, no one seems to be against——
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments.)
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 27th May, do adjourn until Tuesday 7th June, and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 27th May until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time)
7.52 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill:

Firearms (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time)

  Report and Third Reading
  1.—(1) The remaining proceedings on Consideration and the proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
  (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
  (3) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

  Dilatory motions
  2. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  Motion under Standing Order No. 20: extra time
  3. If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing the proceedings on the Bill to a conclusion at the time required by this Order, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
  and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule Mr. Speaker shall put only the question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

  Recommittal
  5.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.
  (2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Supplemental orders
  6. The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  All that I had left to say at the end of the previous debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was to wish everybody a happy few days rest. I hope that it is not out of order if I start my speech on this debate with what would have been my concluding remarks for the last.
  Ever since the Government proposed to bring forward legislation in this area, the timing of the passage of that legislation has been a matter of the keenest interest. In October last year, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was berated by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for
  "identifying a problem that he describes as urgent and then announcing that he proposes to remedy it some time during the middle of next year."—[Official Report, 26 October 1987; Vol. 121, c.29.]
  In the Second Reading debate, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook described how in March 1987 the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) had written to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary saying that there was a need for tighter gun control. In those circumstances, it is somewhat surprising that the hon. Gentleman has said that he and his colleagues will oppose this motion to ensure the prompt passage after considerable discussion of the gun controls for which he had earlier called.
  It is all the more surprising when one considers that I twice announced Monday's business—on 12 and on 19 May—and received no protest or criticism from the official Opposition. On 12 May, only the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) suggested that those arrangements would not provide sufficient time. I replied that my advice was that what I had announced was for the general convenience of the House and that we should have to see how we got on. At business questions the following week, no adverse comment at all was made, and there was nothing to suggest that the arrangements would not be generally acceptable.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Is it not a fact that at the time of those business questions the Government had not tabled nearly 80 amendments? It was, in fact, the grouping by Mr. Speaker of 36 groups of amendments that made completing the Bill on Monday night so impractical, although the Government brought an end to the business long before it was necessary to do so.
  Mr. Wakeham: I shall deal with all those points, but, of course, the Government always have to announce the business and agree it before Mr. Speaker has made his selection of amendments. As my hon. Friend, who has followed these matters closely, knows, the amendments were substantially about questions that had been raised in Committee and had been well rehearsed and discussed. Nevertheless, during my speech I shall seek to deal with the points that my hon. Friend has raised.
  It would, I believe, have been generally unacceptable to have completed our consideration of the Bill on Monday by sitting well into Tuesday morning. As Leader of the House, it is my responsibility to ensure, whenever possible, that our business is conducted in an orderly way and for a length of time which is not unduly extended. That is why I have brought forward this motion. It provides for a maximum of five hours proceedings on this Bill from the start of this debate. At the very least, it will provide two hours to complete the Bill's remaining stages. If proceedings on the timetable motion do not last the three hours of which they are capable, there could be a further two to three in addition. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and his colleagues on having persuaded the Government that the
  394
  further discussion of this legislation merits this extra prime time rather than extend proceedings in the early hours of the morning.
  It is true that more than 30 groups of amendments remain to be considered in the time available. There are two points to be made here. First, the Bill and its proposals have already been the subject of considerable consultation and discussion both inside this House and between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and interested organisations. In October there was a half-day debate, in Opposition time, on this subject, and in December my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was questioned on his oral statement announcing publication of the White Paper. On 21 January we had a full day's debate on the Bill, at the end of which it was given a Second Reading without a Division. Since then, the Bill has been considered in Standing Committee for 27½ hours and has already been considered on Report for more than six hours. For a Bill which comprises only 20 clauses and one schedule, I do not believe that that is unreasonable. Indeed, if the Standing Committee had wished to consider the Bill for longer, it could have done so.
  Secondly, the time spent in consideration of the Bill has been well used—particularly from the point of view of my hon. Friends who wished to see changes to it in Committee. The Government have already agreed that a firearms consultative committee should be established and that it should be given statutory backing for an initial period of five years. We have also decided to "buy-in" firearms which will become prohibited under clause 1(2). We have made, and propose to make, a number of other changes to our original proposal——
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: First, on the point about compensation, I have been unable to obtain a copy of the Hansard report of the Second Reading debate because it is apparently out of print. Was there a Money or Ways and Means resolution and, if so, is a new one needed, given that compensation is now required? Secondly, I notice that the financial memorandum of the original Bill as at Second Reading made no reference to that. Should we not have a new financial memorandum on the Bill as it now stands?
  Mr. Wakeham: My recollection is that we did that, subsequent to Second Reading, so I think that everything is in order. We have passed a Ways and Means resolution and all the necessary formalities. However, my right hon. Friend is right that that was not done at the time of the Second Reading. That covers the question of the buy-in scheme.
  Mr. Higgins: Does there not need to be a financial resolution to finance the buy-in scheme?
  Mr. Wakeham: Yes. The House approved that resolution at a later stage after the Bill had been given a Second Reading. It did so on one of the rare occasions when my right hon. Friend was not in his place.
  My hon. Friends have identified three areas that require particular attention, and the Government have already made significant concessions on two—compensation and a consultative committee. Though differences of view in detail of bringing about these changes remain and may

  395
  deserve further discussion, in the circumstances I believe the amount of extra time proposed in the motion is adequate for the disposal of the outstanding points.
  The other area to which my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) referred yesterday, self-loading rifles and the integral magazine of five to eight rounds, has already been raised both in Committee and in the debate on Monday about new clause 1, when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State explained the Government position. Nevertheless, and though the grouping of amendments is not a matter for me, I understand that later groups of amendments—119 and 128, and 91, 128 and 129—may give my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside the opportunity he seeks for a vote.
  I will end my remarks now, because the more promptly the House is able to agree this motion, the more time there will be for further consideration of the Bill itself. The proposals from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary attracted a broad range of support when they were introduced and have, I believe, attracted further support as they have been amended in the light of the Standing Committee proceedings. I cannot conceive that it would be the will of the House as a whole that a measure on this important subject, which many Members, including the Opposition Front Bench, have long regarded as a matter of urgency and which enjoys the general favour of the House, should be debated at undue length in the early hours of the morning. On that basis, I commend the motion in my name to the House.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Everyone recognises that we are faced with a procedural curiosity. For the first time in living memory, a Conservative Government is introducing a guillotine motion to stop Conservative Members talking. The motion has not been introduced because the Opposition are opposing the Bill.
  The Labour party supports stricter controls on the advertising, sale, use and possession of guns and ammunition. As the Leader of the House has said, London Labour Members, faced with the increasing unlawful use of guns in the capital, and in response to representations made by those whom they represent and from the Metropolitan police at all levels, have been urging such controls on the Home Secretary, and began to do so long before the disastrous events at Hungerford, which precipitated the Government's change of view and the introduction of the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made it clear on Second Reading that he supported the objects of the Bill. However, he expressed doubts, to say the least, about a considerable number of provisions and called for other provisions to be included by way of new clauses and amendments. Throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee the Opposition argued for amendments that have not been made and for new clauses that have not been included. On several occasions the votes of Opposition Members in Committee sustained the avowed objectives of the Bill as laid down by the Government. The Government would have lost a substantial number of Divisions to Conservative Back Benchers if the Labour Opposition had voted with those Back Benchers or had abstained. We
  396
  voted with the Government in Committee on these occasions because we believed in the greater control of guns and ammunition.
  We believe also that the Bill raises serious matters and deserves careful and well-informed consideration. It is because we want the Bill to succeed, and because we think that its provisions, the amendments and the new clauses deserve careful and well-informed consideration, that we oppose the motion.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: If that is so, will the hon. Gentleman tell us why there are only six Labour Members in their places to discuss the issue?
  Mr. Dobson: It may have something to do with the usual quality of my oratory. I expect that many of my hon. Friends will arrive in the Chamber once the meat of the Bill is to be discussed.
  Mr. Bennett rose——
  Mr. Dobson: No. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. These are serious matters and I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to make his own comments in his inimitable way when he gets the opportunity to do so.
  When we began to consider the Bill on Report, the Government had tabled no fewer than five new clauses and more than 60 amendments to cure some of the shortcomings that had been identified in Committee. They proposed, by a mind-boggling afterthought, to extend the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. As everyone knows, death and injury from the use and misuse of guns are terrifying facts of everyday life in Northern Ireland. To think that a Bill that has been shown to be ill thought out and badly drafted even to meet the circumstances prevailing in England, Scotland and Wales can be applied in hasty afterthought to Northern Ireland beggars belief and is an insult to the House. To curtail debates on amendments that had to be tabled once it was known that the Government intended to extend the Bill to cover Northern Ireland is an extraordinary action on the Government's part.
  If the motion is accepted—we believe that it will be—it will result in inadequate consideration of the Bill. That will lead to the enactment of a Bill that will be difficult to understand and difficult for the police to enforce. It will be puzzling for the courts to interpret. Legitimate gun owners and former legitimate gun owners will be left with a sense of grievance. All in all, it is a bad job and a botched job.
  The inclusion of Northern Ireland at a late stage is not the only afterthought that the Government have had on the Bill. The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has observed that at one stage the Government rejected the idea of compensation for those who owned guns that would have to be dispensed with when the Bill took its place on the statute book. At a later stage the Government said that they were willing to accept that the principle of compensation should be debated in Committee. So the House then had to consider a further supplementary money order, which was accepted.
  I understand from hon. Members on both sides of the House that the debates in Committee were unsatisfactory and that important aspects of compensation have yet to be resolved. However, the guillotine motion will prevent the necessary discussions on compensation taking place. After the proceedings that are to take place this evening, and after the guillotine finally falls, the Bill will proceed to

  397
  another place. It is curious that the guillotine motion does not propose a timetable for the consideration of any amendments that are made in another place. I am not sure whether this is a further oversight on the Government's part or whether it is the product of foresight. Can it be that the Government envisage that the shooting interests of those in another place will produce so many amendments that it will be impossible to avoid a lengthy debate upon them when they are referred to this place?
  The Government have been crowing this week about the recent large majorities that they have enjoyed in the other place. It cannot be denied that when the Government sent their beaters through the backwoods they flushed out a remarkable collection of odd, old birds whose natural habitat is a long way from Westminster. There were even rumours running through this place that Lord Lucan had been spotted in one of the Lobbies—presumably among the Not Contents.
  If the same hereditary peers who thronged within the other place to support the poll tax were urged to return to debate the Bill, the likelihood is that they would not like it and that they would do it severe damage. That makes it all the more odd to hear another rumour this afternoon—I hope the Lord President will take this opportunity to confirm its truth, or otherwise—that the Government have already decided they will not attempt to impose a Whip on the Bill in the House of Lords because they do not think it would stick. It seems preposterous and an odd way of doing things to guillotine the proceedings of this House without even trying to impose a Whip in the Lords.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. John Biffen: This is not a particularly happy evening for my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, but I want to assure him at the outset that I shall be happy to join him in the Division Lobby to ensure the prosecution of this proposal. I shall do so for a number of reasons—[Interruption.]—and my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) should not be too distraught.
  First, I do not think that my right hon. Friend is the author of this evening's misfortune. I listened to his unmistakeable honeyed words, but I fancy the authorship lies with the Home Office. This would not be the first or last occasion when Leaders of the House have been required to use brisk methods to get through matters of Parliamentary business that have been sanctified by Front Bench agreement. That is exactly what there was when, on a previous occasion, Tory dissidents were subject to a timetable motion.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said this was a procedural curiosity, but I remember only too well the time when the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill wound its way with perhaps too much dilatoriness through the House. The timetable motion was carried, but let us look at the work that was then fashioned. What happened to the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill? Just because some item of business is sanctified by cross-Front Bench approval, that does not guarantee that it has any more merit or likelihood of durability. That is the dilemma and agony of my right hon. Friend; it is why I feel such a sense of brotherhood with him this evening, and why I shall support him.
  398
  I hope that the fact that I shall support my right hon. Friend tonight will mean that the four observations that I want to make will be the more firmly bound to his heart. But there is one other reason why I shall support my right hon. Friend with deep affection: he has conducted speech and argument with no reference to morality. The moral peaks have been deserted—suddenly, here is a sanctuary. I want to speak on behalf of what I believe to be the silent majority in the House—the publicans and sinners. We have been given some welcome respite from the foghorn of conscience that has blasted through the Chamber over the past few days.
  I believe that my four observations are of real concern to the House. The first is really rather like the C. Northcote Parkinson syndrome: the board votes £50 million or £500 million-worth of capital expenditure and then spends half the morning discussing painting the bicycle shed. Here we have a timetable motion that we can understand. No one could contest the fact that the Education Reform Bill or the community charge legislation require timetables. On this occasion we are bound to ask why it has not been possible to find some occasion, either this side of the recess or shortly thereafter, when the necessary number of hours could be found to dispatch this business without bringing us here for the formalities of a timetable.
  Many people watching our procedures outside will conclude that the Government's programme must be running into difficulties, or at least into tight circumstances. They will wonder what on earth would have happened if the Lords had not loyally supported the Government on the community charge. They would think that there must surely have been some provision, just in case the vote went wrong, but now it seems that the whole programme is so tightly structured that we must have a timetable motion to dispose of half the Report stage of what I suppose is a grade 2 unlisted piece of legislation. The House would like some reassurance about these points.
  Secondly, no timetable motion is an island unto itself. This one will be looked at not only in relation to what has happened in the past but to what might happen in the near future. I have no idea what the final fate of the arguments about the Abortion (Amendment) Bill will be, but should the provisions of that Bill be attached to another piece of legislation, as has been postulated in the press, I hope that my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will think long and seriously before proceeding with any timetable motion that would affect legislation that incorporated the provisions of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. We must consider that, because what happens now will inevitably cast a shadow on that possible legislative development some weeks hence. It may never come about, but the House would be neglectful if it did not consider the possibility.
  Thirdly, the Bill now contains provisions for Northern Ireland that were introduced at a late stage. I would not anticipate the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) but the House knows, from its intimate concern with Northern Ireland affairs over the years, that the idea of transforming British legislation into United Kingdom legislation by making a common provision for the Province is a matter of considerable constitutional significance, which I suspect would split the House in several directions. I shall not dwell on that this evening, except to say that one cannot introduce legislation of this character, with its implications for

  399
  precedent, on some sort of side wind introduced on Report. That is not a proper use of parliamentary procedure.
  My final point about what will happen in another place has already been made. This is not a happy evening, but I hope with all my heart that it will see the end of this Bill in the House of Commons.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: What would be wrong if it had more time?
  Mr. Biffen: That very intervention, coming from the quarter that it does, and with the zeal that it does, persuades me that it would be unhappy to have the Bill here again. It would all he stored up for the future, and its return in July would not be for the good health of the Government.
  We know that the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentleman-at-Arms, rightly described this evening as more of a beater than a Whip, has been extremely successful. My anxiety is that the flock that flew on Monday were homing pigeons, and that they will come back again and provide more embarrassment for the Government on this legislation than they did on the community charge.
  We have made no provision to deal with the Lords amendments under the security of the timetable motion. Why was it decided not to provide the security of a timetable motion for amendments in the other place? There must be some rationale behind that. The House is entitled to answers to those questions.
  I end as I began. My right hon. Friend has had a difficult task to discharge. I shall be delighted to support him, and I urge my hon. Friends to do likewise.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. William Ross: We have listened to a most interesting and entertaining speech from the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He referred to the fact that the Bill was extended to Northern Ireland at the last moment, a matter which annoys Northern Ireland Members intensely. That should not become a precedent. If the Government were to pursue this course in future, time and again legislation for Northern Ireland would be introduced and we would not even know it was coming. Only a fortnight ago today the amendment extending the Bill to Northern Ireland was tabled and it was just by chance that I happened to notice it the next morning.
  That is not the only problem. The real difficulty is that, before we proceed with this Bill, we need to figure out exactly how we come to be here this evening and why we have a Bill which apparently needs so much amendment. It goes back to the Home Secretary's speech in September 1987, when he referred to rifles of the type used by Ryan. He gave a public undertaking at that time, no doubt speaking on behalf of the Government, that these rifles would be banned. Considering the period between the incident at Hungerford and his speech, he cannot have taken time to consult his hon. Friends, such as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who know about these matters. In other words, he reacted without thinking the matter through. The Hungerford horror is the foundation of this Bill, and a mighty poor foundation it is.
  If I had not served in Committee I might not have tabled as many questions as I did, but my interest was
  400
  aroused by what I heard there and the correspondence that I received. I understand that the police should carry out the firearms procedures with great precision. When I started to receive answers saying that events happened on or about certain dates; when I was told that the ammunition used was armour-piercing when it was nothing of the sort, thereby betraying that the Home Office did not have the expertise to distinguish the one from the other; when I was told that the alleged bullet-proof jacket was a Barbour body warmer; when I was given wrong dates which were subsequently corrected but only after I had tabled further questions; and when I found out that some of the information for which I asked but which I was not given was safe and well in a policeman's pocketbook, I began to wonder what on earth was going on.
  The only reasonable and proper course to follow is to have a full public inquiry into the offence on the day at Hungerford when there was immense confusion—which one can understand considering the unprecedented conditions—and, more important, into whether the Thames Valley police followed their procedures on the possession of weapons in Ryan's case. I am particularly interested to know whether Constables Hoyes and Wainwright, who interviewed Ryan at various times, saw his membership cards and all that they were supposed to see, or whether they merely took his word on that.
  If there is no public inquiry, there is no way that the Government can prevent the reopening of the inquest into the incident. Sixteen people were killed and a great deal of material damage was done. There are also undoubtedly an enormous number of claims for compensation against insurance companies which can be reopened, when clever barristers will undoubtedly ask nasty questions of the police force which is looking after the Home Secretary's constituents.
  I am skimming over this because there is a great deal to do and I do not want to waste time. The Government in their panic quickly to allay public fear found themselves running with the mob and shouting against firearms. The truth is that firearms legislation is an extremely difficult and complex subject. There should normally be two or three years of gestation before it comes to light, with full, long debates among all interested parties. The fact that we have this huge number of sensible amendments tonight is positive proof to anybody who knows the subject that the Government have lost the argument and are using the jackboot.
  In Committee it was interesting to see how Labour Members, who were initially as committed to the legislation as the Government, changed their minds. The Government were committed by the Home Secretary's speech, but ineffective law is not the answer to the problems of gun control. There should be a common-sense acceptance of the limits that the law can accomplish. The Government should have done what the 1984 working party on the firearms legislation sought, which was to have a single, comprehensive system of administration of our firearms legislation in all police forces. If the Home Secretary had noted such advice and questions, Ryan might never have got his guns and we might not have been here this evening.
  8.25 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: It is a sad day for me to know that we shall make further progress on a Bill which

  401
  I know to be wrong. I have been in the House for a long time and I have never felt less happy about the passage of a Bill through Parliament.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) talked about morality, but with the high profile of the Home Office Ministers on moral standards, the words I use in this context are "fairness" and "justice". Few legitimate shooters feel that they are receiving justice from the Home Office tonight.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that we had had a lengthy time to debate the Bill on Monday night, but the Government have tabled a huge number of amendments at a late stage. We made good progress on the subjects that we are discussing, considering the grouping of amendments. Some people may describe this as a guillotine, but shooting people think it is more like a firing squad, and they have had no chance to plead their case properly. We should oppose the motion so that they get a fair hearing, particularly bearing in mind the enormous addition of Northern Ireland to the Bill.
  The sad event that we all deplore was in August. Without consultation, although the British Shooting Sports Council and other governing bodies asked for consultation, the Home Secretary made his announcement at the end of September in such detail that he could not have consultations later to reverse his recommendations. So we had a White Paper and, a couple of weeks later, a Bill. Nobody can conceivably believe that they were not both printed together. There was no effective consultation between the White Paper and the Bill.
  The Second Reading certainly showed that there was little support for the Bill. We had a good Committee stage with all-party discussion and a number of Government defeats. There would have been many more Government defeats had we not listened assiduously to the Under-Secretary of State, who gave many intimations that he would look favourably on the amendments before the Committee. We should have examined in greater detail the small print which he produced in answer to our pleas.
  Tonight we should have two debates—it is unlikely that we shall have time for both, which is disappointing and the reason why I oppose the motion—on the self-loading rifle in relation to disablement. On Monday the Minister did not respond to that issue. I wish to read out three extracts from letters I received today. John Brough of Halewood on Merseyside writes:
  "I now have arthritis throughout my body and can hardly shoot at all, although it has been central to my life. Occasionally, if I am picked up and put in position, I can fire with my old self-loading rifle. Without it, that is the end for me.
  People like me had hoped and believed that Mr. Hogg was going to make an exception for small-magazine self-loading rifles. But now we see he has dropped the idea."
  I have also received information about Mr. Dave Adams in my constituency who had a serious accident, was caught up in a lathe and can now shoot only with a self-loading rifle. He will have to give up his sport because of the Bill. I have also received information about Mr. Colin Marshall of Carlisle, who admits that he has an FN FAL 7·62 self-loading rifle. He says that he accepts that he must part with that, but he would buy an integral-magazine rifle so that he can continue the sport he loves.
  Why are the Government hammering away at the disabled and not allowing them to carry on with small
  402
  integral-magazine self-loading rifles? I hope that the Minister will give an early undertaking that he will concede amendment No. 91 for five-shot integral magazines. If he does that, we can make rapid progress tonight, but I want to know in detail, when he winds up, why the Government have their knife into those people who are disabled and want to use small-magazine self-loading rifles. I cannot find any reason to justify the attitude that they have taken.
  There are many makes of such rifles available. I have today received a telex from Ruger in America saying that it can provide a five-shot six-magazine rifle. If we make small-magazine self-loading rifles legal, the gun trade will provide those guns so that people can continue to enjoy the sport. The Minister's attitude, that there are not sufficient rifles to justify that course, does not stand up.
  We have not had time to debate this issue tonight, but I am concerned that some police forces are now behaving as if the Bill were already in force, although it has a long way to go. They are making great difficulties about SLRs and are now being difficult about automatic pistols as well.
  Amendment No. 148 and the other amendments in that group have been selected early but will be voted upon late. If the Minister wants his party to go home early tonight, he has only to say that he will not move amendment No. 148 and the others in that group and will therefore leave the consultative committee in the Bill, as we had expected him to do following debate in Committee. We were particularly disappointed, having been assured by the Government last Thursday that the consultative committee would remain in the Bill, to find, on Friday morning, that a whole host of amendments had been tabled, making a mockery of what we put into the Bill. That is why we resent so much the Government's approach.
  Those are the two main reasons why we need more time tonight. Nothing in the Bill will have any effect on the armed crime in this country that all of us are so keen to see reduced. The Home Secretary has hauled out the 1973 Green Paper which was thown out by the Conservative party at that time, and has transformed it into this Bill, which is so unacceptable to those who know a little about shooting. We have had a Second Reading, a Committee stage and a Report stage and—perhaps the only honourable exception has been my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson)—no one has spoken in support of the Bill, except the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), which in itself should be the death knell for any Bill.
  I ask the Government to think again about the SLR and the consultative committee. If the Minister agrees to do so, and announces it tonight, he will be able to make quick progress and the party can go home early. But he must announce those concessions.
  8.35pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I also oppose the guillotine motion. Like other hon. Members, I look forward with interest to observing the fate of the Bill when it reaches the other place, but perhaps I might offer this advice to Ministers. If they ensure that the Bill reaches the other place after 12 August and before 1 February, many of those peers who turned out this week to help them on another matter might be engaged elsewhere and the Bill might have a better chance.
  The unhappy circumstances in which we find ourselves this evening are a direct consequence of the history of this

  403
  measure. The unfortunate events in Hungerford in August promoted, or perhaps to put it more correctly provoked, a very early White Paper. I do not blame the Government for that because the general sense of apprehension and revulsion which those events caused was undoubtedly a justification for an early implication of what the Government might propose to do, but that White Paper was followed hard on its heels by a Bill.
  There can be no question but that there was no proper consultation with the relevant shooting authorities between the publication of the White Paper and the publication of the Bill. That lack of consultation has given rise to so much of my mail—I have no doubt other hon. Members have received similar mail—from people who are legitimately entitled to use and keep weapons. If the White Paper was rushed out as an early and urgent response to the events of Hungerford, that itself made even more acute the requirement that there should be proper consultation.
  The Bill then received its Second Reading. I do not believe that it does any disservice to history to say that, on that occasion, the Bill had hardly a friend in the House. If the fate of the Bill had been determined by speeches made about it on that occasion, it would certainly have gone no further. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, so I cannot speak with authority about that, but the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has told us of the concessions that the Government have made in relation to compensation and the consultative committee. One pauses only to observe that, if there had been a consultative committee such as was conceded in Committee, many of the defects of the legislation which have been isolated by scrutiny in this House would not have existed and the circumstances in which the Government now find themselves would have been eradicated.
  I would not for a moment seek to do other than accept the constitutional observations of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) about the Northern Ireland provisions. Those appear to be well taken points to which the House should give close scrutiny. However, the addition of Northern Ireland at that late stage was grossly provocative. What was in the Government's mind when they introduced Northern Ireland into the Bill? How did they expect Northern Ireland Members to respond? It was, at the very least, an insensitive and unnecessary provocation.
  This legislation has been hasty. It may or may not deserve the description of botched, but it is certainly an example of Government mismanagement, and a guillotine in this House should not be available to save the Government from the consequences of their own actions.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Perhaps I should remind the House that the longer we spend on this motion the less time there will be to debate the amendments.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I have never hidden from the House the fact that my reason for being involved in this Bill is, at least to some extent, the dreadful massacre that happened in my constituency nine months ago. Therefore, my last duty to the 16 people, almost all of whom were my constituents, who were killed on that day and to the 14 who were wounded is to see the Bill through and on to the statute book as soon as possible.
  404
  We all remember the media reaction to the news of that event. The view was expressed in many quarters that it was time for greater control on guns in this country. I suggest that this 20-clause Bill achieves at least some of the objectives that we want it to achieve.
  I am told endlessly by people in the shooting lobby that if they had been given more time the Bill could have been much better. The shooting lobby has sent me material which I have ploughed through. I sat through 27½ hours in Standing Committee, and all I can say is that the amendments and the speeches do not seem to have produced any strong, fresh proposals which could have been enacted by any Home Secretary. The Bill is as good as any Firearms Bill could he at the moment.
  No doubt arguments will be set out in later stages for other changes in the law. I suggest that at the moment this is the best Bill that could come before the House. I hope that it will become an Act before we reach the first anniversary of what happened at Hungerford.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: We all echo sincerely the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). If the Government refrain from amending the Bill, as they intend, perhaps the Bill will reach another place in a reasonably acceptable fashion. The purpose of this guillotine motion is to remove from their shoulders the embarrassment that the Government feel at having got themselves into this position and place it on the shoulders of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have spoken on behalf of the 2 million shooters and 3 million people who support the shooting lobby—5 million people in all.
  The Standing Committee did a first-class job. I was not a member of the Committee, but the Bill came out of Committee much better than it went in. The Government are now doing their best to emasculate the Bill and the consultative committee. They are not honouring their commitment on self-loading rifles with integral magazines of five rounds, and they are not going far enough on compensation. I do not want to be party to a conspiracy to rob people of their property. That is what the Bill does. Conservative Members are sometimes criticised for believing in private property. I do not want to support a party which says that it will make unlawful some property which has been purchased and provide only 50 per cent. of the value when unlawful weapons are confiscated.
  On Monday the House should have recommitted the Bill to the Standing Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) proposed. It did not do so because when the decision to debate the Bill on Report was made the previous week, we had been given a firm sign from the Government that they would listen to our representations and perhaps compromise on their stand. We should have tabled the motion on Thursday. Had that happened, we would have had time to brief our Conservative colleagues, many of whom were supportive of the motion on Monday, but would not follow us in the Lobby because they had not been through the normal practice of warning the Whips that they would vote against the Government: on a three-line Whip.
  Hon. Members have referred to Ulster. I have tried to discover how the House forms legislation for Ulster. The answer is simple. The Government do what they feel they

  405
  should do according to the circumstances. There are no rules. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) was treated very shabbily in that respect.
  The Government are likely to find themselves in an embarrassing position in another place. I have no idea what will happen this evening with regard to votes. We will listen attentively to what Ministers have to say. If we win the small concessions that we want, the chances are that the Bill will go to another place in a reasonable state.
  We understand that there is no really effective official Opposition in this Parliament. Presumably that is why the Government now seem intent on winning recruits for their awkward squad from Conservative Members who have hitherto been among the Government's staunchest supporters. The Government are becoming the opposite of Austen Chamberlain. People said of him that he always played the game and always lost. This Government are beginning never to play the game, and, because of the three-line Whipping system, they will never lose.
  8.45 pm
  Sir John Farr: I want, first, to comment on the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who criticised my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for saying that there should possibly be a mechanism in the motion to provide for a guillotine in another place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North may not have thought of the fact, which I understand to be true, that the other place, by and large, believes that the Bill is not bad. Therefore, it may not be necessary for a guillotine to operate there. The Bill was considerably amended in Committee—more than it should have been, in my opinion—and when it is considered in the other place there may be only a few amendments, which would make a guillotine unnecessary.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said that he had not heard anyone in this place speak in favour of the Bill. I believe that the Bill is first-class. It has been first-class all along, and the only thing wrong with it is that the Government were bamboozled in Standing Committee into making outrageous concessions. The one concession which no self-respecting Government should have made relates to compensation for firearms that are removed from circulation. I have received information which establishes firmly for me the fact that anyone with a weapon that is taken out of circulation as a result of the Bill will receive the market price. There are always European and world prices for weapons. It is immaterial whether they are licensed.
  The Government made another concession by agreeing to set up a statutory standing consultative committee, for which the firearms lobby has been clamouring for years. I never heard anyone say, "Thank you for the committee." For years my hon. Friends have said that that committee should exist to allow the firearms lobby to be heard and consulted by the Government. They have been given the committee, but I am not sure that they deserve it. They have been given the right to compensation, and also a statutory committee. In addition, the Government made a concession, which I believe was unwise, over Northern Ireland.
  406
  Most of my constituents believe that Hungerford changed the tenor and course of firearms legislation in Britain. They demand that the Home Secretary take action. I believe that the original Bill that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary placed before the House some time ago was far better than the amended creature before us today.
  Another reason why I shall vote in favour of the guillotine motion, apart from the public's general desire for a new, meaningful Firearms Act on the statute book, is related to an incident that occurred nearly a year ago. Many people may have forgotten this. Alan Bray, a gun dealer at Hinckley in Leicestershire near my constituency, was beaten up by intruders, bound, doused with petrol and set alight while he was still alive. Local people will have to deal with such problems. The sooner we have a meaningful new Firearms Act, the better.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I had not been in the House very long before I realised the great merits of guillotine motions. Therefore, it is with a heavy heart that I shall vote against this one tonight. I have great sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who joined the House on the same day as me. I too had a disaster in my constituency and I know what my hon. Friend has been through. I must tell the House that if the Bill had been enacted before the incident at Hungerford, it would not have prevented it. More than half of those who were killed in that terrible incident were not killed with a self-loading rifle. My hon. Friend has admitted that that proposition is correct.
  I know that the House is in a hurry, and I have just one point to make because this is the first opportunity I have had to seek a response from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. What is the reason for the Bill? Throughout the Committee stage, the Under-Secretary denied that Hungerford was the reason. There is no secret in the fact, however, that a Bill was hastily brought down from a dusty shelf and produced before us in answer to some imaginary public demand that something should be done.
  Nothing is being done in the Bill that will affect crime and nothing is being done that would have stopped the tragedy at Hungerford. I believe that the Government have made a grave mistake in responding so hastily and so unwisely. I make no apology for having given the Bill as rough a ride as possible. I believe that those who agree with me have won the argument, and I am sorry that we shall lose the vote.
  8.51 pm
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not intend to delay the House long because I am aware that we want to get to the vote. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow. Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is making a lot of noise in support, which makes a pleasant change.
  It saddens me that, and I confess that I do not understand how, somebody for whom I have the deepest respect—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—can bring to the House a Bill that initially contained a clause that amounted to confiscation of lawfully owned property. That is something that the Conservative party has always opposed, and I understood it to be among the most important of our principles.

  407
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in a speech marked for its humour and not its content, told us that a concession had been made in Committee. He said that the Government are now going to give compensation for taking away a lawfully owned rifle. I find it extraordinary that anyone can describe as a concession something that is fundamental to the beliefs that we hold. When we discuss that compensation, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be able to confirm that he is prepared to be even more lenient in his treatment of people who hold such weapons. I hope that that compensation will accurately and properly reflect the value that the owner could expect to get on the market. At the moment, the clause does not offer that.
  On Monday night, we discussed Northern Ireland at some great length. I pay great credit to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office for apologising to the House for having introduced the amendments so late. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) that this is no way in which to bring in legislation of such great significance. It is disgraceful that the Government should have introduced such amendments after the Committee stage—which lasted a long time. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) sat on that Committee, but was denied the opportunity to discuss the implications for Northern Ireland because he did not know that such amendments were to be introduced. As I understand it from Monday night's debate, the Government were well aware during the Committee stage that they were proposing to bring in amendments to affect Northern Ireland.
  The Government's decisions on compensation and on Northern Ireland are wholly unacceptable to me and I believe to most of us on the Government Back Benches. When the dreadful day comes when our party moves back to be the Opposition, we will rue the precedents we are creating in the Bill.
  The first specific point that I wish to make relates to firearms. I do not understand why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not be more flexible about SLRs. It has been rightly pointed out many times that, in Committee, my hon. Friend was flexible and understanding on all the important issues in the Bill—or appeared to be—and he made concessions which we all recognise have vastly improved the Bill. In its initial drafting the Bill must rank as one of the worst ever brought before the House. Why is my hon. Friend sticking on SLRs? [Interruption.] I would he grateful if Opposition Members spoke more quietly, as I can hardly hear myself.
  I want to know why the Under-Secretary believes that the banishment of the SLR from the arsenal of weapons that are held lawfully in this country is essential. I accept the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has made, and I understand why he has done so. Of course a Bill had to be introduced, but it should not have been so rushed and it should not have been introduced in its present form.
  What is so significant about the SLR? My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has already said that it is essential to the handicapped. It is useful to many deerstalkers and particularly for culling, as opposed to the sporting pursuit of deer. That rifle is essential to our sporting teams in international competition. They should be able to use the same weapons as their competitors.
  408
  The Under-Secretary of State has said that there are not many such rifles, and he mentioned the Beretta. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that more than 30,000 such weapons exist in the United States and more than 3,000 are to be found in Europe. I did not understand the logic of his argument that the number of SLRs is insignificant and that we should not allow for them in our legislation. That weapon is essential for our international sportsmen to compete adequately in the international arena. I must repeat that the compensation offered in the Bill is inadequate and must be improved.
  You said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that when we moved on from discussing the guillotine, we could discuss the Bill in detail. In reality, we can do nothing of the sort. We took six hours to debate the first five groups of amendments on Monday and I can say with honesty that nobody to whom I listened during that debate—I was present for all of it—filibustered. All the contributions were sensible and to the point. We have 33 such groups left and we are supposed to debate them in the next four hours. That is absurd. I believe that the Government, aware of the weakness of their case, do not wish us to consider the Bill properly.
  I do not accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) said. I did not understand the logic of his speech. He was not here on Monday night, he did not listen to the arguments. If he had been here, I am sure that he would not have made the speech that he did tonight. Nothing that he said in support of the Bill bears examination. I hope that he was wrong when he said that our noble Friends in another place will accept the Bill. I should have thought that when they consider the arguments they will find the Bill unacceptable. I look forward to a different Bill coming back to the House in due course.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I shall vote against the guillotine, for two reasons. First, I believe that it is a demonstration of extraordinary maladroit man management by the Government. I played some small part on the last occasion when a guillotine was directed by the Government against their own supporters on the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill. Certainly we were prolonging the proceedings with a view to trying not only to appeal to the broad spirit of Unionism within the country, but also to demonstrate that the Northern Ireland Assembly would never work. The fact that we were right and that the Government have since suffered a major humiliation is not material to this argument.
  There are perhaps between six and 10 hon. Members who have strongly felt views about the details of the legislation. They are not seeking to appeal by great principles to a broad body of people outside the House of Commons; they wish merely to get a slightly better deal on some of the details of the legislation. Their legitimate complaint could have been dealt with perfectly adequately over a longer period by those on the ever-growing payroll in the Conservative party. If the payroll cannot stay up occasionally to vote down 10 people, it is a poor lookout.
  This is a most disagreeable display of macho vigour, presumably by junior Ministers at the Home Office and the more energetic and less wise members of the Whips Office. It would have been a great deal better if the matter had been argued through for a few more evenings, if the

  409
  payroll had been here to vote and if some of the younger and more enthusiastic members of the Tory party who wish to ingratiate themselves with the Administration had been obliged to look up a few points which no doubt would have been supplied to them by the Home Office. Instead, 10 or 12 hon. Members have been given a legitimate grievance which they will feel for the rest of this Parliament. That is a small House of Commons point, and it shows that even the Tory party, which used to pride itself on its wisdom and sensitivity in man management, can make mistakes.
  However, there is a wider and more constitutional point. Some hon. Members in the Conservative and Unionist parties have tried to explain to the people of Northern Ireland that their interests and their grievances should properly be ventilated in this place. The people of Northern Ireland are entitled to say, "First of all, we had Stormont foisted upon us, and we did not want that. Over 50 years we achieved some affection for that institution. As our affection for that institution developed, our respect and affection for Westminster sadly diminished. Then they gave us direct rule and tried to persuade us that our interests would be dealt with in the House of Commons. They said to us, quite legitimately, that they in the House of Commons have proper rules of procedure and if we have a grievance we can write to our Member of Parliament and proper time will be given for him to consider our representations, and if he happens to agree with us, he will raise it on the Floor of the House and perhaps in Standing Committee."
  It was an impertinence by the Government, who are still the historical holder of the flag of Unionism, to say to the people of Northern Ireland a week ago, "We shall extend the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. We give you at most three days to consider the way in which the Bill will affect Northern Ireland." What chance has anyone who is not directly involved in politics to write to his Member of Parliament and explain, for instance, the special security aspects of Northern Ireland and to say whether he wishes the legislation to be extended to other activities, whether he wishes the legislation to be tightened or loosened in respect of Northern Ireland? That is the most offensive way in which to legislate for Northern Ireland.
  I say that with great regret, because it is widely known that many Opposition Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland are coming to the view that the only proper future for Northern Ireland is to have some separate or devolved constitution. Those of us who wish to retain the union must be extremely careful to ensure that proper constitutional proprieties are always observed in respect of Northern Ireland.
  This method of dealing with Northern Ireland is a disgrace. It has deprived the citizens of Northern Ireland of their proper rights. It is a manifestation of the most crass, arrogant English attitude towards Northern Ireland. Every hon. Member who has any sense of history and any sense of the union and of the great sacrifices made by Northern Ireland for the United Kingdom should vote with vigour against this disgraceful guillotine.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West
  410
  (Mr. Budgen) has given one good reason why we should oppose the guillotine this evening, but some of my hon. Friends may be in doubt as to what happened in Standing Committee and in Monday night's debate. There was not one single filibuster. We had a constructive debate on a lot of technical matters. Throughout the Committee, we made very quick and good progress, given the complexities of the legislation. I was under the impression that the guillotine was imposed only after deliberate filibustering by hon. Members trying to foul up the works, but in this case there was none of that.
  Furthermore, I remember well that in Committee my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told us that firearms legislation depended on trust and co-operation between the shooting community and the police. We want to expedite the Bill to put it on the statute book as soon as possible, but the patience of the shooting community is being pushed to the limit by the Bill's provisions. If the shooting community can say, as it will be able to, that the House of Commons did not even discuss measures that affect it, its freedoms and its liberties, it will resent the Bill even more.
  If we support the guillotine, we shall bitterly regret doing so. The Bill is pushing the patience of the shooting community a long way, and if we support the guillotine motion it will have a genuine grievance. That is why I shall vote against the motion this evening.
  9.6 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Let me deal briefly with a number of points that have come up. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), in his glittering, amoral speech, expressed the hope that another place would not change the Bill. I share that hope, but we cannot be sure, so it is right to provide against that possibility. That is the purpose of paragraph 6 of the order which provides for a timetable if necessary in that event. It is opaque, it is difficult to constitute, but my right hon. Friend of all people should perhaps recognise that that is the traditional way of dealing with that particular problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has just made a powerful speech in favour of the union and gave that as a reason for voting against the guillotine. However, he seems to be under the misapprehension that the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland falls under the guillotine. This matter was discussed at some length on Monday night. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) rightly pointed out, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office did, as it were, come clean on that matter. Therefore, it is not subject to the guillotine.
  Mr. Budgen: The point I made was that, if a constituent in Northern Ireland wishes to make representations to his Member of Parliament, he will not have sufficient time to do so and to receive any sort of answer from his Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Hurd: I am not talking about the whole question of the application, because that was dealt with on Monday night. It is not an argument for voting against the timetable motion.
  Mr. Budgen rose——
  Mr. Hurd: No, I shall not give way. My hon. Friend and I will continue to disagree on that point.
  Mr. Dobson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although the new clause extending the Bill to Northern Ireland was debated earlier this week, a large number of amendments relating to Northern Ireland will be caught by the guillotine?
  Mr. Hurd: The general principle that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was addressing is not touched on by the timetable motion and is not relevant to a vote on it.
  Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend clear up one point for us? If Ministers knew that the Bill would be extended to Northern Ireland before the Committee concluded its consideration of the Bill, why was the Committee not told?
  Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office dealt with that specific point at some length on Monday night, as my hon. Friend will probably know. The question who received what letter when was exhaustively discussed that night.
  Any firearms legislation is likely to be deeply controversial. Anyone who knows the history of the subject knows that to be true. On this occasion, the controversy on the Bill surfaced late. If we had rushed a Bill through using some emergency procedure in the autumn, we might have got it relatively easily. That is what we were urged to do by the Opposition and a large part of the press. We did not do that. We deliberately followed a normal procedure which allowed for reflection, criticism and change, and reflection, criticism and change is exactly what there has been.
  All this time we were urged by the Opposition to move faster and further. I was accused of spending too much time with the gun lobby. I have all that history in mind when I hear accusations that there was some kind of knee-jerk reaction.
  Since Second Reading, we have taken the view that certain pillars of the Bill had to be held to, and we have held to them. There are other matters on which we have been moved, and I congratulate my hon. Friends on their powers of persuasion. It was persuasion, because we could have removed at this stage clauses that were carried against us in Standing Committee. By and large, we have not done so. The result is a raft of Government amendments. The amendments are to a large extent the result of concessions, made and promised in Standing Committee, exacted by my hon. Friends. It is a little hard to press us to show flexibility and open-mindedness and then, when we do, to complain of the amendments tabled as a result.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend concede that the one aspect of the Bill which has been omitted is that concerning the availability of weapons to people with mental health problems? That point appears to have been ignored. The application form makes provision for self-certification, and applicants are asked to declare whether they have a mental health problem. However, the general practitioner is not asked to countersign. Should not an amendment be brought forward to cover that point?
  Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department advises me that that matter will be raised at various stages in our discussions later, when my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) will have an opportunity to intervene and to receive an answer.
  In the meetings which my hon. Friend the Minister and I have had with our hon. Friends, they have emphasised three points on which they sought concessions. The first was the modification of the prohibition on self-loading rifles, with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in the van. The second concerned the buy-in procedure. The third related to the statutory advisory committee. We have done what my hon. Friend promised. We weighed up carefully whether concessions could be made in respect of self-loading rifles which would meet the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries without weakening a central pillar of the Bill.
  For reasons which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already given, and which he will repeat this evening, we concluded that that concession could not be made. However, the buy-in scheme and the statutory committee have been conceded. If my hon. Friends knew with what pain and difficulty my hon. Friend and I shook those two plums from the tree, they would be a little more generous when we offer that fruit to them on a dish.
  Mr. Higgins: As my right hon. Friend has failed to provide an amended financial memorandum to the Hill, now that the one provided on Second Reading has been overtaken by events, will he explain why it is that the compensation arrangements propose to ask for certification of what was paid for the weapon but to reimburse only 50 per cent?
  Mr. Hurd: There is an amendment covering that point, and I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill [Money] (No. 2) resolution, which was carried on I March, after Second Reading, as a result of the concession in principle that was made on that aspect.
  We are anxious to continue and to complete informed discussion——
  Mr. Higgins: My right hon. Friend has not answered my question. He must not try to rush this through and brush matters aside in that way. He has not explained why it is that somebody with a receipt showing what he paid for the weapon should be compensated only to the extent of 50 per cent. of its value.
  Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with that point later this evening. I thought that my right hon. Friend wished to refer to the point he raised when intervening originally, because it is that point with which I have dealt. I shall certainly give my right hon. Friend an answer to his other detailed point.
  Mr. William Ross rose——
  Mr. Hurd: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Hon. Members: Give way!
  Mr. Ross: There was considerable debate in Committee on the number of weapons that would be confiscated—the Home Secretary calls it compensation. Does the Home Secretary yet know how many of those weapons there are, and what will be the total cost, even on his miserly sums?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are debating the allocation of time motion.
  Mr. Hurd: The best estimate that we have, I am advised, is 8,000 to 10,000 rifles.
  We are anxious to continue, and to complete, in an informed way, the proceedings on the Bill. I do not need to state the background and the reasons for it, because they have been eloquently stated by two of my hon. Friends who are in a particularly good position to comment—my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). I do not need to labour or repeat their arguments. I hold those views strongly and believe that they amount to a powerful case for the motion.
  Question put:—
  The House divided:Ayes 278, Noes 142.

  Division No. 327]

  [9.15 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Cran, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Critchley, Julian

  Amess, David

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Amos, Alan

  Curry, David

  Arbuthnot, James

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

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Day, Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Atkins, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkinson, David

  Dover, Den

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dunn, Bob

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Durant, Tony

  Baldry, Tony

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evennett, David

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fallon, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Farr, Sir John

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Favell, Tony

  Benyon, W.

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Forman, Nigel

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Boswell, Tim

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Franks, Cecil

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Freeman, Roger

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  French, Douglas

  Brazier, Julian

  Fry, Peter

  Bright, Graham

  Gale, Roger

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gardiner, George

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

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gorst, John

  Burns, Simon

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Burt, Alistair

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butcher, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Butler, Chris

  Gregory, Conal

  Butterfill, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Ground, Patrick

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grylls, Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hannam, John

  Chope, Christopher

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

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

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Harris, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hayward, Robert

  Cope, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  414

  Heddle, John

  Needham, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hill, James

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Holt, Richard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howard, Michael

  Page, Richard

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

  Paice, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Irvine, Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Irving, Charles

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jack, Michael

  Redwood, John

  Janman, Tim

  Renton, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Key, Robert

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Kilfedder, James

  Rost, Peter

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rowe, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ryder, Richard

  Knapman, Roger

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knowles, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Knox, David

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lang, Ian

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Speed, Keith

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lilley, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Steen, Anthony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lord, Michael

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Stokes, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Sumberg, David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Summerson, Hugo

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maclean, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Madel, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mans, Keith

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maples, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tracey, Richard

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Tredinnick, David

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Trotter, Neville

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Miller, Hal

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mills, Iain

  Walden, George

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Walters, Dennis

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Ward, John

  Moate, Roger

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Warren, Kenneth

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Watts, John

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Wells, Bowen

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Wheeler, John

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Wilkinson, John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Wilshire, David

  415

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wood, Timothy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  NOES

  Allen, Graham

  Howells, Geraint

  Alton, David

  Ingram, Adam

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Barron, Kevin

  Kennedy, Charles

  Battle, John

  Lambie, David

  Beckett, Margaret

  Lamond, James

  Beggs, Roy

  Leighton, Ron

  Bellingham, Henry

  Livsey, Richard

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Bidwell, Sydney

  McCusker, Harold

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Boyes, Roland

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Bradley, Keith

  McLeish, Henry

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  McNamara, Kevin

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  McWilliam, John

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Madden, Max

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Marek, Dr John

  Buchan, Norman

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Martlew, Eric

  Buckley, George J.

  Maxton, John

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Meale, Alan

  Callaghan, Jim

  Michael, Alun

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Clay, Bob

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Clelland, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Cohen, Harry

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Colvin, Michael

  Mullin, Chris

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Murphy, Paul

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Nellist, Dave

  Corbett, Robin

  Patchett, Terry

  Cousins, Jim

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cox, Tom

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Crowther, Stan

  Prescott, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Cummings, John

  Redmond, Martin

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Richardson, Jo

  Dalyell, Tam

  Robertson, George

  Darling, Alistair

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Rowlands, Ted

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

  Salmond, Alex

  Dewar, Donald

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Dixon, Don

  Short, Clare

  Dobson, Frank

  Skinner, Dennis

  Douglas, Dick

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

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

  Eadie, Alexander

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Stott, Roger

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Strang, Gavin

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

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Flynn, Paul

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Turner, Dennis

  Galbraith, Sam

  Vaz, Keith

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Wall, Pat

  Gordon, Mildred

  Wallace, James

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Walley, Joan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Haynes, Frank

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Whitney, Ray

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  416

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Martyn Jones.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill

  Report and Third Reading
  1.—(1) The remaining proceedings on Consideration and the proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
  (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
  (3) Standing Order No. 80 ( Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

  Dilatory motions
  2 No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  Motion under Standing Order No. 20: extra time
  3.If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing the proceedings on the Bill to a conclusion at the time required by this Order, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
  and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule Mr. Speaker shall put only the question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not he interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

  Recommittal
  5.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.
  (2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Supplemental orders
  6. The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
Orders of the Day
  Firearms (Amendment) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.
  Firearms (Amendment) Bill
    New Clause 15

      COMMITTEE TO REVIEW FIREARMS LEGISLATION
      'The Home Secretary shall establish, within 12 months of the coming into force of this Act, a standing committee of no more than 15 persons, who shall elect their own chairman each year and whose members shall normally serve for no more than three years, which shall keep under review the operation of the Firearms Act 1968 and subsequent firearms legislation and which may make proposals for the amending of such Acts at time to time. The standing committee shall include representatives of the police, shooting interests, the gun trade and no more than two competent and qualified independent persons'.—[Mr. Corbett.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 148.
      Amendment No. 85, in clause 16, page 8, line 27, after 'Committee', insert
      'of whom the chairman shall be a senior member of one of the major institutions of criminology or a senior member of the legal profession chosen after consultation with the appropriate professional bodies.'.
      Amendment No. 84, in clause 16, page 8, line 28, leave out 'eight' and insert 'fifteen'.
      Amendment No. 87, in clause 16, page 8, line 29, after 'State', insert
      'to include at least one representative of the Police, the Home Office, the Military, and firearms users'.
      Government amendments Nos. 149 and 150.
      Amendment No. 90, in clause 16, page 8, line 40, at end insert
      '(3A) The Secretary of State shall publish the agenda and minutes of all meetings of the firearms expert consultative committee.'.
      Government amendment No. 151.
      Amendment No. 137, in clause 16, page 8, line 41, leave out
      'except in cases of special urgency.'.
      Amendment No. 139, in clause 16, page 8, line 41, leave out 'special' and insert 'extreme'.
      Amendment No. 138, in clause 16, page 8, line 41, leave out 'special'.
      Amendment No. 81, in clause 16, page 8, line 44, at end insert
      `(4A) The firearms expert consultative committee shall be empowered to call for submissions, evidence and figures concerning the administration of the principal and this Act from Chief Officers of Police.'.
      Amendment No. 140, in clause 16, page 9, line 6, at end insert
      `or the committee itself decide'.
      Amendment No. 142, in clause 16, page 9, line 12, leave out subsection (7).
      Government amendment No. 152.
      418
      Amendment No. 88, in clause 16, page 9, line 12, leave out 'five' and insert 'three'.
      Amendment No. 141, in clause 16, page 9, line 12, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.
      Amendment No. 89, in clause 16, page 9, line 13, at end insert
      `(7A) The Committee shall be empowered to call in for advice experts or persons with specialist knowledge in any particular field as the committee thinks fit.'.
      Mr. Corbett: It is an outrage that we should have to discuss important amendments and new clauses to the Bill against a timetable. However, that is what the Government have just delivered through its Whipping system, because they know that there is no natural majority on the Government Benches for many of the provisions of the Bill. The new clause and the amendments which go with it illustrate that point.
      In a sentence, the amendments tabled by the Government to the clause in the Bill setting up a consultative committee have one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to neuter the powers of that consultative committee. The committee was imposed upon the Government, and, having been beaten in Standing Committee, they now move to ensure that the committee has no real powers and is confined in such a way that it stands little or no chance of earning the respect of those who shoot for leisure or as part of their job.
      The Government have yet to understand—and I hope that they will—the hostility that this Bill has aroused among legitimate shooters. All of us who had the privilege of serving on the Committee have been overwhelmed, not just by the number of representations which we have had, but by the range of objections. Some of us on the Committee tried our best to respond to them.
      There is the contentious area of the differing attitudes of chief constables towards those applying for firearm certificates. Again, that is something on which the consultative committee could properly give advice.
      I was told today—and I hope that the Under-Secretary will say something about it later—that the chief constable for north Wales is refusing to renew firearms certificates for SLRs, and is issuing instead a piece of paper claiming to authorise the holder to keep the weapon until it is disposed of under the Bill. That anticipates the Bill passing into law. I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm that that action is now unlawful.
      In some earlier cases refusals have led to the courts, where the alleged unreasonable behaviour of chief constables for refusing certificates has been rejected. It can perhaps be best summed up in this way:
      "We have seen over recent years a belief growing amongst shooters that certain senior police officers are hostile to the shooting community and are abusing their discretion to the extent that they are seen to be writing what amount to new laws themselves."
      That is a serious criticism from the point of view of the police, the shooters, and relations between the police and the public.
      Those are not the words of some wildcats intent on fomenting trouble between police and shooters or police and public. They are not even the judgments of a police consultative committee. These charges come from a body with which the Government should have a special affinity. It is called the Association of Conservative Shooters. That is the measure of the gap that the Government have torn between legitimate shooters and the police. It was one

      419
      reason why the Committee insisted on the setting up of a representative group of those concerned with firearms and their proper use to try to heal those wounds and to build and develop a new and more positive partnership. Shooters do not object to proper firearms control. However, they properly insist that such controls should be fair and workable and that the police have a matching interest in that.
      What do the Government propose for the consultative committee? They want to put it in a straitjacket. They insist, in amendment No. 151, that its main role shall be narrow and be simply
      "to keep under review … the provisions"
      unless the Secretary of State "requests" the committee
      "to make proposals for amending"
      them.
      However, the position is even worse than that and the gag is even more secure. Seemingly the committee can advise the Secretary of State on any other matters relating to those provisions only when asked to do so. I advise the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State that, if the Government's amendments are passed tonight, no self-respecting person will serve on that committee under those confining terms of reference. No adult will volunteer for a "speak only when spoken to" role that does no more than reflect what went on in the nursery where the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary of State spent some of their formative years, and retained its bad habits.
      What is at issue is the role of the committee. Seemingly the Government see it as just another collection of the great and the good, sipping their coffee and waiting for the Secretary of State's messenger to arrive with some trivial request on which they can leisurely pass their time. It is a born-again Home Office working party. We want—that is why there was this argument and decision in Committee—a thoroughly representative committee of all the interests—police, shooters of all kinds, experts in weapons technology and criminologists, as independent members. We want them to have unfettered powers to speak and to offer advice to the Secretary of State, especially—I stress this—when he has not asked for it.
      Let it he understood that no one is asking, as the Minister has suggested, that the committee should have powers to veto. Those powers belong only to the Secretary of State, who is accountable to this House. We want a free-standing committee as much concerned with the provisions of the Bill and the way in which they work as with looking ahead and into other areas of firearms legislation. It cannot be effective if it is to be no more than a group. to monitor the effectiveness of the Bill. It must be able to wander more widely and to ask for submissions from whoever it feels can help, and its agendas and minutes should be published.
      Although clarifying the committee's role, the Government amendments gag it in a vital manner. Unless specifically asked by the Home Secretary, the committee is forbidden from recommending changes in legislation. That lies at the heart of our objections because it shows that the Government do not trust the committee or the people whom they hope will serve on it.
      The Government remove the direct representation of people with knowledge of or expertise in sport, recreation and competition shooting. It does little good to say they can he smuggled in under the terms of amendment No. 148, which refers to people with
      420
      "knowledge and experience of … the possession, use or keeping of"
      firearms. That is no way to deal with this matter and it is no way in which properly to reflect the legitimate interests of those who use weapons for sport, recreation or competition. People who use weapons for those purposes deserve and demand direct representation as of right.
      This is the first major revision of firearms legislation in 20 years. That makes it more important that the committee listens and learns from the experience of the implementation of that legislation and is able to say to the Secretary of State from time to time, and by its own decision, "This bit of the Bill is fine and is working, but you got this bit wrong. This is what you should now do." I thought that that was what democracy was supposed to be about. Unfortunately, the Government dislike the idea of the committee and they have gone out of their way to hamstring its work. In clause 16(4) the Secretary of State even gives himself a loophole to avoid consulting the committee by saying that that need not be done when there is "special urgency". What does that mean? What is likely to happen with such hidden suddenness that the Secretary of State needs to rush to the Chamber to propose another class of weapon to be added to the banned list behind the backs of the members of the committee?
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Gentleman is criticising the terms of clause 16(4) as they stand. He will remember that it is not a Government provision. He will note that amendment No. 151 seeks to delete the provision that he is criticising and to replace it with another.
      Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for responding in that way. Those outside the House are not able to follow the ins and outs of the amendments in the same way as ourselves. I wanted him to say what he has said, and I am grateful to him for having made the position clear.
      The nub of the matter is that the Committee will not be able to propose changes in firearms legislation unless and until the Secretary of State requests it to do so. That should not be acceptable to anyone, and it gives me no pleasure to repeat that it is my belief that no adult will agree or volunteer to serve on a committee that will be hamstrung and will be no more and no less than the Secretary of State's poodle.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have a high regard for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), but his criticisms of the Government's amendments are devoid of truth. There is no intention of emasculating the consultative committee. In many respects we have greatly improved the clause which was agreed to in Committee. It is no secret that I on behalf of the Government strongly opposed a statutory consultative committee. I was in favour instead of a consultative committee. The Government were beaten in Committee and we have accepted the defeat with good grace. We have tabled amendments that will meet a long-standing desire on the part of the shooting community for a statutory consultative committee. As it considers the terms of the Government amendments, I think that it will understand and accept that it meets its legitimate desires.

      421
      I am encouraged by the constructive approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) to the statutory consultative committee. I refer him and the House to the passage in which he said:
      "If the Minister feels that it needs to be drafted in a different way, we are more flexible than he has been from time to time, and I shall be glad to change anything that might be required, except on the issue of whether it is statutory or not. Advisory committees get us nowhere in this world, we need a statutory one."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F; 10 March 1988, c. 377.]
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, who spoke with great eloquence during the debate, laid down one essential condition—that the committee should be statutory—and we have met it. He made it plain that he had no objections to other significant changes, and I am grateful to him for his constructive approach. I look forward to hearing his comments, but it would be a pity if they showed a marked departure from the approach that he so generously adopted in Committee.
      9.45 pm
      Sir Hector Monro: One would have expected my hon. Friend not to devalue the committee, but to keep its original strength and content. Instead, one finds the truncated and emaciated rubbish that he has put in now.
      Mr. Hogg: We shall now examine the detail of the committee. I hope that my hon. Friend will concede—certainly the shooting community will—that what we have done is a substantial improvement on what was passed in Committee.
      The qualifications for membership are much the same in the Government amendments as they were in clause 16. The hon. Member for Erdington complained that there was no specific reference to people involved in sport, recreation and competition, but they are subsumed within the description of those having expertise in
      "possession, use or keeping of, or transactions in, firearms".
      People who have experience in the possession, use and keeping of firearms are those who use them for a variety of purposes, such as sport, competition and recreation. Clause 16 made no provision, for example, for those who happen to like collecting guns because they are collectors. Nor did it make much provision for museum experts or refer specifically to those who deal with firearms on a commercial basis. We have tried to devise a formula that encompasses within the criteria for membership every interest group that is legitimately represented. Those whose expertise is in shooting, recreation and competition are certainly among those whom I would expect to see on the consultative committee.
      There is one other great advantage that I hope my hon. Friend will be the first to concede—the increased number. His was a committee of no fewer than five and no more than eight. If he could have only eight he would find it difficult to include all those whom he wanted to include. We have enlarged the committee. We propose that the membership should be not fewer than 12. The object of the extension is to ensure that all the legitimate interests about which my hon. Friends are concerned find expression on
      422
      the statutory consultative committee, along with representatives of the police service, the forensic laboratories and so on. I suggest that the Government amendments are clearly to be preferred on these grounds.
      I come now to the second major issue—the purpose and functions of the statutory committee. The Government have greatly improved the terms of reference and remit of the committee. In clause 16 the committee had essentially only two functions. One was to be consulted before the Secretary of State did anything about the application and implementation of the principal Act. That was a right to be consulted, no more. It was not a right to make representations, to report to Parliament or to make suggestions.
      Secondly, under clause 5 the committee has a right to publish a code of practice. I shall return to that in a moment. It does not have a right to keep legislation, its implementation and administration under constant review, to make representations for its improvement or to make an annual report to Parliament. In each of those regards our amendments achieve just that. I suggest that we have greatly improved the functions of the committee.
      Amendment No. 151 states:
      "It shall be the function of the committee—
      (a) to keep under review the workings of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above"—
      which is a reference to the relevant legislation—
      "and to make to the Secretary of State such recommendations as the committee may from time to time think necessary for the improvement of the working of those provisions."
      Thus, the committee is empowered to do exactly what the shooting lobby has long asked for a statutory committee to have power to do. It is associated with an express power to present to Parliament each year an annual report. That is a manifest improvement on anything that appears in clause 16.
      Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Home Secretary will have an obligation to consult the committee?
      Mr. Hogg: No, the Secretary of State does not have an obligation to consult, because clause 16(4) is being deleted. But the converse is true: the committee has a mandatory duty to keep the legislation, its implementation and administration under review. It has a duty and a right to make representations and recommendations for approval, and it has a duty and a right to lay an annual report before Parliament. That is infinitely better than a loose commitment to consult, which in the end is meaningless.
      Mr. Corbett: I readily concede that these amendments improve what was done in Committee, but we are still left with paragraphs (b) and (c) of amendment No. 151. The committee can make proposals for amending legislation only if requested to do so by the Secretary of State, and it can advise the Secretary of State only on any other matter relating to those provisions which he may refer to it. In other words, it will be a kept committee which can speak only when it is spoken to.
      Mr. Hogg: No. I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman simply has not followed what I have been saying. It may be my fault and I am prepared to apologise if it is. He is wrong. I have made it plain on two separate occasions that the function of the committee is to keep the implementation and administration of existing and new

      423
      legislation under review, to make recommendations for its improvement and to make an annual report to Parliament. That is an enormous step forward, and it is different in kind from saying, "Incidentally, we recommend that clause 14 of a particular Bill should be drafted in different language," which is a more specific point.
      The committee is there to make representations and recommendations on how gun law can be improved. That is mandatory and is its duty and right. It can do that in its annual report or specifically to the Secretary of State. Under the amendments, the Secretary of State would feel that the consultative committee had a particular role to play on what would then be a fairly narrow issue. Therefore, it has a broad reviewing role together with the power, which the Secretary of State would greatly appreciate, to advise on specific points put to it.
      I appreciate that my hon. Friends may say, "Why has subsection (4) been struck out?" The answer is twofold. First, the right to be consulted adds up to nothing unless it is associated with positive rights and duties, which I have mentioned. It is also a recipe for delay and bureaucracy and it undermines the constitutional relationship between the Executive and Parliament. It would be nonsensical, because it would mean that the Secretary of State would have to consult on any of the decisions that he has to take under the firearms legislation; for example, whether to approve a Home Office approved club, to issue a section 5 certificate, or to issue a museum licence. One does not put such matters to a consultative committee. They are the day-to-day business of the Executive.
      The second matter about which, as I well understand, my hon. Friends are upset is the code of practice. They believe that the consultative committee should publish a code of practice relevant to legal proceedings. I have not heard of many consultative committees, which by their nature are accountable to no one, which can publish documents that have a direct impact on the way that courts conduct civil and criminal cases. That is offensive in principle. It is also nonsensical, because the advice on the implementation of firearms legislation is contained in the rules and the memorandum of guidance. What happens if there is incompatibility between the memorandum of guidance and the code of practice? It becomes nonsense.
      We have met a legitimate desire of the shooting community. We have given them a statutory committee for which they have long asked. We have framed it in such a way that it has a duty and a right constantly to review the implementation and administration of firearms legislation and to make recommendations for its improvement. That is a huge step forward for the shooting community. It is better than anything in clause 16, and on that basis I commend the Government amendment to the House.
      Sir Charles Morrison: My hon. Friends who were responsible, in Committee, for persuading a majority of Committee members to introduce clause 16 into the Bill should be congratulated on what they did because they have achieved something that has been the objective for many years of a great number of people concerned with firearms. The Government should be congratulated on at last accepting that a statutory firearms consultative committee is necessary.
      However, I am not quite certain, as the committee has now been set up, why my hon. Friends in Committee and now the Government in amendment No. 152 intend to give the committee a limited life. I cannot help thinking that
      424
      rather more permanence written into the Bill would provide greater confidence on the part of all those people involved with firearms. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will comment on that.
      The Government are right to try to amend clause 16 to the effect that the committee should consist of no fewer than 12 persons in addition to the chairman. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that, if all interests are to be covered, it would have been difficult for that to happen under the provisions of clause 16.
      However, I do not understand why, having increased the membership of the committee to a minimum of 12, my hon. Friend decides that it is right to cut out sport, recreation and competition membership. He has argued in amendment No. 148 that, it is possible for the Home Secretary to include every interest group in the membership of the committee, but, if amendment No. 148 is passed, the phrase "every interest group" will be within the judgment of the Home Secretary of the day. There is no guarantee that every Home Secretary will be as wise, sensible or broadminded as my right hon. Friend the current Home Secretary.
      Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that if, perish the thought and God forbid, we had a Home Secretary who believed that it was wrong for anyone to use a weapon—a shotgun or whatever—for sport, vermin control or game shooting, he could decide that they should not sit on the statutory committee? That is why it would be so dangerous to remove that subsection.
      10 pm
      Sir Charles Morrison: I accept my hon. Friend's point, which I was about to cover. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility, as far as I can see, for considerations of sport, recreation and competition to be outside the limitations of the consideration of the consultative committee. It is very important that representatives of sport, recreation and competition should be referred to specifically in the committee so that people who use firearms for sport, recreation and competition can feel completely confident that the consultative committee will be able to assess, advise on and judge their affairs.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give further thought to that. I appreciate that he may not be able to give an undertaking tonight, but I hope that at least he will tell us that the matter will be reconsidered in another place.
      Sir Hector Monro: The Minister's passionate speech tonight must mean that he has relatives called Houdini or Paul Daniels. He was passionately against the statutory committee in Standing Committee, yet tonight he argued for it as if it was his long-lost friend that he was welcoming from central Africa. He appeared desperately keen to have the committee.
      I will refer to the Official Report of the Standing Committee, to which my hon. Friend the Minister likes to refer when that helps him. My hon. Friend said:
      "I am … positively against a statutory body … I am riot in favour of a statutory committee—I am not in favour of quangos—I am not in favour of involved terms of reference, rules as to appointment, powers on pay and such matters."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 10 March 1988; c. 384.]

      425
      No one argued more strongly against the statutory committee than my hon. Friend the Minister. However, the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in his reply to the guillotine motion, both took credit for setting up the statutory committee. Previously it appeared as if such a committee would be established only over the Minister's dead body. The way in which my hon. Friend tried to take credit for something that he had bitterly opposed was truly astonishing.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was taking credit—I hope that he will be given credit for this—for responding to the criticism of our position as expressed in Committee. We were beaten in Committee. We recognised that and we have come forward with proposals to respond positively to what the Committee wanted.
      Sir Hector Monro: It is all very well to say that now, but my hon. Friend the Minister did not put it that way in Committee. We are now watching the small print very closely.
      I support my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) on the issue of writing in sport, recreation and competition as responsibilities of the statutory committee. I cannot take the gamble that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might appoint someone from those areas to the committee unless they are specifically mentioned in the legislation.
      The whole history of this matter has shown the lack of consultation by my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary over this legislation. We are talking about an advisory committee which already exists in the form of the British Shooting Sports Council, made up of representatives from the governing bodies of shooting sports in this country. Yet the Minister went ahead and announced the main thrust of the legislation without consulting the advisory committee that had been set up to help the Home Office.
      I find it truly astonishing that, when the chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council, Lord Swansea—one of the best shots in the British Isles—wrote to the Home Secretary immediately after the disaster at Hungerford and said that he had at his finger tips all the governing bodies which wished to help, the Home Secretary did not consult them before he made his speech at Torquay to the police officers. That was a fatal flaw in the progress made by the Government when introducing the legislation.
      If the Home Secretary and the Minister are not prepared to consult the governing bodies of the sport which are in a unique position to advise the Government, how can we be certain that the Government will consult them in future unless we include in the consultative committee the things that matter?
      Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman is well known throughout the House and to Ministers as a person with a keen interest in shooting. In late August and September, did he happen to bump into anyone from the Home Office in the Corridor who said, "Look Hector, old boy, we are thinking about introducing a Bill. Would you like to give us some advice?" Was he approached by the Home Secretary or any of his other right hon. and hon. Friends?
      Sir Hector Monro: I am president of the National Small-Bore Rifle Association, vice-president of the National Rifle Association and in touch with other organisations. During the summer, those organisations, together with Lord Swansea, offered help, but I was never asked for my advice on how best to proceed, despite my parliamentary and ministerial experience.
      Mr. Corbett: As long ago as last July, the International Shooting Sportsperson Liaison Committee offered to meet officials of the Home Office. It received a dusty answer. When that offer was repeated in the past couple of days, the Committee was told that there was no way in which it would ever see the Home Secretary.
      Sir Hector Monro: That shows that the Home Office appears to have a built-in opposition to consulting anyone who might give it wise advice. I am afraid that Ministers must carry the can for failing to react to offers of consultation. That is why we are so concerned that the new clause, which receives all-party support, has been severely tampered with by my hon. Friend's amendments Nos. 148 and 151.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) and for Devizes have already said that the specific interests of sport, recreation and competition are important. They have also said that if other Home Secretaries use the wording contained in the Minister's amendments they could appoint to the consultative committee people with astonishing special interests, which might not be the interests of the shooting world.
      The whole idea of the consultative committee is a committee of experts—those who know the weapons and the shooting sports. I do not believe that it is a committee on which other voluntary organisations that are opposed to such sports should sit. It would be a technical committee of skilled knowledge.
      In Committee I was pleased that we had the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who has great experience in police matters; the police are included in the new clause.
      Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds supports the consultative committee is that he believes strongly in the uniform implementation of firearms legislation? The consultative committee would issue a code of practice that could be quoted in the courts. That would aid the uniform implementation of the legislation throughout the country and someone in Norfolk would receive the same treatment as someone in Tayside. Surely that is crucial.
      Sir Hector Monro: We frequently discuss uniformity. I hope that the Minister will respond, particularly as police forces throughout the United Kingdom seem to be acting as if the Bill were law, although there are a great many stages before that happens. Chief constables in different parts of the country are interpreting the law in different ways and producing different forms, and, as we heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), they are becoming very restrictive about pistols, which are excluded from the Bill. If we do not have self-loading pistols, we can say goodbye to target shooting with pistols in this country.
      Mr. William Ross: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but was not the question of uniformity raised in 1984 by the working party on the administration of the Firearms Act? Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary has sat on that recommendation from that day to this? If the Government had acted upon that recommendation, we would have had uniformity throughout the country in dealing with firearms applications. If we had had that uniformity in detail, and if the recommendations of the body referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) had been followed, Ryan might not have slipped through the net.
      Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If uniformity had existed we would not have needed this legislation at all. We are always asking for detailed statistics about armed crime and the use of rifles, but the Home Office has not yet produced them.
      Other hon. Members wish to speak in this truncated debate, so I shall make only one more point and I shall not labour it. Last week we were given the assurance that the statutory committee would remain in the Bill as it was, but the following day that assurance was reversed by Government amendment. That was not the way to treat colleagues in the House. My hon. Friend the Minister must be prepared to amend the Bill in another place, bringing in specific groups such as sport, recreation and competition, and bringing back codes of practice. If we cannot have uniform codes of practice throughout the country for every aspect of sport and recreation, we shall never have a really constructive approach to firearms control in this country.
      The hon. Member for Erdington made a splendid speech proposing his new clause and, like him, whatever the Minister said, I still have grave doubts that the Home Secretary will go to the statutory committee frequently enough and ask for its advice. The boot has to be on the other foot. That highly technical and specific committee must be able to look at legislation continually and tell the Home Secretary what he should do about it. That is the only way to proceed. I am very disappointed with the Minister's answer. He has let us down several times on what he said in Standing Committee. If he does not accept the will of the Standing Committee more frequently, I wonder what democratic legislation is all about.
      Mr. William Ross: I intervene briefly in the debate to draw attention to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and me. If the Minister looked carefully at our proposals about the consultative committee, he would see that his proposals would be vastly improved by accepting them. It may well be that the Home Office does not want the proposals to be improved as that might make life difficult for it because the expert advice would be frequent and solid. It seems to want to avoid that at all costs.
      The Minister will see that we ask for the chairman to be a senior member of one of the major institutes of criminology or a senior member of the legal profession. That is an excellent idea as such an individual would add greatly to the deliberations of any consultative committee. I must confess that I was very pleased that the Home Secretary has decided that the committee should consist of the chairman and 12 other people, making a total of 13. That is a considerable improvement. My right hon. Friend
      428
      and I preferred 15, but we shall not quibble over the extra two. However, perhaps he would be minded to give us the 15, which would give us a slightly wider spread.
      We should have representatives not only of the police, the Home Office and firearms users, but of the military. The one outstanding feature of our debates has been the sheer lack of expert technical knowledge which seems to be available only in military circles. If the Home Office would make use of serving military officers or ex-military officers with expertise in this area, it would be a great improvement.
      10.15 pm
      Above all, we need to know what the committee is talking about. There is no point in having a nice cosy little set-up of chief police officers, the Home Office and one or two other do-gooders unless the shooting world in general knows what is being discussed. For all that the shooting world knows, these committees might never meet unlless the agendas and minutes of all the meetings are published. I commend that to the Minister.
      Government amendment No. 148 refers to
      "the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the principal Act, the Firearms Act 1982 and this Act."
      In our amendment No. 81 we should like to go further than that. We ask that
      "The firearms expert consultative committee shall be empowered to call for submissions, evidence and figures concerning the administration of the principal and this Act from Chief Officers of Police."
      We are lacking in our knowledge of detail, and if those figures could be extracted from the chief officers of police, it would be a great help to us all.
      Amendment No. 89 says:
      "The Committee shall be empowered to call in for advice experts or persons with specialist knowledge in any particular field as the committee thinks fit."
      That goes rather further in seeking expert advice than the Government want to go. The Government should give that careful consideration and be sensible for once and accept what is said. If that is done, the committee will be vastly improved and will serve the shooting interests rather than those who are trying to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.
      Mr. Michael Colvin (Ronisey and Waterside): The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) ably moved new clause 15. He made the case for the expert consultative committee so convincingly that he really destroyed the argument for his own review committee, which will be no more than a talking shop when what we need is a committee with some statutory teeth. What he was proposing was not at all what the shooting fraternity would like to see.
      Other amendments in the group deal with the firearms expert consultative committee, established by Standing Committee F with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), speaking, presumably, with the authority of the police. What the Government are now proposing will largely emasculate the powers that clause 16 gives the committee.
      First, it changes the committee's composition. It increases its number from five to eight members to not fewer than 12 members and a chairman. That may seem to be of little consequence. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made the point that the increase

      429
      was a good thing because it brought more people on to the committee and therefore more of the vested interests would have an opportunity to participate.
      The problem is, as most people who have experience of committees will know, the bigger committees are the less they achieve. They tend to become talking shops. If the membership of a committee is so wide as to permit every organisation to push and shove and get on to it, its individual members, rather than being representatives with a broad experience of shooting, will tend to become delegates for their own narrow interests and will take up stances on that basis which will completely destroy what such a consultative committee is all about.
      To increase the membership to a minimum of 12 plus the chairman—and in time it could be much larger—might achieve precisely what I believe is the Government's real intention, which is to pay lip service to the idea of the committee but eventually to kill it off because it will become nothing more than an ineffective talking shop.
      My hon. Friends have already spoken about the need for people to serve on the committee who have knowledge of sporting, recreational and competition shooting. It is highly regrettable that the Government have left out that wide group.
      Government amendment No. 151 is crucial because it greatly reduces the committee's powers as enshrined in clause 16. It removes the code of practice which Standing Committee F felt was extremely important, and which is essential to effective administration and to ensuring the consistency and uniform administration of firearms legislation among police authorities. Uniformity has been mentioned by many hon. Members. One example of why it is important is that there exists considerable inconsistency in application forms. The Opposition moved new clause 16 on Monday evening, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State did not reply to their arguments for a uniform application form in respect of firearms and shotguns.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I reminded the House that there were already powers under the rules to prescribe a common form of application. In fact, a common form of application is now prescribed in the rules and is commonplace throughout the country.
      Mr. Colvin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply, because that would certainly be an improvement on what we have at present.
      Mr. Hogg: It is what we have at present.
      Mr. Colvin: In that case, why is it that the following is the case. Schedule 1 to the Firearm Rules 1969 sets out the rules for a form of application for the granting of a shotgun certificate. It calls for a counter signature from a person who shall be a Member of Parliament, a justice of the peace, a minister of religion, a doctor, a lawyer, a bank officer or a person of similar standing. However, schedule 4 to the same rules provides that the form of application for the grant, renewal or variation of a firearm certificate requires no counter signature whatsoever. Is that not rather strange?
      Mr. Hogg: It might help my hon. Friend if he will refer to rule 3 of the Firearm Rules 1969:
      430
      "Subject to Rule 7 of these Rules, an application for the grant of a shot gun certificate shall be in the form set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to these Rules."
      If my hon. Friend will read schedule 1, he will find the appropriate form printed there.
      Mr. Colvin: Can my hon. Friend say whether applications for firearm certificates will need to be countersigned, as applications for shotgun certificates have to be countersigned, by a responsible person?
      Mr. Hogg indicated dissent.
      Mr. Colvin: It appears that he cannot do so.
      Mr. Corbett: The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) is unknowingly enabling me to clear up some misunderstanding. The standard application form to which new clause 16 refers was meant to relate to a common form of documentation for use by all police forces and not to the form which the applicant originally completes. The standard application form is that which would be used to ask additional questions.
      Mr. Colvin: That was a useful intervention. I think that we are at one on this. We want uniformity, but we also want consistency between applications for shotgun certificates and those for firearm certificates. I do not think that the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary provides the answer.
      Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, may I raise another that bears on it? Would it not be much better if the referee were asked to give his view that the person was suitable to hold the certificate? As I have said to the Under-Secretary before, this point was made to me by a parson. At present referees are asked to certify only that the facts on the face of the application are true; they are not asked to certify that in their view the person is a suitable applicant. The parson told me that the facts were true and that he therefore felt obliged to sign the application, although in his view the applicant was not suitable for reasons of temperament.
      Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend makes a valid point which I hope the Minister will take on board and consider seriously.
      The new clause and amendments allow the consultative committee to keep firearms legislation under review and to make recommendations to the Home Secretary from time to time. The committee can make proposals for changing the law or tackling other matters only if asked to do so by the Home Secretary. The new clause removes all obligation from the Home Secretary to consult the committee unless he happens to want to do so, which I think greatly weakens clause 16(4).
      The amendments would leave us with a large, flabby committee, like a perpetual working party, examining the way in which the legislation is working but having no power of independent action, no code of practice, no relevance to the courts and no point of reference from all those engaged in firearms control. The committee can and will be ignored by Home Office officials. It will be obliged to submit an annual report to Parliament which is bound to be of limited value. After five years it will lapse, and it is very unlikely, in view of its unwieldy nature, that it will ever come into being again. That is why we strongly resent what the Government are trying to do to emasculate what was a very good proposal in Committee.

      431
      I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to think very seriously about what is being said this evening, and to reconsider his stand before the Bill is discussed in the other place.
      Sir John Farr: I welcome the proposal for a consultative committee. As some of my hon. Friends have said, it has been considered at the top level in Home Office circles for many years. Strong and persuasive arguments have always been put forward for a statutory firearms committee, yet the Home Office has always found good reasons for not putting the proposal into effect. I do not regard this as a concession by my hon. Friend the Minister. I would describe it as a wise adjustment of his position. What would the consultative committee do in the future that has not been done in the past 20 years or so? That is the basis on which we should decide whether the committee will be useful.
      It is exactly 20 years since the Firearms Act 1968 was passed. That, of course, was only a consolidating Act. It is 30 years since we had any major firearms legislation, good or bad. In that time there has been no real need for massive legislation, although from time to time it has been said that a consultative committee should be set up to see what people think about new legislation. There has been effective consultation between the British Shooting Sports Council—and the Long Room committee which preceded it—and representatives of the Home Office at all levels. For 20 years they got the answer right without a high-powered committee.
      If a member of the NRA, the NSRA, the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association or any of the other shooting bodies had a particular grievance, he knew that it would be considered right away by the Home Office—generally by the relevant very helpful officials. Therefore, while I agree that my hon. Friend the Minister has probably made a wise political concession by agreeing to the establishment of a consultative committee, I do not see how we have lost in the past 20 years by not having one.
      10.30 pm
      People may say, "If we had had a consultative committee 20 years ago we should not have had the fiasco of the 1973 Green Paper." That is probably true, and that Green Paper certainly was a fiasco. The then Conservative Administration came away with egg on their face and on firearms matters we have never really recovered from that. It could be argued that had we had a consultative committee, with all its representatives, no Conservative or Labour Government would ever have been so foolish as to present such a document.
      There is another respect in which such a consultative committee might have helped matters over the past 15 or 20 years. The members of such a committee would have made strong representations to the Home Secretary so that by now we should enjoy what I call a six-year certificate for shotguns and firearms. Not so long ago, a previous Home Secretary was in favour of a six-year certificate for shotguns. I feel that if a statutory standing committee had been in place then it would probably have proceeded with that Home Secretary and established a six-year certificate. On the whole, I welcome the idea of a committee because I think that the provision could help to frame future firearms legislation which may be round the corner and which we cannot foresee.
      432
      There is one omission from clause 16, which the Home Office is to amend. I have had a look at the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and they seem to improve matters. As drafted, the clause omits a reference to dealers. It concentrates almost entirely on the users of firearms and the effect of firearms legislation on them. Today the position of dealers is becoming more important. Their position is one of great responsibility. In many cases they hold large stocks of weapons, sometimes at great risk. The firearms consultative committee would be a better committee if the position of dealers could be considered from time to time.
      A little while ago I mentioned Alan Bray of Hinckley, a firearms dealer in Leicestershire, who was attacked by robbers masquerading as policemen. They got into his firearms shop, doused him with petrol and set him alight. They stole hundreds of weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition. The incident was had for Alan Bray, who will never be the same again. He represented Britain at the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, shooting with a handgun. He is lucky to be alive, but a far greater risk was created by the amount of arms that went underground and became available for every criminal to use.
      I support amendment No. 148. I should like dealers and suppliers to be covered too, however, so that we can ensure that they are first-class people and have the most sophisticated protective devices to guard their weapons, ammunition and premises 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
      Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: The establishment of a statutory consultative committee is a great improvement. I was therefore interested to see how the Government would deal with the idea, and I was impressed, as were others of my hon. Friends, by the fervour of the conversion of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
      I am worried about the failure to include on the consultative committee sport, recreation and competition interests. I shall not go into the matter in detail because Of the lack of time and because many others have already said how important it is that those two interests should be included. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister said about amendment No. 148. He said that it was not necessary to specify such groups, but it is necessary, because they are important interests. They are the most directly concerned, and the Home Secretary can get the best advice from them.
      My hon. Friend the Minister said that we should not worry that such interests would not be included by the amendment, but he gave the show away when he said that he would expect to see those interests represented on the consultative committee. It worries me that he only expects. It is not good enough simply to expect to see people on the committee. Such interests should be specified in the Bill. I beg my hon. Friend to think again and to include those special interests. They are the most relevant ones and their inclusion should not be left to chance.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I know that the House wishes to proceed, I think to a Division, so I shall be brief.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) mentioned the limited life of the committee. The explanation for that lies partly in the fact that my hon. Friends in the Standing Committee suggested it. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E.

      433
      Griffiths) said that he was converted to the prospect of a statutory consultative committee because it had a limited life but there was a possibility of its continuation. We have no reason to depart in that respect from what was decided in Committee.
      Several hon. Members have understandably spoken about people involved in sport, recreation and competition. I told the House earlier, and it is absolutely right, that those interest groups are covered in paragraph (a) of amendment No. 148, they being persons who have expertise in
      "the possession, use or keeping of, or transactions in, firearms".
      The paragraph is drawn widely to catch all the interest groups. The problem with clause 16 is that it positively excludes lots of people who have a legitimate interest, such as collectors, museums and dealers, to name but three.
      I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that, with a committee of five—and that is the minimum—and no more than eight, there is always a risk, under the clause 16 procedure, of excluding precisely those interest groups which my hon. Friend would like to include. One of the advantages of an enlarged committee is that it is possible to accommodate a much wider range of people.
      I do not want to fall out on this issue——
      Mr. Frank Cook: Settler.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member is quite right: I am a settler. I had always thought that those who are engaged in sport, recreation and competition would be on the consultative committee, because they are the people who are involved in
      "the possession, use or keeping of, or transactions in, firearms."
      The problem is one of listing. Once we start listing everybody, what happens if we overlook somebody? My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has overlooked museums, collectors and dealers, yet they are legitimate interests to have on the statutory committee.
      Without commitment and without undertaking—I give no guarantee and I give no promise—I will see if it would be right specifically to identify in the clause sport, recreation and competition. If we so decide that, it can be dealt with in another place. However, I am hostile to specific listing, because of those groups that it will exclude if we do not include everybody.
      Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend has it in reverse. Our new clause 16 has covered the use of firearms, security and safekeeping and weapon technology—which cover the museums, collectors and dealers he has in mind—but his clause does not include sport and recreation. I think he has it inside out.
      Mr. Hogg: I really do not agree with that. We will have to make a judgment about this, but I have studied the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) carefully and I do not believe that any of the language he uses is apt to include collectors, museums or dealers. I make the point also that it does not include farmers.
      There is a problem with specific listing. I am prepared to look at it again, but I am not giving a commitment that
      434
      we will include it, because I am fearful of excluding people if we go in for the list approach. That is why I prefer the generic approach.
      I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) that the Government amendments do not emasculate the powers of the statutory committee; they enhance them in a number of important respects. At the moment, the consultative committee, under new clause 16, would have the right to publish a code of practice and a right to be consulted. Nothing looser could be imagined, whereas under the Government amendment there is a positive right and duty to review existing legislation, its implementation and administration, to make recommendations for its improvement and to report to Parliament. It greatly enhances the powers of the committee.
      I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that on Monday, at a rather inconvenient time—I know that he was not always able to be here, because he has other business to attend to—we debated new clause 5, when precisely this kind of issue was discussed. In new clause 5 we have introduced the concept that a person should verify on the application form that he—the person making the verification—knows no reason why the applicant should not have a firearm. I use loose language and not the technical language. We felt that we could do it that way rather than ask people to make the positive assertion that someone was fit to hold a firearm.
      On that happy note, I finish by inviting the House not to approve the new clause but to accept the Government amendments.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 201.

      Division No. 328]

      [10.44 pm

      AYES

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Michael, Alun

      Barron, Kevin

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Battle, John

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Beggs, Roy

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Morley, Elliott

      Buckley, George J.

      Murphy, Paul

      Callaghan, Jim

      Patchett, Terry

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Corbett, Robin

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Cryer, Bob

      Prescott, John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Salmond, Alex

      Dewar, Donald

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dixon, Don

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Eastham, Ken

      Spearing, Nigel

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Vaz, Keith

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Walley, Joan

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Alan Meale.

      McCusker, Harold

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Allason, Rupert

      Batiste, Spencer

      Alton, David

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Amess, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Amos, Alan

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Benyon, W.

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Ashby, David

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Boswell, Tim

      435

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Brazier, Julian

      Knapman, Roger

      Bright, Graham

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Knowles, Michael

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

      Knox, David

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Lang, Ian

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Burt, Alistair

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Butler, Chris

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Lightbown, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Lilley, Peter

      Carttiss, Michael

      Livsey, Richard

      Cash, William

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Lord, Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Cope, John

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Cran, James

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Maclean, David

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

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Day, Stephen

      Madel, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Malins, Humfrey

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Mans, Keith

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Dover, Den

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Dunn, Bob

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Evennett, David

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Fallon, Michael

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Farr, Sir John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'1 & Bute)

      Favell, Tony

      Miller, Hal

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Mills, Iain

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Forman, Nigel

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Forth, Eric

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Franks, Cecil

      Neubert, Michael

      Freeman, Roger

      Nicholls, Patrick

      French, Douglas

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Gorst, John

      Page, Richard

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Paice, James

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Gregory, Conal

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Ground, Patrick

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Portillo, Michael

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hannam, John

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Renton, Tim

      Harris, David

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Riddick, Graham

      Hayward, Robert

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Heddle, John

      Rowe, Andrew

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Ryder, Richard

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Howells, Geraint

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Speed, Keith

      Irvine, Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon John

      Irving, Charles

      Stern, Michael

      Jack, Michael

      Stevens, Lewis

      Jessel, Toby

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Kennedy, Charles

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Key, Robert

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      436

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wells, Bowen

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Wheeler, John

      Tracey, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Tredinnick, David

      Wilkinson, John

      Trotter, Neville

      Wilshire, David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Wood, Timothy

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Walden, George

      Wallace, James

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tony Durant.

      Warren, Kenneth

      Watts, John

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Do I understand that the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) wants a Division on new clause 16?
      Mr. Frank Cook: Yes, Sir.

    New Clause 16

      STANDARD FORM OF FIREARMS CERTIFICATES
      'The Home Secretary shall authorise the use of a standard application form by all police authorities in respect of the grant or renewal of firearms certificates after consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation and representatives of shooting interests within 12 months of the coming into force of this Act.—[Mr. Frank Cook.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 191.

      Division No. 329]

      [10 57

      AYES

      Alton, David

      McWilliam, John

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Michael, Alun

      Battle, John

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Beggs, Roy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Morley, Elliott

      Buckley, George J.

      Murphy, Paul

      Callaghan, Jim

      Patchett, Terry

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Corbett, Robin

      Prescott, John

      Cryer, Bob

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Salmond, Alex

      Dalyell, Tam

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dewar, Donald

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Dixon, Don

      Spearing, Nigel

      Eastham, Ken

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Vaz, Keith

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Wallace, James

      Golding, Mrs LLin

      Walley, Joan

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Howells, Geraint

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Kennedy, Charles

      Livsey, Richard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      McCusker, Harold

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Alan Meale

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Ashby, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Allason, Rupert

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Amess, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Amos, Alan

      Batiste, Spencer

      Anderson, Donald

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bendall, Vivian

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Benyon, W.

      437

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Franks, Cecil

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Freeman, Roger

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      French, Douglas

      Boswell, Tim

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gorst, John

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Brazier, Julian

      Greenway, John (Ftyedale)

      Bright, Graham

      Gregory, Conal

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Ground, Patrick

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

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Burt, Alistair

      Harris, David

      Butler, Chris

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hayward, Robert

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Heddle, John

      Cash, William

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

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

      Cope, John

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Cran, James

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Day, Stephen

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Devlin, Tim

      Irvine, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Irving, Charles

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jack, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Jessel, Toby

      Dunn, Bob

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Evennett, David

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Farr, Sir John

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Favell, Tony

      Knapman, Roger

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Knowles, Michael

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Knox, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Lang, Ian

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Forth, Eric

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      438

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Lightbown, David

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Lilley, Peter

      Rowe, Andrew

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Ryder, Richard

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lord, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Maclean, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Madel, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Speed, Keith

      Mans, Keith

      Stern, Michael

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Miller, Hal

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mills, Iain

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tracey, Richard

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tredinnick, David

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Trotter, Neville

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Neubert, Michael

      Walden, George

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Watts, John

      Page, Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Paice, James

      Wheeler, John

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wilkinson, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wilshire, David

      Portillo, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Renton, Tim

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tony Durant.

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Riddick, Graham

    New Clause 19

      AMNESTY
      `(1) When a firearms holder voluntarily surrenders all rights to firearms previously possessed on firearms certificate which firearms are surrendered to any Chief Officer of Police there shall be—

      (a) a 28 day cooling off period when the lawful owner may be allowed to direct the possession of the firearms to a new owner, such as a registered firearms dealer, an auctioneer, or firearms certificate holder with appropriate authority to possess that firearm, or

      (b) the return of such firearms to the owner providing the owner has the authority to possess.

      (2) All such amnesty and voluntarily surrender notices should include the advice that the holder of the firearms should obtain a current valuation of the value of the firearms and in suitable cases a temporary firearms certificate should be issued to the owner.'.—[Mr. William Ross.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      We are familiar with the stories of the individual who finds an old painting in an antique shop or a little painting hanging on the wall of the study, or who buys an old painting at an auction and, to his intense surprise, discovers that he has come across a masterpiece worth many hundreds of thousands of pounds. That is extremely unlikely in the case of a firearm, but a close friend of mine who is keen on collecting firearms of all kinds once went to an auction where several old firearms were for sale. He did not succeed in purchasing any firearms, but he did buy some other stuff which he thought was junk including a locked tin box that rattled. He took the box home, prised it open and found in it a 31 calibre Colt of the earliest type. Conservative Members who know anything about firearms will realise that he had found the crowning piece of the day, which no one knew was in the box. My friend has kept that gun.
      Chance finds like that can be made in every old house in the country. I understand that, whenever there is an amnesty, people turn their guns over to the police and the guns immediately become police property. People cannot get the guns back. All rights to a particular firearm are surrendered. However, there are occasions when the person finding a firearm is not able-bodied or sensible or someone who knows the value of the find. Often firearms turn up in a house after a death and the widows have to dispose of them. The weapon may fall into the hands of the deceased person's relatives, who may sometimes be quite distant relatives. They may be women who do not know the value of those weapons, do not like them and simply want to get rid of them. Sometimes they may fall into the hands of children or more distant descendants who have no interest in them. Those people may turn the weapons over to the police.
      Sometimes those guns may be very valuable. In the nature of things, that is bound to be so. New clause 19 will give people a chance to check on the value of the firearm. It will provide a 28-day cooling-off period to allow the person to get the firearm back if he so chooses so that he can dispose of it in another way. As every one knows, in this day and age there is a cooling-off period for most types of hire-purchase agreements. I do not see why the same facility should not be extended to people who find themselves in the position that I have described.
      440
      New clause 19 would provide a protection for people who come across something of considerable value—possibly in the attic—or who may have had the firearm left to them and who then foolishly hand that weapon over to the police. New clause 19 is designed purely and simply for that purpose.
      In our debate on the guillotine motion, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) expressed some concern about the contest for the high moral ground and delighted that it was not being fought this evening I hope that Ministers will restore that high moral ground because there is a very Everest of morality waiting to be scaled and claimed. Heaven knows, the Minister needs all the help he can get. We would he delighted if he would seize the opportunity and accept this sensible and socially acceptable new clause which would do his reputation—which has been much tarnished during the passage of the Bill—an enormous amount of good and restore his high standing in some respects.
      If the Government refuse to accept the spirit of the new clause, they will plunge from the heights of morality that the Prime Minister claimed for her party the other day—[Interruption.] I have a bachelor of divinity beside me, so perhaps I should leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) to expand on these matters. He can do that better than most hon. Members because he at least has a theological training, which is sadly lacking among most hon. Members this evening.
      I have moved the new clause in the full expectation that it will be supported by all those who value high morality and believe in looking after the poor people who by sheer chance find something of considerable value perhaps worth several thousand pounds-lying in an old attic which appears utterly useless, but which is very valuable to collectors of such items.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury): I want to ask the Minister a number of questions arising from the introduction of an amnesty. The Home Secretary referred to that possibility when we originally debated the White Paper. I have not heard any subsequent statement from a Minister about when such an amnesty might be introduced.
      What are the Government's proposals for an amnesty? Do they intend that it should run for a comparatively short time or for up to three months, as in 1968? Does the Minister consider an amnesty as an attempt to persuade those who may simply have such weapons in their households to look out such weapons and take them to a police station or an arms dealer, or does he see it as a pardon for a wrongdoer?
      The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) has already said that many weapons are held by people without firearms certificates, but in their imagination those weapons will not be held illegally. They will simply suppose that the weapon, which may have been left to them by a member of their family, is one of their possessions. The fact that they have no intention of using it means that it is nothing more than a souvenir of the last war or some other event in their family's past. I do riot believe that one can describe such people as criminals or as being illegally in possession of such weapons, although I accept that strictly, within the law, that is the case.

      441
      I am sure that the Minister will agree that the purpose and benefit of an amnesty is to get as many weapons as possible which are held without firearms certificates out of the possession of individuals and into the possession of either the police or firearms dealers.
      Am I right to suggest that, if someone is in possession of a firearm and takes it to a registered arms dealer, that dealer is able to buy it even though the owner does not have a certificate? Does the fact that that owner does not have a firearms certificate deny that person the right to sell it on the open market?
      Mr. William Ross: If the hon. Gentleman considers the last part of my clause, he will see that a temporary firearms certificate would be provided in suitable cases.
      Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I endorse his remarks.
      As the hon. Gentleman has said, we are aware that many weapons made before the last war have a considerable market value. Obviously they represent a capital sum to many who may not have considerable financial resources. It would be wrong for such people simply to hand in those weapons to the police and to be given nothing more than a receipt, given the fact that one of the armourers involved in the last amnesty told me that the Home Office sold such weapons to the gun trade. That sale took from people who were not aware that they were breaking the law and denied them a cash benefit that could have been available to them had we allowed firearms dealers to participate in the last amnesty.
      If we want the amnesty to winkle out as many weapons as possible and if we want it to encourage people to hand in those weapons for which they do not hold certificates, we must make it attractive for them to get rid of them. In those circumstances, I believe that the new clause has much to commend it.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: A number of points have been raised, one of which I hope will be answered by the document to which I have just received. I shall deal with the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson).
      The object of the amnesty is to reduce the pool of illegally held weapons. I announced the amnesty in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), when I said:
      "My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for Scotland propose that an amnesty be held for one month from 1 September this year. Planning is nearing completion; further details will be announced".—[Official Report, 17 May 1988; Vol. 133 c. 376.]
      The pardon will be for unlawful possession. That is the offence to which the amnesty will apply. If, however, the weapon has been used in substantive offence, prosecution could be commenced.
      The police will offer the weapons to the armed services, the forensic services or the museums. Subject to that, they will be destroyed. The answer to my hon. Friend's question about a person who has a gun and wishes to sell it is that a dealer can buy a firearm regardless of whether the seller has a firearms certificate. Of course, the seller would be committing an offence by having a firearm without a firearms certificate, and the amnesty will simply exonerate him from the consequences of unlawful
      442
      possession, but he must hand the gun to the police, who will destroy it if they do not wish to offer it to the museums, the armed services or the forensic services.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: If that is the case, surely it should be made known as widely as possible. Surely all those who have weapons and would be obliged to hand them in to the police during the amnesty and receive no compensation, could, between now and September, take those weapons to a firearms dealer and gain some financial benefit from the sale. Is the firearms dealer bound to report to the police that he has bought a weapon from someone who does not have a firearms certificate, or is that not a requirement?
      Mr. Hogg: We are going into great detail. I shall try to answer my hon. Friend, but I do not guarantee that my answers will be completely right.
      If a person finds a gun in his attic for which he should possess a certificate and does not, during the amnesty he can surrender the gun to the police without any consequences in respect of the offence of unlawful possession. If, however, before the amnesty has commenced, he goes to a dealer and seeks to sell it, although the dealer lawfully can buy the gun, the person seeking to sell it will be committing an offence of unlawful possession of a gun if he does not hold a certificate for a section 1 gun, for example. The amnesty to be held during the month commencing 1 September does not apply now, and does not apply to a transaction between the owner and the dealer, so the answer to that question is no.
      The register that a dealer has to keep would contain a record of the transaction, and no doubt it would be possible for the police, if they were so minded, to discover that the seller did not possess a section 1 certificate. My hon. Friend might consider that to be a trifle remote, but that is a fairly accurate account of the law.
      The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) invited me to depart from the high moral ground which I am glad he recognises I occupy. I find it a bit rum that I should be asked to depart from the high moral ground which I occupy with such elegance to assist people who are in unlawful possession of firearms. That seems a bizarre proposition, but that is what the hon. Gentleman argued, although it is not what his new clause proposes. Even more rumly, his new clause deals with an amnesty in respect of guns which are lawfully held and which can be sold to any old dealer at any time without the owner committing an offence. The hon. Gentleman will have to reconcile that little problem of the difference between his speech and the new clause.
      As I am on my high moral ground, I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in the Chamber. I hope that he will forgive me, but there was one thing that I should have said about the consultative committee. We have to pay its members expenses. We have all forgotten that. We shall have to introduce a small amendment in another place to take account of expenses, which may result in a money resolution.
      Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend may have suddenly woken up to the matter of expenses, but we are still waiting to know what the legislation will cost in police time, which must be millions of pounds more than the cost of the consultative committee.
      Mr. Hogg: I was giving way. I was also trying to occupy the high moral ground. It seemed to me to be important that I should tell the House that the expenses of the members of the consultative committee will have to be met. We propose to make provision for that in another place and it may involve a money resolution. I wish that I had told the House that earlier. I am thoroughly ashamed of myself for not doing so, and I apologise and take this opportunity to tell the House what has to be done.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 178.

      Division No. 330]

      [11.25 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Michael, Alun

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Battle, John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Buckley, George J.

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Murphy, Paul

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Corbett, Robin

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Cryer, Bob

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Salmond, Alex

      Dalyell, Tam

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dewar, Donald

      Spearing, Nigel

      Dixon, Don

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Turner, Dennis

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Walker, Bill (Tside North)

      Haynes, Frank

      Wallace, James

      Henderson, Doug

      Walley, Joan

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Howells, Geraint

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Kennedy, Charles

      Livsey, Richard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      McCusker, Harold

      Rev, Martin Smyth and Mr. Roy Beggs.

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Allason, Rupert

      Cope, John

      Amess, David

      Cran, James

      Amos, Alan

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Arbuthnot, James

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

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Day, Stephen

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Devlin, Tim

      Ashby, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Atkinson, David

      Dover, Den

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Dunn, Bob

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Durant, Tony

      Baldry, Tony

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Evennett, David

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Fallon, Michael

      Benyon, W.

      Farr, Sir John

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Favell, Tony

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Forman, Nigel

      Boswell, Tim

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Forth, Eric

      Brazier, Julian

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Bright, Graham

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Franks, Cecil

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Freeman, Roger

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      French, Douglas

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Burt, Alistair

      Gorst, John

      Butler, Chris

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gregory, Conal

      Carrington, Matthew

      Ground, Patrick

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Cash, William

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hanley, Jeremy

      444

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Neubert, Michael

      Harris, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hayward, Robert

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Page, Richard

      Heddle, John

      Paice, James

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Portillo, Michael

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Irvine, Michael

      Renton, Tim

      Jack, Michael

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Jessel, Toby

      Riddick, Graham

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Ryder, Richard

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knapman, Roger

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Knowles, Michael

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Knox, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lang, Ian

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Speed, Keith

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stern, Michael

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Lightbown, David

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lilley, Peter

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Lord, Michael

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Maclean, David

      Tracey, Richard

      Madel, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Trotter, Neville

      Mans, Keith

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Walden, George

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Watts, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Wells, Bowen

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Wheeler, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Miller, Hal

      Wilkinson, John

      Mills, Iain

      Wilshire, David

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Wood, Timothy

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Moss, Malcolm

      Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. Alan Howarth.

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      PROHIBITED WEAPONS AND AMMUNITION
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'any self-loading or'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 119, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'or pump action.'
      Mr. Ross: Although the two amendments are being taken together, I hope that it will be possible for me to press them to two separate Divisions, as they deal with two rather different matters. Those matters occupied us at length in Committee in regard to Great Britain, but since then the Bill has moved forward, with the result that this

      445
      part of it is to be applied to Northern Ireland. I, at any rate, feel that it is in the Northern Ireland context that we must discuss it now.
      As the House knows, there has been an enormous amount of terrorist murder in Northern Ireland over many years, during which time weapons and explosives of every conceivable type have been used. The one outstanding feature of all those weapons and explosives is that they were all illegal. As a result, people look askance at anyone who seeks to obtain possession of a self-loading or pump-action rifle.
      If we are to consider whether people should be allowed to hold such firearms, we should consider very carefully whether they are actively used in crime. The powers already referred to this evening are ever present, hanging like a shadow over our proceedings from the moment of the Bill's conception until now, and they will probably be there until the Bill passes from the ken of the House.
      The number of legally held firearms in Northern Ireland that have been used for murder is remarkably small. The number used by their legal owners is smaller still, and of the weapons used, very few have been either semi-automatic rifles of any description or pump-action rifles. We are talking not about ·22 rifles, which are excluded from the restrictions imposed by the Bill, but about full-bore rifles. There are not many of them in Northern Ireland and very few of them have been used illegally. In Committee, we embarked upon a learning curve and it is right that we should go through the same process this evening.
      Mr. Corbett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), but he has a soft voice and it is difficult to hear what he is saying. I wonder whether you, Sir would invite right hon. and hon. Members who have pressing matters to discuss to do it elsewhere.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I hope that hon. Members will listen to the hon. Member who has the Floor.
      Mr. Ross: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) for his support. I had thought that hon. Members who were chatting had finally decided that they would learn something and were discussing my remarks among themselves. After all, we had a great deal of discussion in Committee as we tried to educate those present. The process of self-education was very beneficial in Committee and I hope that it will prove equally beneficial in the House. That is why I tabled the amendment.
      If the Government had not been so damn silly as to extend the Bill to Northern Ireland, the amendments would never have been tabled. I thought that the matter was over and done with, but the Government's diabolical decision to extend the legislation to Northern Ireland made it evident to me that we needed to discuss the matter in that context and to give the Government a chance to rethink their foolishness in trying to ban the weapons in the first place. The only known incidents in which a Ryan murders type weapon was used were the Ryan murders; he had two and he used only one.
      The self-loading rifle should be left out of the Bill, as should the pump-action rifle. The use and storage of the
      446
      weapons should be left to the good sense of the gun owners under proper police controls, which are usually exercised very firmly in this country. The fact that the crimes involving such weapons are so few that they cannot be quantified is proof positive that they are no great danger to the community at large.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I can take this point fairly briefly. In substance we are considering whether the prohibition directed against self-loading and pump action rifles should be excluded from the Bill. We debated that matter extensively on Monday night. The House knows the Government's views on the matter. I know that I do not carry all my hon. Friends with me and I regret that, just as I regret that I do not carry the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) with me. It does not seem to me very helpful to go over the ground again, bearing in mind that the House may like to discuss the very important question of the buy-in policy.
      I make two points about Northern Ireland. First, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office outlined both law and practice in very great detail on Monday, and they require no repetition from me. Secondly, the plain fact is that in Northern Ireland people are not entitled by practice to hold self-loading rifles lawfully. Therefore, nothing is being taken away from them that they lawfully possess at the moment. For all those reasons, I invite the House to reject the amendments.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 23, Noes 190.

      Division No. 331]

      [11.44 pm

      AYES

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Michael, Alun

      Battle, John

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Buckley, George J.

      Murphy, Paul

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Cryer, Bob

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Dixon, Don

      Skinner, Dennis

      Galbraith, Sam

      Spearing, Nigel

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Haynes, Frank

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Rev. Martin Smyth, and Mr. Roy Beggs.

      McCusker, Harold

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Bright, Graham

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Allason, Rupert

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Alton, David

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Amess, David

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Amos, Alan

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Burt, Alistair

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Butler, Chris

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ashby, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Atkinson, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Cash, William

      Baldry, Tony

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Batiste, Spencer

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Cope, John

      Benyon, W.

      Cran, James

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Day, Stephen

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Devlin, Tim

      Boswell, Tim

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Brazier, Julian

      Dover, Den

      447

      Dunn, Bob

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Evennett, David

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Fallon, Michael

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Farr, Sir John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Favell, Tony

      Miller, Hal

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Mills, Iain

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Forman, Nigel

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Forth, Eric

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Franks, Cecil

      Neubert, Michael

      Freeman, Roger

      Nicholls, Patrick

      French, Douglas

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Gorst, John

      Page, Richard

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Paice, James

      Gregory, Conal

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Ground, Patrick

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Portillo, Michael

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Harris, David

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Renton, Tim

      Hayward, Robert

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Riddick, Graham

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Ryder, Richard

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

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Howells, Geraint

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Irvine, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Jack, Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Jessel, Toby

      Speed, Keith

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Stern, Michael

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Stevens, Lewis

      Kennedy, Charles

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Knapman, Roger

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Knowles, Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Knox, David

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Lang, Ian

      Tracey, Richard

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Tredinnick, David

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Trotter, Neville

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Twinn. Dr Ian

      Lightbown, David

      Walden, George

      Lilley, Peter

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Livsey, Richard

      Wallace, James

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Lord, Michael

      Watts, John

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Wheeler, John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Maclean, David

      Wilkinson, John

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Wilshire, David

      Madel, David

      Wood, Timothy

      Malins, Humfrey

      Mans, Keith

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Paul Dean): I understand that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East(Mr.Ross) would like a separate Division on amendment No. 119. Is that correct?
      Mr. William Ross: Yes
      Amendment proposed: No.119, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'or pump action.'—[Mr. William Ross.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 190.

      Division No. 332]

      [11.55 pm

      AYES

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Battle, John

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Buckley, George J.

      Pike, Peter L.

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Cryer, Bob

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dixon, Don

      Spearing, Nigel

      Galbraith, Sam

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Haynes, Frank

      Rev. Martin Smyth and Mr. Roy Beggs.

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      McCusker, Harold

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Allason, Rupert

      Forman, Nigel

      Alton, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Amess, David

      Forth, Eric

      Amos, Alan

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Arbuthnot, James

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Franks, Cecil

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Freeman, Roger

      Ashby, David

      French, Douglas

      Atkinson, David

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Gorst, John

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Baldry, Tony

      Gregory, Conal

      Batiste, Spencer

      Ground, Patrick

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Benyon, W.

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Harris, David

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hayward, Robert

      Boswell, Tim

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Bright, Graham

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

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

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Howells, Geraint

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Butler, Chris

      Irvine, Michael

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Jack, Michael

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Jessel, Toby

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Cash, William

      Kennedy, Charles

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Cope, John

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Cran, James

      Knapman, Roger

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

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

      Knowles, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Knox, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Lang, Ian

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dover, Den

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Dunn, Bob

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Durant, Tony

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lilley, Peter

      Evennett, David

      Livsey, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Farr, Sir John

      Lord, Michael

      Favell, Tony

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      449

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Ryder, Richard

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Maclean, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Madel, David

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Mans, Keith

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Speed, Keith

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stern, Michael

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Stevens, Lewis

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Miller, Hal

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mills, Iain

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tracey, Richard

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Tredinnick, David

      Neubert, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Walden, George

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Walker, Bill (Tside North)

      Page, Richard

      Wallace, James

      Paice, James

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Watts, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wells, Bowen

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wheeler, John

      Portillo, Michael

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wilkinson, John

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Wilshire, David

      Renton, Tim

      Wood, Timothy

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Riddick, Graham

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

      Rowe, Andrew

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 1, line 17 leave out from 'cartridges' to end of line 18.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 33.
      Amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 23, leave out
      'or which was manufactured before'
      and insert
      'and which was manufactured after'.
      Amendment No. 131, in page 1, line 23 leave out 'before' and insert 'after'.
      Mr. Hogg: These amendments are important. Their object is to delete from the Bill the amendment made in Committee to the effect that guns made before 1 January 1939 should not be caught by the ban. I refer to self-loading rifles and related weapons.
      I cannot commend the amendment made in Committee. There is no obvious justification for the date chosen. Guns made before I January 1939 are just as lethal as those made thereafter. I have already explained that I think there is no justification for such weapons anyway. Moreover, the burden on the police of trying to decide whether a gun was made before 1 January 1939 and is thus permitted, or after that date and is thus prohibited, makes no sense. On that basis I invite the House to support the Government amendments.
      Sir Hector Monro: I do not accept that the amendment should be made. My hon. Friend should realise that this is the eighth of 37 debates, and his wish to get on with
      450
      compensation is impossible. If he wanted to discuss compensation he could have tabled a Government amendment to give us an opportunity to do so. That merely highlights the iniquity of the guillotine motion.
      Everything in the amendment will be overtaken if we debate the next amendment in detail. It deals with self-loading rifles, so it would seem better to agree to this amendment and move on to the next group so as to save time. However, I do not want my hon. Friend to leave the House thinking that I agree with what he has said.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 42.

      Division No. 333]

      [12.8 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Gregory, Conal

      Allason, Rupert

      Ground, Patrick

      Amess, David

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Amos, Alan

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Arbuthnot, James

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Harris, David

      Ashby, David

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Hayward, Robert

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Benyon, W.

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

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

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Irvine, Michael

      Bowis, John

      Jack, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Jessel, Toby

      Bright, Graham

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Buck, Sir Antony

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Burt, Alistair

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Butler, Chris

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Knapman, Roger

      Carrington, Matthew

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Knowles, Michael

      Cash, William

      Knox, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Lang, Ian

      Cope, John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Cran, James

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

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

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Day, Stephen

      Lightbown, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Lilley, Peter

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Dover, Den

      Lord, Michael

      Dunn, Bob

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Durant, Tony

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Emery, Sir Peter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Maclean, David

      Evennett, David

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Fallon, Michael

      Madel, David

      Farr, Sir John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Favell, Tony

      Mans, Keith

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Forman, Nigel

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Forth, Eric

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Franks, Cecil

      Miller, Hal

      Freeman, Roger

      Mills, Iain

      French, Douglas

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Gorst, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      451

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Neubert, Michael

      Speed, Keith

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Stern, Michael

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Page, Richard

      Summerson, Hugo

      Paice, James

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Tracey, Richard

      Portillo, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Walden, George

      Renton, Tim

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Warren, Kenneth

      Riddick, Graham

      Watts, John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Wells, Bowen

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wheeler, John

      Ryder, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wilkinson, John

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wilshire, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wood, Timothy

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      NOES

      Alton, David

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Michael, Alun

      Battle, John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Beggs, Roy

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Buckley, George J.

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Salmond, Alex

      Corbett, Robin

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cryer, Bob

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Dixon, Don

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Wallace, James

      Henderson, Doug

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Howells, Geraint

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Livsey, Richard

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.

      McCusker, Harold

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Sir Hector Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 1, line 17, after 'cartridges', insert
      'or the magazine of which is incapable of holding more than five rounds'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
      No. 128, in page 1, line 18, at end insert
      'or which has an integal or detachable magazine the maximum capacity of which is not more than eight cartridges and the detachable magazine and/or rifle—

      (a) bears a mark which has been approved by the Secretary of State for denoting that fact and which has been made either by one of the two companies mentioned in section 58(1) of the principal Act or by such other person as may be approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section, and

      (b) that company or person has certified in writing that the magazine was initially so manufactured or that work has been carried out on the magazine in a manner approved by the Secretary of State as to
      452
      render it incapable of storing or containing more than eight cartridges of the calibre for which it was designed, manufactured or modified.'.

      No. 129, in page 1, line I S, at end insert
      'or which has an integral or detachable magazine the maximum capacity of which is not more than ten cartridges and the detachable magazine and/or rifle—

      (a) bears a mark which has been approved by the Secretary of State for denoting that fact and which has been made either by one of the two companies mentioned in section 58(1) of the principal Act or by such other person as may be approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section, and

      (b) that company or person has certified in writing that the magazine was initially so manufactured or that work has been carried out on the magazine in a manner approved by the Secretary of State as to render it incapable of storing or containing more than ten cartridges of the calibre for which it was designed, manufactured or modified.'.

      Sir Hector Monro: We now come to the most important amendment and the last opportunity for the Government to redeem themselves in the eyes of hundreds of thousands of sportsmen, including target shooters, game shooters and clay pigeon shooters. Amendment No. 91, provides an opportunity for the Government to show that they understand firearms legislation and are not just bulldozing such legislation through the House irrespective of the arguments that they have lost with regularity throughout the passage of the Bill.
      I have referred to self-loading rifles many times, so I shall not go into details now as my hon. Friends want to highlight the importance of the amendment. There are two matters on which I want answers from my hon. Friend the Minister tonight. The first, to which my hon. Friend the Minister has refused to respond so far, is about the disabled. Will my hon. Friend explain why the Government support the Sports Council and the Central Council for Physical Recreation and do everything to encourage recreation and sport for the disabled, yet turn their backs on the disabled in the matter of rifle shooting? [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who wish to hold private conversations please do so outside the Chamber? I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's speech.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important to get things in the right perspective. We were discussing the possible result of the Bill going to another place. I was saying that when Lord Whitelaw——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to do that he should do it outside the Chamber. Matters for debate should be raised in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has the Floor. He is entitled to be heard and I need to listen to him.
      Sir Hector Monro: I hope that my hon. Friend will respond also to my point about women. We have raised this issue frequently because many women find it impossible to use bolt-action rifles because of the kick and the difficulty of operating the action. As the Government appear dedicated to dealing with sex discrimination, will my hon. Friend tell us why he is preventing women from enjoying the sport of shooting with a full-bore rifle?

      453
      One of the more damaging arguments that my hon. Friend must answer relates to his attitude to the five-round integral magazine weapon, which we have talked about in great detail. Under the proposal there would be no more than five rounds in the magazine. Some magazines would hold only four, some three. It would be impossible to have large or detachable magazines. This would apply to the type of action, not to the volume of fire, because a 10-round bolt-action rifle, if it is well operated, can produce more fire power than five rounds in a self-loading rifle.
      The Minister keeps returning to his argument—and in doing so sounds like an old 78 gramophone record—that the proposal is unnecessary because there is not an enormous number of rifles currently being manufactured. The point is that there is a significant number of fixed magazine rifles in production and I have given my hon. Friend their names. If those rifles became the only legal type available in this country, manufacturers would produce more of them. Surely my hon. Friend is not trying to prevent the production of weapons. He seems to be excited about the type of weapon.
      My hon. Friend must answer those points. Many hon. Members want to raise other issues and we have less than 30 minutes left. I have spoken on this matter at length because it is something about which I feel very strongly. The amendment offers my hon. Friend the last opportunity to bring some common sense into a very bad Bill.
      Mr. Colvin: I will not detain the House for long. It was significant to note that in the last Division 174 Members voted on the Government's side, out of a total vote of 356 Conservatives. Perhaps the fact that fewer than half the Government's supporters turned out on a three-line Whip shows the lack of support on the Conservative Benches for those measures. It also shows the lack of support for being here at this early hour with so many amendments still to be debated and so little time to discuss them. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
      The Government's lack of understanding about the five-round integral magazine rifle is demonstrated by the White Paper that was published in December. That defined the rifles that would be added to the prohibited list under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. It referred to SLRs and pump-action rifles, but it did not make any specifications about the number of rounds. I have searched the White Paper to see if I can find any reference to five rounds but nothing is said. A lot is said however, about those military SLRs, of which Kalashnikovs are one example.
      Mr. Skinner: When I was discussing this matter earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) we talked about the gunslingers in the other place cleaning up the Bill. Why are Conservative Members getting worked up about this, when they know that there are several hundred in the other place who are only too anxious to get hold of the Bill and sort it out—especially Lord Whitelaw? I made inquiries as to whether he was using a five-rounder on the day he was running the country during the miners' strike. The Prime Minister had gone to Switzerland to count her money or to deal with Nestlé or
      454
      whatever. When Lord Whitelaw went on the grouse moor for the first time that day he happened to shoot two fellers. What gun did he use?
      Mr. Colvin: The hon. Member for Bolsover has made a valid point—it is the finger on the trigger that counts, not the weapon. The Government are trying to ban certain weapons but that will do nothing to reduce the amount of armed crime.
      Paragraph 47 of the White Paper refers to compensation and states:
      "We have concluded that as a matter of principle it is undesirable and unjust to require the taxpayer at large to pay for the removal from the public domain of weapons which are an acknowledged threat to life."
      The Government are arguing that the five-round SLR, with an integral magazine for those rounds, is a threat to human life. I do not believe that. I have asked the Under-Secretary before, and I ask again, how many crimes have been committed with SLRs with only five rounds?
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: Throughout the unhappy course of the Bill, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has been notable by his sensible suggestions and by his constructive comments about the proposed legislation. Yet again he has demonstrated that good sense by his brief contribution to the debate.
      I support everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. The views that he has expressed have support in other parts of the House than the Government Back Benches.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). The Minister should reconsider the argument and accept the amendment. I discussed SLRs on Second Reading and I am sorry that the Government have acted as they have.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries mentioned two categories of people who use SLRs—the disabled, and women who wish to use rifles. In Scotland there is a great deal of afforestation and another category of user who has come to my notice is those people who use SLRs to control vermin. With the first shot, vermin may just be wounded and the advantage of a SLR is that a second shot can be fired quickly. In a densely wooded area, as opposed to an open hill, there is not the opportunity to dispatch vermin, without suffering on the first shot. Therefore, there a humane reason for considering such users. The Minister should consider this third category, whose argument has been put forcibly by those with direct experience of the control of vermin.
      Mr. Bellingham: I do not plan to detain the House for more than half a minute, but I was on the Standing Committee when the matter was discussed in some detail. We raised this point at considerable length, in terms of the disabled, women and young people and in terms of the humane aspect, which has just been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), of the importance of shooting the second round very quickly during deer culling or vermin control.
      I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that there was a strong possibility of a vote against clause 1 stand part. After some discussions, he told the Committee that he would consider seriously whether it would be right to leave in section 1 integral magazine self-loading guns. He went on at some length, and said:

      455
      "Therefore, there is a case for that limited range of rifles, but a wholly different argument applies to the large magazine guns."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 8 March 1988; c. 326.]
      12.30 am
      On 8 March, the Minister said that he would consider the matter sympathetically and seriously. He used that quote from Hansard on Monday evening in response to my comments. He was less robust two days later, but I remind him that on 8 March he promised to look at it very carefully and seriously. On that basis, I and my colleagues on the Committee agreed to support him on clause I stand part. Had he not given that undertaking, we would have voted against him and won. Therefore, I urge him to look again at the matter with consideration for the quasi-commitment and to think in terms of the damage that could be done through legitimate sport to disabled people, young people and women.
      Mr. William Ross: The amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) deal with this matter. My right hon. Friend says that he is not a shooter; he had enough to do with it during the war. I tabled the amendments so that the Minister could consider—if he is not past considering—what can be done to help practical shooting organisations in this country.
      I am not sure what practical shooters do, but I do know that they use semi-automatic rifles. The only time that I have fired a semi-automatic rifle at a target was when I fired a course with the Ulster Defence Regiment. They thought that they were pretty good, and I had never used a semi-automatic before. I am happy to report to the House that this old ex-B man beat the whole blooming lot. That gave me a great deal of pleasure, but also worried me about the outcome of the conflict as the UDR were on my side. I hope that they have improved since. Perhaps I beat the raw recruits that day.
      The two amendments are exactly the same, except that one refers to 8 cartridges and the other to 10. I understand from the practical shooters that a 10 cartridge magazine is quite sufficient for their purposes. However, the Minister has shown no willingness to meet the needs of that group of sportsmen, and I consider that he should think again very seriously.
      The amendments show that if the Government are prepared to be sensible, it is possible to use a detachable magazine with which the rifle would be a legal weapon. If it went beyond the stated capacity, it would become an illegal weapon, and no reputable gun dealer would sell such a weapon, nor would any reputable club allow such a weapon to be used on its ranges.
      The matter has been raised in the context of deactivation of weapons. When the Government were laying down the rule that a gun would have to be marked that it was completely deactivated, there is no reason why a gun or the magazine should not be marked or individually licensed on the permit for such use. If that could be done, there would be no problem. It removes the problem of the large capacity magazine on which the Minister dwelt so much on Monday night.
      The Minister's understanding of large capacity and the shooters' understanding of large capacity seem to differ widely. The Minister is considering the full 30-round
      456
      military magazine. That is what he means by a large capacity magazine. I am talking about something one third of that.
      In Committee, the Minister kindly took us to a certain establishment not all that far from here and demonstrated weapons to us. Those who went will remember clearly that he demonstrated that a five-shot shotgun could not keep up over about 20 rounds with an ordinary double-barrelled shotgun. What holds true for a double-barrelled shotgun as opposed to a five-shot automatic shotgun holds true for the limited capacity semi-automatic rifle, and well the Minister knows it. That is the reality. The plain truth is that if the Minister were not so blind to reality and so determined to go down this silly road, he would accept the amendment, or something very like it. He knows perfectly well that it is reasonable and practical.
      I understand that it is possible to buy a silencer for a 410 shotgun. As long as it is on the shotgun, I understand that it is legal. The same silencer will fit the 45 Colt automatic pistol and that would be a highly illegal weapon. The Minister must try to understand the technicalities of these things. He must put his mind to them and come to understand the problems that are associated with these technical matters. Once he has done that we might start to make some reasonable and sensible progress.
      The amendments meet the needs of the sporting world and the Government's purposes. They are perfectly satisfactory and I hope that the Minister will say that he is prepared to think again, rather than fooling on in the way that he has been.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I rise to speak for the first time in the many debates on the Bill and I do so to support my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
      As hon. Members will know, I have a 2,000 square mile constituency and hundreds of square miles in my constituency contain forests. In those forests are many vermin which have to be controlled. There is no question but that the people who understand and know about these matters fail to understand why the Government cannot see that the use of firearms is a legitimate way of controlling vermin, a proper way, and, more importantly, a humane way to do so.
      If the amendment is not accepted this evening, the people who will be upset and distressed are, without exception, Conservative supporters, and they will wonder quite what the Government are about. They realise that the Government are, quite properly, concerned with the activities that go on in the cities, but equally they must understand what goes on in the country, and, in particular, in the highland areas of Scotland where we have to control vermin which can do enormous damage to the crops and everything else. Unless they are kept under control, we shall find ourselves with huge problems and many establishments and homes will be put at risk because they will not be able to control vermin as effectively as they have done in the past. That could affect the economics of what at present is a marginal——
      Sir John Farr: Will my hon. Friend explain exactly what he means by vermin?
      Mr. Walker: I mean all types of vermin, including deer. There is no question but that deer are a big problem to us in the highlands of Scotland. Anyone who disagrees will be

      457
      welcome to come to my constituency. I shall be able to take them to see the many deer wandering around close to my home.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) argued that it is necessary to have a small capacity self-loading rifle to deal with vermin. Within the definition of the word "vermin", he includes deer. I do not agree with him. I have before me, for example, a letter from the chairman of the British Deer Society, on which I addressed the Committee.
      The chairman of that society wrote to my hon. Friend the member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and dealt in some detail with my hon. Friend's assertion that a self-loading rifle is necessary for the killing of deer. He wrote:
      "I have taken great trouble to find out the extent to which these rifles"—
      that is to say, self-loading rifles—
      "are used for deer management. I have spoken to the chairman of the Forestry Commission and the chairman of the Red Deer Commission, both of whom are happy with the British Deer Society position, which is that there is no heavyweight argument for these weapons to be used for deer management."
      He continues:
      "As far as I can discover, it is simply not true that many roe stalkers throughout the United Kingdom use five shot, self-loading rifles. Even if they do the society would argue that the art of deer management is to stalk into the beast that you wish to kill and place one well-aimed shot to kill that animal immediately."
      People who have studied this matter at some length and who represent the interests of those who act in this sport do not believe—I repeat, do not believe—that a self-loading rifle is necessary, or even desirable, for the purposes to which my hon. Friend referred.
      It is extremely difficult to believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North is right when he says that the only suitable weapon for the killing of vermin—by which I assume he means foxes, grey squirrels, and the like—is a self-loading rifle. Those of us who have spent most of our lives shooting vermin have used other weapons perfectly satisfactorily—such as a shotgun or a small rim fire 22, which for these purposes can even be a self-loading rim fire 22.
      Sir Hector Mon rose——
      Mr. Hogg: I am told to finish this. My hon. Friend may not like it, but I am going to do so.
      The idea that one needs a self-loading rifle of the kind that is designed for military purposes to shoot vermin is simply preposterous.
      Mr. Frank Cook: Does the Minister recall the occasion in Committee when I presented a letter from a farmer of many years' experience? That letter was accompanied by a photograph of the fox which that farmer had shot the previous Wednesday night and which was badly afflicted with mange. A fox has very quick reactions, and when firing at a fox from some distance it is essential that one's gun has the capacity not only to loose off a second shot, but also a third if necessary. The alternative is to leave the animal, disease-ridden as it may be, to limp around the countryside in great pain and suffering. Does the Minister
      458
      accept that that letter came from an expert who has spent a lifetime on the land and who knows what he is talking about? Is his opinion not to be respected?
      Mr. Hogg: The comments of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) illustrate why the arguments in favour of this amendment are so bad. First, is it really right that people should be banging away many times with self-loading rifles? They may very well be doing it near their neighbours, near a road, near a village, or near other people picnicking in a field.
      Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hogg: No, I shall not give way for the moment.
      Secondly, the basic rule that I would commend to anyone who goes out shooting is to make sure that he is close enough to his target to kill it with the first shot, instead of shooting from a distance, or—as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) suggested—shooting at foxes at night with a self-loading rifle with night sights. That sort of thing makes no sense at all.
      12.45 am
      Mr. Colvin: Inadvertently, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has given the Minister an escape route down which he is running as fast as he can. Will he please forget about this digression on vermin and address himself to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and myself, which are far more pertinent?
      Mr. Hogg: I do not suppose that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North would like the cavalier way in which his hon. Friend has described his argument. I was taking that argument seriously, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North expected me to. Incidentally, it is extremely similar to the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West, and identical to that put earlier this evening by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). The latter made the point very plainly that he needs his guns for deer shooting. He is not—and this is the point that I am making—supported by the hairman of the British Deer Society.
      Mr. Michael Fallon: Is it not true that a Scot who requires five rounds to kill a deer is neither a good shot nor a good Scot?
      Mr. Hogg: I confess that I very much wish that I had thought of such an elegant way of expressing a criticism that I must say I feel.
      Sir Hector Monro: It is very disappointing that we are about to run out of time and my hon. Friend the Minister still will not answer the points about disability or women. Will he please do so now?
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend really must expect me to deal with the issues that have been put before the House, and I am doing that.
      Another point made from time to time by various hon. Members is that many rifles of this kind are available on the market. That is simply not true. I had this carefully checked. There are six rifles—I am excluding derivatives—known to the forensic services at Huntington which contain no more than five shots in an integral magazine.

      459
      One, and only one, is in production. We are being asked, as I understand it, to legislate against the possibility that someone, at some unspecified time, in respect of a limited market—namely, this country—will try to devise a self-loading rifle that falls within the category and would be certified as such by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
      The idea that numerous people possess these limited self-loading rifles is an illusion, if only because they do not exist in great numbers. What my hon. Friends want is something different. They want a larger self-loading rifle. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries wants the Garand. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is wriggling."] I am not wriggling. I am concentrating on the essential issues. My hon. Friend wants the eight-shot Garand, and everything that he has argued tonight is a stalking horse for that proposition. He is not particularly interested in the five-shot integral magazine.
      Sir Hector Monro: May I ask my hon. Friend to respond to the amendment, which does not deal with anything more than five rounds?
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is not correct. There are three amendments before us. I recommend that he reads amendment No. 128, for example, which refers specifically to eight cartridges in the magazine. We are dealing with a variety of guns—five-shot and eight-shot, on which I am concentrating. My hon. Friend knows that the Garand is an eight-shot, which is why he wants it. The question about women and the disabled is a stalking horse for the eight-shot Garand——
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sat patiently listening to the debate on the fundamental question of the disabled and women, for which debate I came into the Chamber specifically.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. What is the point of order?
      Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) made his point succinctly and clearly. The Minister, on the other hand, spent half his time——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. Mr. Douglas Hogg.
      Mr. Bermingham: May I complete my point of order, Sir. It is a matter of courtesy——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am here to deal not with points of courtesy but with points of order.
      Mr. Hogg: I was talking about the eight-shot Garand, because that is the subject of one of the amendments in this group.
      Mr. Bermingham: Why does the Minister not speak to the House, rather than to his Back Benchers?
      Mr. Hogg: It is usual to address the Chair, which is what I am doing at the moment, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have observed. From time to time I address my hon. Friends, and I address Opposition Members, too.
      There is no reason to suppose that women and the disabled use the limited shot self-loading rifle, if only because such rifles do not exist in large numbers. We have considered carefully whether we could define disability in a meaningful way. We have to wrestle with the question of
      460
      a discretion that would be given in any event to chief constables. We have concluded that it is not possible to extend a concession only to those—
      It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time), MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 171.

      Division No. 334]

      [12.52 am

      AYES

      Alton, David

      McCusker, Harold

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Battle, John

      Michael, Alun

      Beggs, Roy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Pike, Peter L.

      Buckley, George J.

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Colvin, Michael

      Salmond, Alex

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Corbett, Robin

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Cryer, Bob

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Dixon, Don

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Wallace, James

      Galbraith, Sam

      Walley, Joan

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Haynes, Frank

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Howells, Geraint

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Kennedy, Charles

      Mr. Jerry Wiggin and Mr. Henry Bellingham.

      Livsey, Richard

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Dunn, Bob

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Durant, Tony

      Allason, Rupert

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Amess, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Amos, Alan

      Evennett, David

      Arbuthnot, James

      Fallon, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Farr, Sir John

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Favell, Tony

      Ashby, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Atkinson, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Forman, Nigel

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Baldry, Tony

      Forth, Eric

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Franks, Cecil

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Freeman, Roger

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      French, Douglas

      Boswell, Tim

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gorst, John

      Bowls, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brazier, Julian

      Gregory, Conal

      Bright, Graham

      Ground, Patrick

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Burt, Alistair

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Harris, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hayward, Robert

      Cash, William

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Heddle, John

      Cope, John

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

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

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

      Day, Stephen

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Devlin, Tim

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Dover, Den

      Irvine, Michael

      461

      Jack, Michael

      Paice, James

      Jessel, Toby

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Knapman, Roger

      Riddick, Graham

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Knowles, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew

      Knox, David

      Ryder, Richard

      Lang, Ian

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lightbown, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lilley, Peter

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lord, Michael

      Speed, Keith

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Stern, Michael

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stevens, Lewis

      Maclean, David

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Madel, David

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Malins, Humfrey

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mans, Keith

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Tracey, Richard

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Trotter, Neville

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Walden, George

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Miller, Hal

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mills, Iain

      Watts, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Wells, Bowen

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Wheeler, John

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wilkinson, John

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Wilshire, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wood, Timothy

      Neubert, Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Page, Richard

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Do I have the leave of the House to put together all the outstanding Government amendments?
      Mr. Colvin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for all the remaining Government amendments—there are 47 still on the Order Paper—to be swept through on the nod as if they were—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I only asked a question. Does any hon. Member wish to divide the House on any Government amendment, and if so, on which ones——
      Hon. Members: Every one.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendment proposed: No. 32, in page 1, line 19, at end insert
      `is not chambered for ·22 rim-fire cartridges and'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 35.

      Division No. 335]

      [1.05 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Allason, Rupert

      Irvine, Michael

      Amess, David

      Jack, Michael

      Amos, Alan

      Jessel, Toby

      Arbuthnot, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Ashby, David

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Atkinson, David

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Knapman, Roger

      Baldry, Tony

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Knowles, Michael

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Knox, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Lang, Ian

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Boswell, Tim

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Lightbown, David

      Bowis, John

      Lilley, Peter

      Brazier, Julian

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Bright, Graham

      Lord, Michael

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Maclean, David

      Burt, Alistair

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Madel, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Carrington, Matthew

      Mans, Keith

      Cash, William

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Cope, John

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Cran, James

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Day, Stephen

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Devlin, Tim

      Miller, Hal

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Mills, Iain

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Dover, Den

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Dunn, Bob

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Durant, Tony

      Moss, Malcolm

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Fallon, Michael

      Neubert, Michael

      Farr, Sir John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Favell, Tony

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Page, Richard

      Forman, Nigel

      Paice, James

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Forth, Eric

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Portillo, Michael

      Franks, Cecil

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Freeman, Roger

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      French, Douglas

      Riddick, Graham

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Rowe, Andrew

      Gorst, John

      Ryder, Richard

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Gregory, Conal

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Ground, Patrick

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Harris, David

      Speed, Keith

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Stern, Michael

      Hayward, Robert

      Stevens, Lewis

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Heddle, John

      Summerson, Hugo

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Tracey, Richard

      463

      Trotter, Neville

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Wilkinson, John

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Wilshire, David

      Walden, George

      Wood, Timothy

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Watts, John

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Alan Howarth.

      Wells, Bowen

      Wheeler, John

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Livsey, Richard

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      McCusker, Harold

      Battle, John

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Beggs, Roy

      Michael, Alun

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Buckley, George J.

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Salmond, Alex

      Corbett, Robin

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cryer, Bob

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Dixon, Don

      Wallace, James

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Haynes, Frank

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Howells, Geraint

      Mr. Peter L. Pike and

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Mr. Alan Meale.

      Kennedy, Charles

      Question accordingly agreed to
      1.15 am
      Amendment proposed: No. 33, in page 1, leave out line 23.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 34.

      Division No. 336]

      [1.16 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Devlin, Tim

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Allason, Rupert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Amess, David

      Dover, Den

      Amos, Alan

      Dunn, Bob

      Arbuthnot, James

      Durant, Tony

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Ashby, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Atkinson, David

      Farr, Sir John

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Favell, Tony

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Baldry, Tony

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Forman, Nigel

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Forth, Eric

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Franks, Cecil

      Boswell, Tim

      Freeman, Roger

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      French, Douglas

      Bowis, John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bright, Graham

      Gorst, John

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Gregory, Conal

      Burt, Alistair

      Ground, Patrick

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Cash, William

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Harris, David

      Cope, John

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Cran, James

      Hayward, Robert

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

      Heddle, John

      Day, Stephen

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      464

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

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

      Page, Richard

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Paice, James

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Irvine, Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Jack, Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jessel, Toby

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Renton, Tim

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Riddick, Graham

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Ryder, Richard

      Knapman, Roger

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knowles, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Knox, David

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lang, Ian

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Speed, Keith

      Lightbown, David

      Stern, Michael

      Lilley, Peter

      Stevens, Lewis

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lord, Michael

      Summerson, Hugo

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Maclean, David

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B' heath)

      Mans, Keith

      Tracey, Richard

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Trotter, Neville

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Walden, George

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Warren, Kenneth

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Watts, John

      Miller, Hal

      Wells, Bowen

      Mills, Iain

      Wheeler, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Wilkinson, John

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Wilshire, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wood, Timothy

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Neubert, Michael

      Mr, Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

      Nicholls, Patrick

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Livsey, Richard

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      McCusker, Harold

      Battle, John

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Beggs, Roy

      Michael, Alun

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Buckley, George J.

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Salmond, Alex

      Cryer, Bob

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Dixon, Don

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Wallace, James

      Galbraith, Sam

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Haynes, Frank

      Howells, Geraint

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Mr. Peter Pike and Mr. Alan Meale.

      Kennedy, Charles

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      1.30 am
      Amendment proposed: No. 34 in page 1, line 24, leave out 'revolving magazine smooth-bore gun' and insert
      `smooth-bore revolver gun other than one which is chambered
      for 9mm rim-fired cartridges or loaded at the muzzle end of each chamber;'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Sir Peter Emery( seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I refer you to Standing Order No. 39, which deals with unnecessarily claimed Divisions? It says:
      "Mr. Speaker may … take the vote of the House, or committee, by calling upon the Members who support, and who challenge his decision, successively to rise in their places; and he shall thereupon, as he thinks fit, either declare the determination of the House".
      As there have been majorities of more than 130 in the previous Divisions, I believe that it may well be considered that the Divisions are unnecessary.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can put that to the test when I come to collect the voices in a minute or so.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 35, in page 1, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert—
      `(ae) any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line-throwing or pyrotechnic purposes or as signalling apparatus;".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Bermingham (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand the precedent in this matter, the last occasion on which Standing Order No. 35 was acted upon—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. 39."]—I accept that correction-was after five Divisions. Tonight—[Interruption.] I do not know what the hilarity on the Conservative Benches is all about, but it shows the arrogance—[Interruption.]
      If on a matter that clearly divides the Government Benches, even after a guillotine against their own Members and when there are still 46 amendments on the Order Paper for discussion after the guillotined time has run out, it is permitted after only three or four Divisions on the amendments that Standing Order No. 39 should be invoked, that must be a negation of the democratic rights of the House. I therefore challenge your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that there was a time when your honourable predecessor, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ruled——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I do not know of any benchmark that should guide me in these matters. I only know that the House determined that there should be a Standing Order No. 39, and presumably it intended that it should be used, I cannot understand under what circumstances the House would decide that it should be used, were it not under the present circumstances, when the will of the House is clear and Divisions are being called.
      Mr. Skinner (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to draw your attention to the fact that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Put on the hat."][Interruption.] During the 1970–74 Government, on the occasion when the Standing Order was invoked by the
      466
      then Speaker, there were only seven Members in one Lobby. It was only after several votes had taken place that the Speaker decided that he would invoke the Standing Order.
      Another important factor to which I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that those seven Members were seven members of the Labour party. On this occasion there are people going through the Division Lobby who represent several different parties, including members of the Tory party. I should have thought that you would have waited some time longer before invoking Standing Order No. 39. The numbers have not been static on the Opposition Benches and there have been variations during the course of several Divisions.
      You will have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there has also been a reduction in the vote on the Conservative Benches. Therefore, who is to know whether, in the course of the next 10 Divisions, the Tory Members would not have got tired of staying here? Their numbers would have decreased much faster, and therefore the difference between the two parties would have been much greater. I believe that what has happened tonight is that you have given the Government the opportunity to fly in the face of parliamentary democracy and——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret that the hon. Gentleman has tended to spoil his argument, to which I was listening carefully——
      Mr. Skinner rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
      —by his latter remarks. If the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) had intended to suggest that the Chair might have been wiser to allow the House to divide on one or two more amendments before invoking the provisions of Standing Order No. 39, the Chair might take account of that. The implication is that the hon. Gentlemen are prepared to understand that the Chair might, at its discretion, invoke the provisions of the Standing Order at the appropriate time.
      I believe that that was the sense of the points of order, and I believe also that the Chair might be wise to take that into account. Therefore, if we now proceed to the next amendment——
      Mr. Frank Cook (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that the normal procedure for voting on Divisions in this House allows a time delay of eight minutes from when the Division is called, before you, Sir, instruct that the doors be locked. When the Standing Order was invoked, that time limit had not been allowed, so it is possible that some hon. Members may even yet be on their way to take part in that Division. Therefore, I appeal to you——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. On the last occasion when the House divided, I called for the doors to be locked on the advice of the Clerk at the Table who takes account of the automatic time recording device which switches on automatically at the appropriate time. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that somehow the time limit was incorrect, certainly I shall have that equipment examined. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I take account of the flashing red light that comes on at the appropiate moment.
      Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the House is getting rather anxious to get to bed, as I am.
      Mr. James Molyneaux: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out, quite rightly, that hon. Members representing various parts of the United Kingdom took part in the Divisions. Through no fault of yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or of Mr. Speaker, some of us are being deprived of adequate opportunity to discuss some of the very important matters that are now being steamrollered through. That is through no fault of yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker; it is simply because the Government did not give adequate notice that Northern Ireland would be included in the Bill. We had no opportunity to consult our constituents. The maximum period of consultation was three days. The normal courtesy of notifying the party leaders in Northern Ireland was not observed on this occasion.
      If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be willing to take up the point with which you seemed to find some sympathy, I would be content if you were to reconsider that narrow point without any other implications and allow us to take some more Divisions. Then, although we have been deprived of speaking on these new amendments and new clauses, at least hon. Members representing the component parts of the United Kingdom will be able to vote.
      1.45 am
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House would expect me to have regard to the points of order and the substance of the points of order that have been expressed, particularly the point made by the leader of the Official Unionist party.
      The House having divided: Ayes 167, Noes 33.

      Division No. 337]

      [1.40 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Cash, William

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Allason, Rupert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Amess, David

      Cope, John

      Amos, Alan

      Cran, James

      Arbuthnot, James

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Day, Stephen

      Ashby, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Atkinson, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Dover, Den

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Dunn, Bob

      Baldry, Tony

      Durant, Tony

      Batiste, Spencer

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Fallon, Michael

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Farr, Sir John

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Favell, Tony

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Boswell, Tim

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Forman, Nigel

      Bowis, John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Brazier, Julian

      Forth, Eric

      Bright, Graham

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Franks, Cecil

      Burt, Alistair

      Freeman, Roger

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      French, Douglas

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      468

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Gregory, Conal

      Moss, Malcolm

      Ground, Patrick

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Michael

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Harris, David

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Page, Richard

      Hayward, Robert

      Paice, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Heddle, John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoftrey

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Portillo, Michael

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Renton, Tim

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Irvine, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew

      Jack, Michael

      Ryder, Richard

      Janman, Tim

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jessel, Toby

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Knapman, Roger

      Speed, Keith

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Stern, Michael

      Knowles, Michael

      Stevens, Lewis

      Knox, David

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lang, Ian

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Lightbown, David

      Tracey, Richard

      Lilley, Peter

      Trotter, Neville

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Lord, Michael

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Walden, George

      Maclean, David

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mans, Keith

      Watts, John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Wells, Bowen

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Wheeler, John

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Wilkinson, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Wilshire, David

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Wood, Timothy

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Miller, Hal

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mills, Iain

      Mr. Alan Howarth and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      NOES

      Alton, David

      McCusker, Harold

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Battle, John

      Michael, Alun

      Beggs, Roy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Salmond, Alex

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cryer, Bob

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Dixon, Don

      Wallace, James

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Walley, Joan

      Galbraith, Sam

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Haynes, Frank

      Howells, Geraint

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Mr. Peter Pike and Mr. Alan Meale.

      Kennedy, Charles

      Livsey, Richard

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 36, in page 1, line 27, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 32.

      Division No. 338]

      [1.54 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Heddle, John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Allason, Rupert

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Amess, David

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Amos, Alan

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

      Arbuthnot, James

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Ashby, David

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Atkinson, David

      Irvine, Michael

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Jack, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Janman, Tim

      Baldry, Tony

      Jessel, Toby

      Batiste, Spencer

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Knapman, Roger

      Boswell, Tim

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Knowles, Michael

      Bowis, John

      Knox, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Lang, Ian

      Bright, Graham

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Burt, Alistair

      Lightbown, David

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Lilley, Peter

      Carrington, Matthew

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Cash, William

      Lord, Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Maclean, David

      Cope, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cran, James

      Mans, Keith

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

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

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Day, Stephen

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Devlin, Tim

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Dover, Den

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Dunn, Bob

      Miller, Hal

      Durant, Tony

      Mills, Iain

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Fallon, Michael

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Farr, Sir John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Favell, Tony

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Nelson, Anthony

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Neubert, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Forth, Eric

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Page, Richard

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Paice, James

      Franks, Cecil

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Freeman, Roger

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      French, Douglas

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Portillo, Michael

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Gregory, Conal

      Renton, Tim

      Ground, Patrick

      Riddick, Graham

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Ryder, Richard

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Harris, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hayward, Robert

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      470

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Walden, George

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Speed, Keith

      Warren, Kenneth

      Stern, Michael

      Watts, John

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wells, Bowen

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wheeler, John

      Summerson, Hugo

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Wilkinson, John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Wilshire, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wood, Timothy

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Tracey, Richard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Trotter, Neville

      Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      NOES

      Alton, David

      McCusker, Harold

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Battle, John

      Michael, Alun

      Beggs, Roy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Salmond, Alex

      Cryer, Bob

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Dixon, Don

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Wallace, James

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Haynes, Frank

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Howells, Geraint

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Kennedy, Charles

      Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Peter Pike.

      Livsey, Richard

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to a Government amendment No. 37. Do I have the leave of the House to put Government amendment No. 38 with it?
      Hon. Members: No.
      Amendment proposed: No. 37, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'containing an explosive charge' and insert
      'designed to explode on or immediately before impact'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 31.

      Division No. 339]

      [2.07 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Carrington, Matthew

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Cash, William

      Allason, Rupert

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Amess, David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Amos, Alan

      Cope, John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Cran, James

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

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

      Ashby, David

      Day, Stephen

      Atkinson, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Baldry, Tony

      Dover, Den

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dunn, Bob

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Durant, Tony

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fallon, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Farr, Sir John

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Favell, Tony

      Bowis, John

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Brazier, Julian

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bright, Graham

      Forman, Nigel

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Forth, Eric

      Burt, Alistair

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Franks, Cecil

      471

      Freeman, Roger

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      French, Douglas

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Moss, Malcolm

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Gregory, Conal

      Nelson, Anthony

      Ground, Patrick

      Neubert, Michael

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Page, Richard

      Harris, David

      Paice, James

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Hayward, Robert

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Renton, Tim

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rowe, Andrew

      Irvine, Michael

      Ryder, Richard

      Jack, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Janman, Tim

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Jessel, Toby

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Speed, Keith

      Knapman, Roger

      Stern, Michael

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Knowles, Michael

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Knox, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lang, Ian

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Tracey, Richard

      Lightbown, David

      Trotter, Neville

      Lilley, Peter

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Lord, Michael

      Walden, George

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Maclean, David

      Warren, Kenneth

      Malins, Humfrey

      Watts, John

      Mans, Keith

      Wells, Bowen

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Wheeler, John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Wilkinson, John

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Wilshire, David

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Wood, Timothy

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Miller, Hal

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Alan Howarth

      Mills, Iain

      NOES

      Alton, David

      McCusker, Harold

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Battle, John

      Michael, Alun

      Beggs, Roy

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Salmond, Alex

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cryer, Bob

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Dixon, Don

      Wallace, James

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Haynes, Frank

      Howells, Geraint

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Peter Pike

      Kennedy, Charles

      Livsey, Richard

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 38, in page 2, line 7, leave out "explosive rocket or shell" and insert
      "or rocket or shell designed to explode as aforesaid".—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment to made:
      The House divided; Ayes 166, Noes 31.

      Division No. 340]

      [2.22 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Hayward, Robert

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Allason, Rupert

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Amess, David

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Amos, Alan

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Arbuthnot, James

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

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & Bwd)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Ashby, David

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Atkinson, David

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Irvine, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Jack, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Janman, Tim

      Batiste, Spencer

      Jessel, Toby

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Jones, Robert B ("Herts W)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Boswell, Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Bowis, John

      Knowles, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Knox, David

      Bright, Graham

      Lang, Ian

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Burt, Alistair

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Lightbown, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Lilley, Peter

      Cash, William

      Lord, Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Maclean, David

      Cope, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cran, James

      Mans, Keith

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

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

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Day, Stephen

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Devlin, Tim

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Dover, Den

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Dunn, Bob

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Durant, Tony

      Miller, Hal

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Mills, Iain

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Fallon, Michael

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Farr, Sir John

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Favell, Tony

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Forman, Nigel

      Neubert, Michael

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Forth, Eric

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Page, Richard

      Franks, Cecil

      Paice, James

      Freeman, Roger

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      French, Douglas

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Portillo, Michael

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Gregory, Conal

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Ground, Patrick

      Renton, Tim

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Ryder, Richard

      Harris, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      473

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Walden, George

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Speed, Keith

      Watts, John

      Stern, Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wheeler, John

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Summerson, Hugo

      Wilkinson, John

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Wilshire, David

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Wood, Timothy

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tracey, Richard

      Mr. Peter Lloyd and Mr. Stephen Dorrell

      Trotter, Neville

      NOES

      Alton, David

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Michael, Alun

      Battle, John

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Beggs, Roy

      Pike, Peter L.

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Salmond, Alex

      Cryer, Bob

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Dixon, Don

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Wallace, James

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Haynes, Frank

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Howells, Geraint

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Kennedy, Charles

      Mr. Gerald Bermingham and Mr. Alan Meale.

      Livsey, Richard

      McCusker, Harold

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 39, in page 2, line 10, after 'which', insert '(a)'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we are apparently not having a Division, it is handy not to have the headgear on. The first Division on this measure gave the Government a majority of 136. The votes for the Ayes on the guillotine motion were 278, and for the Noes 142. In the last Division before the one that took place under Standing Order No. 39, the Ayes were 166 and the Noes were 31, giving a majority of 135. That was one less than the Government's majority on the guillotine motion.
      Adopting the principle that a majority of 135 or 136 implies that we can abandon Divisions, we could have abandoned the Division even for the guillotine motion. Each side has lost 100, but the majority has been maintained. It is a dangerous precedent to allow Standing Order No. 39 to be used when the majority is very much of the order that the Government obtain in their day-to-day business.
      By using Standing Order No. 39, Members who wish to register their objections in the Division Lobbies are denied that wish because no record of names is taken. That is a very important principle and the reason why we do not have a secret ballot and why a record is taken at the desk for publication the following day. It is a very important
      474
      and a treasured principle that hon. Members are accountable by the record of their votes. The use of Standing Order No. 39 is a denial of that right in circumstances in which the Government are obtaining exactly the same or a smaller majority than that which they obtained when the full panoply of the Standing Orders was applied for the guillotine motion. I therefore hope that you will not use Standing Order No. 39 again in the remaining Divisions.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I believe that the House would like me to deal with this point. The argument that the hon. Gentleman has advanced is not an argument against the use of Standing Order No. 39. Rather it was an argument against Standing Order No. 39. If the House agreed that Standing Order No. 39 was an appropriate addition to our Standing Orders, these are presumably the circumstances in which the House envisaged that the Standing Order should be used.
      The size of the majority in the Divisions has been very consistent. It is clear that in exercising my judgment—as I am required to do—I was fully justified in taking account of the very large majority to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. Perhaps we should move on now.
      Rev. Martin Smyth (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the line of reasoning of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) may I have some guidance from the Chair? As I understand it, no record is taken of hon. Members who vote. In another tradition, those of us who wish to record our dissent or have our votes registered have a right to do that so that people can know that we have represented their interests.
      I appreciate that some right hon. and hon. Members may not wish to have their votes registered in these circumstances. However, those of us representing constituencies in Northern Ireland would be very happy to have our votes registered to give account of our stewardship.
      Several Hon. Members rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One point at a time. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) to the fact that "Erskine May" makes it clear on page 402 that it is our practice in these circumstances to record the numbers of those who wish to vote contrary to the motion before the House, but not to record the names.
      Mr. Skinner (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of the problems that you face is that when Standing Order No. 39 is used you must be satisfied that it is being used only very sparingly; otherwise anyone in the Chair could be charged with taking decisions and not giving people an opportunity to cast their votes in the proper fashion.
      I realised many years ago when we had a series of Divisions between 1970 and 1974 when we got down to seven hon. Members that the charge hardly became sustainable in terms of points of order. However, we raised them and we lost. There were seven of us from one party. Throughout tonight there have been hon. Members from the different sections in Northern Ireland, there have been Liberals, Social Democrats, people from the Labour party and on odd occasions there have been Tories. We have also had members of the Scottish National party and the Welsh

      475
      national party. In other words, we probably have had more parties supporting the Opposition than there were people engaged in the Divisions way back between 1970 and 1974.
      It would be unfortunate if the practice of using Standing Order No. 39 was continued in future. For instance, when we debated the Firearms (Amendment) Bill before it was halted the other night, the number of people who voted against it——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not believe that we can carry on a debate about the exercise of my discretion. This is a matter for my discretion. I have exercised it, and I do not believe that it is a matter for debate in the House. I have ruled, and the House must accept my ruling
      2.45 am
      Mr. Frank Cook: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not seeking to challenge your ruling, but I ask you to ponder, if only briefly, the fact that you gave your ruling on the grounds that the majority had been remarkably consistent. The majority in this Chamber has been remarkably consistent for the past 12 months. If you base the application of Standing Order No. 39 on that premise, you could apply it on every day that the House sits. I believe that that would be a denial of democracy and quite unacceptable to the electorate.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would realise that the rarity of the invocation of Standing Order No. 39 refutes the point that he is seeking to put to the House.
      We use Standing Order No. 39 when, in the judgment and at the discretion of the Chair, it seems appropriate to do so. I have deemed it appropriate to do so in these circumstances. I did so having regard to points of order that were put to me earlier in our proceedings. I took them into account, weighed them heavily, and am satisfied that I have exercised my judgment and discretion properly in the circumstances. I believe that we should now get on.
      Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not seek to challenge your ruling, but I seek your guidance [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] When they have quietened down, hon. Members may realise that I am seeking to make an important point.
      As I understand the procedure that will now follow—[Interruption]—if the chuntering dies down, hon. Members may hear something to their advantage—you will ask each side to rise either for or against each amendment. Were it to reach a time when the number rising for the motion decreased significantly, whereas the number of hon. Members rising against the motion were to remain constant, would it still be your ruling that Standing Order No. 39 apply?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to the statement that I made when collecting the voices when the Question was last put he would have heard it prefaced with the words "The Chair's opinion". It is a matter for the opinion of the Chair. In the hypothetical circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has described to the House, if the Chair was of a contrary opinion, it would rule accordingly.
      Amendment proposed: No. 40, in page 2, line 11, leave out `which'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division——
      Mr. William Ross (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I would not wish to challenge your ruling, may I draw your attention to the statement in "Erskine May" about Standing Order No. 39—originally No. 38—which was introduced to avoid frivolous Divisions. Tonight's Divisions cannot be described as frivolous, because the matters under discussion are of considerable importance. In the light of that, I wonder whether you might care to reconsider whether further Divisions should take place in the normal fashion?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the last occasion that the Question was put I ruled from the Chair that in my opinion the Division was unnecessarily claimed. As it is manifest that the view of the, House is overwhelmingly on one side, there seems no point in taking up the time of the House and of hon. Members when the outcome is so obviously predictable. That is the sense in which Standing Order No. 39 was conceived.
      Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be seated and covered.
      Mr. Skinner (seated and covered): I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you failed to take into account the fact that in the Division Lobby we had nearly half the Ulster Unionist party, about one third of the SLD, two thirds of the Welsh nationalists and all the Scottish National party. Those parties are all recognised in the House. We should get to the point that those people are being deprived of the opportunity to be properly represented in the Lobbies in the form that they have taken tonight and that is a negation of parliamentary democracy. On the basis of the representation of those minority parties, I would ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker seriously——
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 41, in page 2, line 12, after `dangerous', insert; and
      (b) in the case of a firearm, was not lawfully on sale in Great Britain in substantial numbers at any time before 1988,'.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall now respond to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). In normal circumstances, after a Division, the Tellers come to the Table and announce the result. The result is not split into

      477
      parties, but is given as the numbers taking part in the Division. That is what the Chair must have regard to when putting the Question.
      Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What were the numbers taken for the last Division?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: They were 166 to 31.
      Mr. Frank Cook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to know how it is possible to determine that those in favour were 166? I wish to challenge the vote.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon and that of the House. That was the last time that we had a Division when Tellers announced the result to the Chair. The Clerk has the number of Noes for the last occasion. However, that is irrelevant, because this is a matter for the Chair. The number voting Aye was significantly greater than those who voted No. I hope that no one in the House will express a view contrary to that.
      Mr. Frank Cook: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, informed the House that "Erskine May" contained the necessity of a record to be kept of those who had voted against. We are simply asking that that information be imparted to the House on each occasion. Is there no obligation on the Chair or on the Table—[Interruption.] If "Erskine May" contains an obligation that the operation be carried out, surely there must be an obligation that the result of that operation be reported to the House.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that these are matters for the discretion and judgment of the Chair. I have exercised my discretion and my judgment.
      Mr. Peter Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that the Government have put you in the difficult position of having to exercise your discretion this evening? We are debating a Government Bill and the Government amendments to that Bill could not be debated because of the Government's guillotine.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to reopen a debate which has already taken place, which has reached its conclusion, and on which the House has voted. The House voted on this matter yesterday—or today, by our conventions—and came to a decision. Under the terms of the motion which the House passed, I am required to put the Question on these matters without further debate.
      Mr. Pike: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I seek your guidance. Would not the Government assist you if they were to withdraw the remaining amendments?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman says that he is seeking my guidance. My guidance to him is not to pursue that matter any further, because it is irrelevant.
      Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I correct in thinking that, when I earlier raised the question of names not being recorded under the Standing Order No. 39 procedure, you stated that numbers would
      478
      be recorded? My recollection is that you made that response to satisfy my point that it was a dereliction of our democracy not to have those names recorded. On the last Division, no numbers were recorded for either side. I specifically recall that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said that the number of objectors would be recorded, but that did not happen.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that I did not mislead the House. Names are not taken but the numbers are recorded by the Clerks and are recorded in the Journal of the House. We ought to get on.
      Mr. Harold McCusker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the basis of the remarks you have just made, am I not entitled to know by how many I lost the last vote? On the last occasion, 126 Members rose from their seats; if the Clerk did not count them, I can advise him of that fact. I imagine that between now and 4 o'clock a larger or smaller number of Members than that may rise from their seats. May the House be given an assurance that the Clerks will count those Members each time they rise?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Under our Standing Orders, the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to know.
      Mr. McCusker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that the number would be recorded in the Journal.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I said earlier, the minority vote—the number of those Members voting against the motion—will be recorded in the Journal. However, under Standing Orders the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to know now the numbers who voted either for or against on the last occasion that the Question was put.
      Mr. Molyneaux: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that at some point the number of Members voting for or against will be recorded in the Journal? If so, with respect, is sufficient time being given to the Table to count the numbers voting on each side of the House?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Only those Members voting against a motion—the minority—will be counted and recorded in the Journal.
      Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise two points of order. The first is that the number against the motion in the last vote was not counted and recorded. I raise a second point, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
      3 am
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that that is incorrect. The Clerk counted the number who voted against the last time that the Question was put to the House.
      Amendment proposed: No. 41, in page 2, line 12, after `dangerous', insert
      `; and
      (b) in the case of a firearm, was not lawfully on sale in Great Britain in substantial numbers at any time before 1988:.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the

      479
      Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in understanding that it is out of order for Members to take part in debates if they are outside the Bar or in the Under Gallery? If that is so, how is it possible for hon. Members in those areas to take part in the Division?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware that they voted. The fact that someone stands, sits down or does something else beyond the Bar of the House is not a matter for me and is not taken into account in our proceedings unless it interferes with or disrupts those proceedings.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible for us to be told as we go along how many Members are voting against the motion? I would like to know whether we are winning.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to be helpful, but I think that it might facilitate our proceedings if the hon. Gentleman sought the advice of the Clerks as to the numbers who have voted at the end of each Division.
      Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall the previous point raised about the hon. Members standing outside the Bar of the House. You will have noted that when you last called a Division——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, because it gives me the opportunity to suggest that hon. Members beyond the Bar of the House who are not taking part in our proceedings should not presume to do so. They are only creating confusion, and I would urge them either to leave the House or to take no part.

    Clause 2

      RE-DEFINITION OF EXEMPTED SHOT GUNS AND SHOT GUN AMMUNITION
      Amendment proposed: No. 42, in page 2, line 27, leave out from 'which' to 'gun' in line 32 and insert—

      `(i) has a barrel not less than 24 inches in length and does not have any barrel with a bore exceeding 2 inches in diameter;

      (ii) either has no magazine or has a non-detachable magazine incapable of holding more than two cartridges; and

      (iii) is not a revolver'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Salmond (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand the procedure, you have to use your discretion and judgment in determining whether a Division is necessary. Presumably you do that on the basis of the noise on each side of the House. How can you differentiate between the noise made by hon. Members in the Chamber and that made by those outside the Chamber?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I use not only my ears but my eyes.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 43, in page 2, line 32, at end insert—
      '(2A) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
      "(3A) A gun which has been adapted to have such a magazine as is mentioned in subsection (3)(a)(ii) above shall not be regarded as falling within that provision unless the magazine bears a mark approved by the Secretary of State for denoting that fact and that mark has been made, and the adaptation has been certified in writing as having been carried out in a mariner approved by him, either by one of the two companies mentioned in section 58(1) of this Act or by such other person as may be approved by him for that purpose.".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it: and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Cryer: I spy Strangers.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are in the middle of a series of decisions, and I am not prepared to accept that motion.
      Amendment proposed: No. 44, in page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it: and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4

      TRANSFERS OF SHOT GUNS
      3.15 am
      Amendment proposed: No. 24, in page 3, line 12, leave out from beginning to `to' and insert
      `This section applies where a person—

      (a) sells, lets on hire or gives a shot gun; or

      (b) lends a shot gun for a period of more than forty-eight hours,'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it: and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 25, in page 3, line 17, leave out '(a)' and insert `(1A)'.—[.Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it: and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 26, in page 3, line 20, leave out 'forty-eight hours' and insert 'seven days'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. William Ross (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will be within your recollection that your colleague in the Chair drew attention to the fact that certain hon. Members were standing when the votes were taken although they were beyond the Bar. I have been watching carefully and have noticed that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), who is at present beyond the Bar; together with one of his colleagues directly in front of him, and several Members on the Back Benches, have been standing every time. Is that in order? Surely they are beyond the Bar and cannot vote.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: As my predecessor in the Chair said, it would be helpful, in the fairly unusual situation that we are going through, if hon. Members were actually inside or outside the Chamber. That would make it easier, especially for the Clerks, to take the count of those who do not support my decisions.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 27, in page 3 line 26, leave out '(b)' and insert '(1B)'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 28, in page 3, line 26, leave out 'forty-eight hours' and insert 'seven days'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      3.30 am
      Amendment proposed: No. 29, in page 3, line 29 leave out `(1)' and insert '(1A) or (1B)'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. William Ross(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am getting to like this hat. We are having great difficulty in hearing which amendment you are calling, because of the noise. Would it be possible for you to turn down the volume on the Government side of the House or to turn up the volume of your loudspeaker so that we can hear more clearly?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am glad to respond to the hon. Gentleman's request.
      Mr. Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Which amendment are we on now?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. 29.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 6

      SHORTENING OF BARRELS
      Amendment proposed: No. 45, in page 4, line 10 leave out 'revolving magazine' and insert 'revolver'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 8

      FIREARMS DEALERS
      Amendment proposed: No. 51, in page 4, line 38, at end insert
      'Or as an essential part of another trade, business or profession.'—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. Deputy Speaker stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 46, in page 4, line 44, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. Deputy Speaker stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 52, in page 5, line 5, leave out from 'that' to end of line 6 and insert
      `each entry made after the coming into force of this subsection will be available for inspection for at least five years from the date on which it was made.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. Deputy Speaker stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 11

      VISITORS' PERMITS
      3.45 am
      Amendment proposed: No. 53, in page 6, line 28, leave out 'will have' and insert
      `has a good reason for having'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 54, in page 6, line 30, leave out from 'ammunition,' to end of line 31 and insert
      `for purchasing or acquiring it, while he is a visitor to Great Britain;'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 55, in page 6, line 32, leave out 'will have' and insert
      `has a good reason for having'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 56, in page 6, leave out line 34, and insert
      `for purchasing or acquiring it, while he is such a visitor.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly
      484
      called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 57 in page 6, line 36, leave out from 'believe' to 'that' in line 38 and insert—

      '(a) that his possession of the weapons or ammunition in question would represent a danger to the public safety or to the peace; or

      (b)'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      4 am
      Amendment proposed: No. 58, in page 7, line 3, at end insert—
      '(5A) A single application (a "group application") may be made under this section for the grant of not more than twenty permits to persons specified in the application if it is shown to the satisfaction of the chief officer of police that their purpose in having the weapons in question in their possession while visiting Great Britain is—

      (a) using them for sporting purposes on the same private premises during the same period; or

      (b) participating in the same competition or other event or the same series of competitions or other events.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 59, in page 7, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 7 and insert
      'on the grant of a permit under this section a fee of £12 except that where six or more permits are granted on a group application the fee shall be £60 in respect of those permits taken together.
      (6A) Subsection (6) above'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 12

      SHOT GUNS ACQUIRED FOR EXPORT
      Amendment proposed: No. 60, in page 7, line 23, at end insert
      '(1A) A person may, without holding a firearm certificate, purchase from a registered firearms dealer a firearm to which section 1 of the principal Act applies if—

      (a) that person has not been in Great Britain for more than thirty days in the preceding twelve months; and

      485

      (b) the firearm is purchased for the purpose only of being exported from Great Britain without first coming into that person's possession.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 61, in page 7, line 24, after `gun', insert 'or other firearm'.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 62, in page 7, line 25, after `(1), insert 'or (1A)'.—Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 13

      FIREARMS IN MUSEUMS
      Amendment proposed, No. 68, in page 8, line 1, after `firearms', insert 'and ammunition'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 15

      PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF PROHIBITED WEAPONS
      4.15 am
      Amendment proposed: No. 63, in page 8, line 23, leave out from 'them' to end of line 25 and insert
      `; or
      (b) which before that date they had contracted to acquire and were entitled to have in their possession on or after that date by virtue of such certificates held by them,
      and the possession of which will become, or has become, unlawful by virtue of section 1(2) above.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 16

      FIREARMS CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
      Amendment proposed: No. 148, in page 8, line 27, leave out from 'a' to end of line 35 and insert
      `firearms consultative committee consisting of a chairman and not less than twelve other members appointed by the Secretary of State, being persons appearing to him to have knowledge and experience of one or more of the following matters—

      (a) the possession, use or keeping of, or transactions in, firearms;

      (b) weapon technology; and

      (c) the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the principal Act, the Firearms Act 1982 and this Act.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 149, in page 8, line 36, leave out `Consultative'—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 150, in page 8, line 39, leave out from 'the' to end of line 40 and insert
      `committee may resign by notice in writing to the Secretary of State; and the chairman may by such a notice resign his office as such.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 151, in page 8, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 9 and insert
      `(4) it shall be the function of the committee—

      (a) to keep under review the working of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above and to make to the Secretary of State such recommendation as the committee may from time to time think necessary for the improvement of the working of those provisions;

      487

      (b) if requested by the Secretary of State to do so, to make proposals for amending those provisions; and

      (c) to advise the Secretary of State on any other matter relating to those provisions which he may refer to the committee.

      (5) The committee shall in each year make a report on its activities to the Secretary of State who shall lay copies of the report before Parliament.'.-[Mr. Douglas. Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      4.30 am
      Amendment proposed: No. 152, in page 9, line 12, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 13 and insert
      'cease to exist at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force unless the Secretary of State provides by an order made by statutory instrument for it to continue thereafter, but no such order shall continue the committee for more than three years at a time.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 17

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
      Amendment proposed: No. 64, in page 9, line 14, at beginning insert—
      `( ) In section 4 of the principal Act (conversion of weapons) in subsection (4), for the words "converted contrary to subsection (3) above" there shall be substituted the words "converted as mentioned in subsection (3) above".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 65, in page 9, line 14, leave out 'the principal' and insert `that'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 66, in page 9, line 18, at end insert—
      `(1A) In sections 13(1)(c), 40(4) and 49(1) of that Act (which refer to officers of police) for the words "an officer of police", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted the words "a constable".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it: and, on his decision being challenged, It appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 30, in page 9, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'there' in line 33 and insert
      'In subsection(1) of section 42 of that Act (transferor of firearm to which section I applies to give notice of transaction to a chief officer of police) for the words "forty-eight hours" there shall be substituted the words "seven days" and after that subsection'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it: and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      4.45 am
      Amendment proposed: No. 67, in page 9, line 37 at end insert—
      '(4A) In Part I of Schedule 6 to that Act (penalties), in the entry relating to section 9(3) (false statement to obtain permit for auction of firearms) for columns 3 and 4 there shall be substituted the following—

      "Summary

      6 Month or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; or both.".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 19

      INTERPRETATION AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      Amendment proposed: No. 47, in page 10, line 12. leave out from 'Act' to 'containing' in line 13 and insert
      "'revolver", in relation to a smooth-bore gun, means a gun'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly

      489
      called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 48, in page 10, line 14, at end insert—
      `(2A) In section 57(4) of the principal Act after the definition of "registered" there shall be inserted—
      rifle' includes carbine;",'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 20

      SHORT TITLE, CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendment proposed: No. 21, in page 10, line 35, leave out
      `This Act shall come into force on'
      and insert
      `Except for section (Corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland) and this section the provisions of this Act shall not come into force until'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 22, in page 10, line 38, at beginning insert
      `Except for section (Corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland) and this section'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    SCHEDULE

      FIREARMS IN MUSEUMS
      5 am
      Amendment proposed: No. 69, in page 11, line 12, after `firearms', insert 'and ammunition'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it: and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 70, in page 11, line 16, after `weapons', insert 'and ammunition'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 71, in page 11, line 21, after `firearms', insert 'and ammunition'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 72, in page 11, line 24, leave out from 'securing' to the end of line 25 and insert
      `the safe custody of the firearms and ammunition in question'.—[Mr Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 73, in page 12, leave out lines 33 to 40.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 74, in page 12, line 42, leave out 'or under sub-paragraph (4)(b)'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Tim Smith(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether, before we reach amendment No. 23, you could give me some advice because I do not know how to vote on it. Do you have any information about why we should leave out:
      "The Museum of Naval Ordnance, Priddy's Yard"?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that theAyes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed,

      491
      and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      5.15 am
      Amendment proposed: No. 23, in page 13, line 23, leave out
      'The Museum of Naval Ordnance, Priddy's Yard'.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will wish to know that I am prepared to allow a Division on Third Reading.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 12.

      Division No. 341]

      [5.18 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Day, Stephen

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Allason, Rupert

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Amess, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Amos, Alan

      Dover, Den

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dunn, Bob

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Durant, Tony

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Ashby, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Atkinson, David

      Favell, Tony

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Baldry, Tony

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Forman, Nigel

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Forth, Eric

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Boswell, Tim

      Franks, Cecil

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Freeman, Roger

      Bowis, John

      French, Douglas

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bright, Graham

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Gregory, Conal

      Burt, Alistair

      Ground, Patrick

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Cash, William

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Harris, David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hayward, Robert

      Cope, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cran, James

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

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

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      492

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

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Page, Richard

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Paice, James

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Irvine, Michael

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Jack, Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Janman, Tim

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jessel, Toby

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Renton, Tim

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Riddick, Graham

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Ryder, Richard

      Knapman, Roger

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knowles, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Knox, David

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lang, Ian

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Speed, Keith

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stern, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Stevens, Lewis

      Lilley, Peter

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lord, Michael

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Maclean, David

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tracey, Richard

      Mans, Keith

      Trotter, Neville

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Walden, George

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Watts, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Wells, Bowen

      Miller, Hal

      Wheeler, John

      Mills, Iain

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Wilkinson, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wilshire, David

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Wood, Timothy

      Nelson, Anthony

      Neubert, Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      NOES

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Beggs, Roy

      Salmond, Alex

      Cryer, Bob

      Skinner, Dennis

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Tellers for the Noes:

      McCusker, Harold

      Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Andrew Welsh

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

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

  Takeover Bids
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
  5.29 am
  Mr. John Greenway: I doubt whether there can have been many occasions in recent years when an hon. Member who has been lucky enough to raise an issue on the Adjournment for the first time has had such a large and supportive audience, has chosen to discuss a subject that has dominated the day's national news, has had to wait such a long time and has witnessed such bizarre scenes while preparing for the debate. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs for the fact that he has had to stay up all night. I hope he will find, after my speech, that it has been worth while.
  As the House knows, early today my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that, following advice from the Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Gordon Borrie, there were, in his view, no grounds for the Government to intervene in the Nestle bid and the 29·9 per cent. Suchard interest in Rowntree, and that he would not therefore refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
  This decision is a cause of deep regret to many of my constituents and to many people in Yorkshire and the rest of the country. It is also a matter of considerable regret to me that I find myself so greatly at odds with my right hon. and noble Friend, for whom I have such great admiration.
  I and my hon. Friends, whose support this morning I much appreciate, find it difficult to accept that there is no Case for referring the Rowntree issue to the MMC on grounds of lack of reciprocity. In his speech to the Retail Consortium early this morning, the Secretary of State admitted that the London stock exchange would not accept the restrictive approach of Swiss companies.
  I ask the House to consider the following points. Foreign companies cannot take over listed Swiss companies. Practically no Swiss-quoted companies have been acquired by non-Swiss companies of any nationality in recent years. No quoted Swiss companies have been the subject of hostile takeovers in recent years by predators of even Swiss nationality—let alone by United Kingdom or European ones.
  Quoted Swiss companies can defend themselves in a way that is not possible for United Kingdom-listed companies. They can simply refuse to register the shares acquired by an unwelcome shareholder. United Kingdom stock exchange rules prevent a United Kingdom company from taking such defensive action. Almost all quoted Swiss companies do not allow non-Swiss shareholders to be registered with significant shareholdings. With rules enforced by Swiss banks, the main stockbrokers in Switzerland, these companies have adopted anti-foreign shareholder policies which allow them to refuse to sell registered shares in these companies to foreigners.
  Early today the Secretary of State suggested that
  "nothing in our law prevents a company, with the consent of its shareholders, making it virtually impossible to have a hostile takeover."
  He mentioned several companies that have ended up in that position.
  But the Secretary of State must know that these companies are in the minority; they are very much the exception. In most cases their rules were formulated under
  494
  original private ownership and no major United Kingdom company would have a realistic chance of persuading the financial institutions to underwrite share issues on Swiss terms. But that is not all. The real point that the Secretary of State has not answered is that to which I have already referred: Swiss companies can refuse to register shares. Reciprocity is not so much about voting rights as about transferability. Public companies in the United Kingdom cannot refuse to register; in Switzerland the right of refusal to register is the everyday creed.
  The DTI Blue Paper on mergers policy, published only two months ago, states in paragraph 2.26:
  "There are instances in which foreign ownership of a UK company may raise particular concerns, and in such cases the power to make a reference to the MMC is available for use. One consideration that may be relevant in some cases is the extent to which UK companies have reciprocal freedom to acquire companies based in the home country of the prospective acquirer."
  If ever there was a case for a reference on grounds of lack of reciprocity, the Swiss interest in Rowntree is it. Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell the House which other cases or circumstances the Government had in mind when drafting that recommendation.
  The attitude of the Swiss Government towards those matters also deserves further scrutiny and consideration. The Secretary of State confirmed earlier today that,
  "at that level—government intervention—there are no barriers to British firms taking over Swiss firms."
  It is my understanding that, on 23 February 1983, the Federal Government of Switzerland recommended changes in Swiss company law which supported the proposition that the board of a Swiss company should be free to refuse to register foreigners as registered shareholders. I understand that those recommendations and concerns about the protectionist position the Swiss firms have led the Federal Government to promulgate a review of the regulations. That surely shows that the Swiss authorities may well have intervened.
  Referral of the Nestlé bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) suggested earlier today, would have sent a very clear signal to the Swiss authorities that the protectionist regimes of the public quoted companies in Switzerland are not acceptable. It is a lost opportunity to create the pressure needed to even out the ground rules. I am not alone in taking that view. On 11 May, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary told the Swiss Government
  "Swiss companies expect to make takeovers in our market. Their Government must ensure British firms can make takeovers in theirs. We want the single market to be an open market. But if the away teams are going to play on a level pitch when they come to the Community we shall want to see them levelling their pitch too for the return match."
  As it is, by not referring the Rowntree issue to the MMC, the Secretary of State has sent a signal to the Swiss not to mend their ways, but to prepare for more predatory takeovers. Other non-EEC-based companies will have felt encouraged to take similar action.
  It does not require much imagination to envisage that Nestlé or Suchard, having lost the battle for Rowntree, might then bid successfully for Cadbury. How could the United Kingdom Government or the European Commission prevent a future Nestlé-Rowntree and then Suchard-Cadbury merger? By that means, we could yet pass from six major confectionery companies in Europe at

  495
  present down to five, then quickly to four and even then to three, all outside the control of either this Government or the European Commission.
  After confectionery firms, what else may be at risk? The issue has certainly exposed opportunities for other major takeovers. The food and drinks industries look vulnerable, as much comment in the media yesterday has suggested and has been reflected in share price movements. In my own profession, insurance, which has always been international in outlook, fears are being expressed and, without any intervention by or approach from me, representations were made on news of this debate that the leading position of major United Kingdom insurers to take advantage of the opportunities of 1992 has been fully recognised abroad. Those issues must be reviewed urgently. The Leisner review did not address them. A referral of the Rowntree issue would have been the ideal opportunity to do so.
  I fully recognise and appreciate the tremendous benefits that inward instment and acquisitions overseas are playing in the spectacular recovery of the United Kingdom economy. It is a recovery which only the policies that this Government have pursued could have brought about, but there are occasions when the questions raised are sufficiently important to warrant consideration of other interests without running the risks of damaging other investment opportunities. That must be why the policy on mergers provides the opportunity for referral on grounds other than competition.
  I share my right hon. and noble Friend's belief that stock markets are better judges of the viability of mergers than Governments and politicians, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) outlined so clearly in an article in The Guardian yesterday, to work for the public good, capital markets must be efficient. Therein lies the virtue and importance of reciprocity. Any company which is the subject of a bid from a less efficient company can counter-bid or look to a white knight to do so. Investor interest will always bring the efficient company out on top, but this option is not open to Rowntree. If the control of Rowntree is lost to Switzerland, it will be lost for ever. That is surely the acid test of riciprocity.
  Throughout the country the advertising hoardings show Sir John Harvey-Jones, the former chairman of ICI, declaring of 1992:
  "History is in the making."
  Those words have a hollow ring about them in York this morning. Is it too late? Can Rowntree be saved? The Rowntree board must decide how to respond to the Nestle and Suchard interest and attempt to convince shareholders of its arguments. That is the board's job and it must do that.
  However, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry could yet intervene. The Suchard bid, which it has announced it will launch shortly, must now be considered by the Office of Fair Trading. Unlike Nestle, Suchard has no factories in the United Kingdom and no history of investment here. As a consequence, it has no employees in the United Kingdom. Suchard is under private control. On both national interest and reciprocity grounds, the Suchard bid sould be considered by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I urge the Secretary of State to make such a reference.
  5.40 am
  Mr. Conal Gregory: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on securing this debate. It is most timely for the House to consider the matter further Even at this late hour, I welcome the continued support of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) who have joined us on this occasion.
  In recent years Rowntree has nurtured a European seed. Its brands in mainland Europe are successful and gaining momentum. We should consider that background as we build towards 1992. Now a Swiss predator has threatened that European drive and determination. Although Rowntree is well placed for the magic date of 1992, it cannot effectively stop a hostile bid from a non-European Community company.
  At this stage, I should ask several questions related to reciprocity. The Rowntree case shows the probability that successful British companies well prepared for 1992 will become the targets of foreign companies that are less well prepared. We have seen and are seeing a struggle for a major confectionery company. A pharmaceutical company may be next.
  It is true that red tape is being cut away, but at the same time my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is showing the green light for takeovers. That trend will be reinforced because aggressive bidders know that they are unlikely to see successful British companies ripe to be plucked elsewhere in the European Community.
  If we follow the analogy used by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, and if the bid from the Swiss predator is successful and the American bid for Cadbury succeeds, some 80 per cent. of the United Kingdom confectionery industry will be taken out of European Community hands. The Swiss are likely to be particularly aggressive because of their concern about exclusion from the European Community, but they will continue to protect their own companies from aggressive purchase by foreigners.
  Our cri de coeur is that the Swiss are not playing cricket. They are not playing at fair and free competition. We want the freedom of the skies in Europe and freedom in manufacturing industry. We also want fairness and that is not contained in the Government's policy.
  When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs replies, I hope that he will tell us where Britain stands with regard to its mergers policy. Why is the United Kingdom, together with France, delaying signing the European Community directive? If that had been signed, the European Commission could have intervened in the past week. How seriously does my right hon. and noble Friend consider the lack of reciprocity? I have yet to hear of any one from Britain or elsewhere in the European Community being successful at buying into a Swiss company.
  We must have answers to these points and to the matter of the referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because that has an employment aspect in Britain.
  5.44 am
  Mr. Michael Alison: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for

  497
  allowing me to take up some of the precious time of his Adjournment debate to speak in support of Rowntree on behalf of the many Rowntree employees who live in Selby.
  I believe that it is perverse, if not inept, for the Government to advocate strongly open markets as the best means of encouraging efficiency and jobs in Britain—the Secretary of State advocated that today. The Government then recognised, however, that Swiss companies tend to be more restrictive than ours. They further recognised that Swiss companies appear to be wavering slightly on open markets—we believe that that attitude scarcely serves the Swiss economy well.
  The Government have not followed the logic of their argument, however, and they have not exacted a penalty for that waywardness by closing the doors on Nestle until the Swiss open their doors to us. Such a contradictory attitude on the part of our Government is unsatisfactory.
  I fear that the restrictive Swiss, of whom we all disapprove in this context, will be the beneficiaries and the free-trading Britons will be the losers. That is the paradox. Above all, Rowntree will be the victim of the Government's error of judgment.
  I hope that the Minister will take to heart the alternative route forward—for which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale eloquently argued—and, even at this late hour, give Rowntree a second chance.
  5.46 am
  Sir Giles Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for allowing me to make a brief contribution to the debate. I must declare an interest as a past employee of 18 years' standing in Rowntree.
  I cannot accept that national issues are not connected with the bid and I believe that they should be addressed. A mechanism for redress has not been used—that is, the rapid progress that has now been made in providing advice from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Such advice is now available within three months.
  There are three issues at stake. First, I find it extraordinary that a company can make a bid of 14·9 per cent. and an offer for Rowntree of £2·1 billion. That offer immediately releases the bid of 14·9 per cent. up to 30 per cent. Rowntree is unable to defend itself under stock exchange regulations because it cannot provide the bid document from Nestle and is therefore unable to offer a full defence. That cannot be right or fair.
  Secondly, I do not understand why it is believed that the European dimension has been included in the assessments made by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State. We know nothing about it. What is the European dimension? It should be publicised and we should know how it works.
  Thirdly, the public are most confused about our monopolies and mergers policy. They do not understand it. They believe that that mechanism should be used from time to time. They do not understand why it is not used in many of the operations considered by the Department of Trade and Industry. The rarity of its use is the wrong way to go about things.
  498
  We should have a clear signalling system, which would not worry capital flows, but would merely make it obvious that, from time to time, Britain has a populist, nationalist case to argue. That case should be argued in the House.
  5.48 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): I understand the anxiety that is felt by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Rowntree has been a topical subject for a month or more. It was timely, in terms of dates, for my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) to draw the Adjournment debate tonight, although it has not proved timely in terms of the hour of the debate. It gives us the opportunity, however, to consider some of the wider aspects connected with the bid and with the decision that my right hon. and noble Friend announced yesterday morning.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) raised specific questions with which I shall deal first. He mentioned stock exchange rules, which he feels have prejudiced Rowntree's position. I shall look at the point he raised and consider whether there are things to be done. He says that we ought to make clearer our policy on mergers. We have done so in a Blue Paper that we published two months ago.
  My hon. Friend says that we should be more ready to use the tool of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Every year in the United Kingdom there are hundreds of mergers that qualify for reference under the asset test or the market share test. A tiny proportion of those mergers are referred for a full inquiry. That proportion has not become more tiny under my right hon. and noble Friend's regime. We are not slow to make a reference when there is a clear public interest in doing so, and a number of recent cases illustrate that.
  I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) that a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is not to be used as a penalty against a company making a bid. It is to be used to inquire whether the public interest is adversely affected. Unless there is a possibility of an adverse public interest finding, it would be cynical for us simply to meet a populist demand. If a properly funded case is made, it has been shown that we are not slow to respond, but, in the absence of a case being fully made, it would be cynical to use a major tool of competition policy in that way.
  The decision that my right hon. and noble Friend made and announced earlier does not by any means mean that the die is cast and that Nestlé will necessarily take over Rowntree nor that by his decision my right hon. and noble Friend is voicing any preference about the future ownership of Rowntree. His decision means only that there are no grounds for intervention in the proper working of the market in this case. It is now up to the Rowntree shareholders, as it has been throughout from the launching of the bid, to make their own decision whether to accept an offer in the light of future market developments. That decision is made entirely in accordance with the Government's policy on mergers, restated in the Blue Paper earlier this year.
  I turn to the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale mentioned at the outset, the Suchard bid for Rowntree. As he asserts, Sir Gordon Borrie will consider it and advise my right hon. and noble Friend. None of my

  499
  hon. Friends will expect me to give a preview either of what that advice will be—because I cannot possibly know—or of what my right hon. and noble Friend's decision will be following that. The proper statutory procedures will have to be followed and we shall have to wait and see.
  There were no competition issues, and no one seriously has suggested that there are. The market shares, even after a successful bid for Rowntree by Nestle, would not be such as to cause anxiety from that point of view. The case has rested on reciprocity, which at first glance is an appealing concept. It seems unfair to us that companies in other countries which have protected, bid-proof share structures should be able to buy shares in our companies on the open market with no form of counter-action available to UK companies. Our sense of fair play, of playing the game, of our playing cricket while others do not, is offended. It is easy to see why, but the reality is rather more complex.
  Under Swiss law there are no powers for the Swiss or foreigners to block takeovers of industrial companies. So, at the level of Government intervention, there are no barriers to British firms taking over Swiss firms. Indeed, in terms of legal powers, the United Kingdom barriers are higher. As has been pointed out, Swiss companies may make themselves proof against unwelcome takeovers, whether by Swiss or foreign companies—as my hon. Friend was fair enough to point out—by restrictions on certain types of shareholding.
  Equally, there is nothing in United Kingdom company law that prevents a company, with the consent of its shareholders, from making a similar arrangement. There are many British public and quoted companies having differential share structures which make it difficult for takeovers effectively to be mounted. Those are not just accidents of history. Only this month Sotheby's issued shares which represented 25 per cent. of the company's capital but only 3 per cent. of its voting rights.
  Companies do not even need to go to those lengths. There are many other companies in this country which are proof against takeovers—the large mutual institutions, building societies and private companies are not quoted—and many public companies have large blocks of shares held in family hands. That also makes them, by the nature of their share structure, proof against hostile takeovers.
  There are two points in particular that I wish to make. First, the issue of reciprocity has become synonymous with foreign takeovers of United Kingdom companies and the possibility, or not, of the converse. Much has been made of the foreign nature of Nestlé as a bidding company. However, we must remember that Nestlé has been manufacturing in the United Kingdom for more than 120
  500
  years. It employs more people in the United Kingdom than it does in Switzerland. Its product range includes such "foreign" products as Carnation milk and Branston pickle. The idea that Nestle is a company charging in from outside with no knowledge of the British market is plainly absurd.
  In general, in the case of Switzerland and of other countries—such as Germany, which has restrictive share structures—to think of reciprocity as something that arises only in the foreign context is to misconstrue the facts. Swiss companies are often structured to protect themselves against any form of hostile takeover, whether domestic or foreign. In other words, those arrangements are just as applicable to Swiss predators as they are to foreign ones.
  Secondly, both the Swiss and United Kingdom systems of structuring companies are rooted in culture rather than in law. Both Swiss and United Kingdom company law is essentially permissive, allowing companies to structure themselves as they see fit. We have opted for an open stock market that allows for contested bids, but the Swiss culture is different. It gives greater emphasis to companies being able to protect themselves from hostile bids. However, foreign takeovers of Swiss companies do occur, but only on a friendly basis. We simply look differently at mergers.
  We believe that the United Kingdom systems brings us considerable benefits. My hon. Friend pointed out that there is considerable public debate in Switzerland about whether the system which that country has followed brings the greatest benefits. The fact that the Swiss are re-examining that aspect suggests that there are doubts about it. It is for each country to pursue its internal policy. We have made a judgment that our system serves our national interest best, and I have no doubt that that judgment is fundamentally correct.
  The question of the single European market in 1992 has been raised. How should we approach it? We say that the competition authorities must judge in the first instance what is the market that is applicable. Is it a local market, a regional market, a national market, or an international market? We must consider what are the market shares, what will be the ease of entry, and how that will affect the issues of competition. Those aspects were considerd in this case as in any other. We must make sure that we maintain our open markets. They have brought us great benefits and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so in the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Six o'clock on Thursday 26 May.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Universities
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report a table, covering the years 1979–80 to 1990–91, which provides a summarised revenue account for universities in Great Britain, distinguishing (a) gross expenditure and (b) income, differentiating student fees paid by the United Kingdom Government, students' fees paid directly by United Kingdom students, overseas students' fees, research and contract income from other United Kingdom Government sources, research and contract income from charitable foundations, research and contract income from the United Kingdom private sector, other research and contract income, public donations, trading profit, or miscellaneous sales income declared gross and other miscellaneous income and (c) net expenditure on a definition consistent with the entries for current expenditure in universities in table 12·1 of Cm 288-II.

  Mr. Jackson
  Universities' income and expenditure in years up to the academic year 1985–86, the latest for which the information is available, is set out in successive annual editions of "University Statistics: Volume Three, Finance". Copies are in the Library. The Government make no forecast of these figures.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils in(a) Durham city and (b) the county of Durham lost their entitlement to free school meals in the last month.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information for Durham city is not separately available. In October 1987 about 8,660 pupils in the county of Durham received free school meals because their families were in receipt of family income supplement, or through the operation of LEA discretion. From 11 April the families of those in the former category will receive a cash benefit of £2·55 per week throughout the year under the new family credit scheme, which will also cover many in the latter category. Children from families in receipt of, or who are themselves in receipt of, income support (the successor to supplementary benefit) continue to be eligible for free school meals. Nationally it is estaimated that about 100,000 more school age children will benefit under the family credit scheme compared with those who currently receive free school meals under family income supplement and LEA discretionary schemes combined.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has of how many children 166
  within the Leicestershire education authority area have lost entitlement to free school meals as a result of the benefit changes which came into effect in April.

  Mr. Dunn
  In October 1987 about 4,840 pupils in Leicestershire received free school meals because their families were in receipt of family income supplement, or through the operation of LEA discretion. From 11 April this year the families of those in the former category receive a cash benefit of £2·55 per week throughout the year under the new family credit scheme, which will also cover many in the latter category. Children from families in receipt of, or who are themselves in receipt of, income support (the successor to supplementary benefit) continue to be eligible for free school meals. Nationally it is estimated that about 100,000 more school age children will benefit under the family credit scheme compared with those who currently receive free school meals under family income supplement and LEA discretionary schemes combined.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Legislation (Amendments)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many non-government amendments have been carried at the Committee stage of Government-sponsored public Bills for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

PRIME MINISTER

  Top Salaries Review Body
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement about the chairmanship of the Top Salaries Review Body.

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Plowden has advised me that he will wish to retire as chairman of the Top Salaries Review Body after it has completed its next report in 1989. I shall accept his resignation with great regret and I wish to place on record the Government's gratitude for his outstanding service as a member of the Top Salaries Review Body since 1977, and as chairman for the last seven years.

  I am glad to be able to announce that Sir David Nickson has agreed to take over the chairmanship from Lord Plowden and to serve as a member of the review body for its 1988–89 review.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Under-Age Drinking (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of prosecutions in each of the last five years for under-age drinking against publicans and juveniles.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information available to me, which may be incomplete, relates to prosecutions under
  167
  sections 169(1) and 169(2) of the Licensing Act 1964, and is given in the following table. Data for 1987 are not yet available.

  Persons proceeded against for offences under sections 169(1) and 169(2) of the Licensing Act 1964

  England and Wales

  Number of persons

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Prosecutions under:

  Section 169(1)

  323

  307

  314

  274

  296

  Section 169(2)

  1,931

  1,627

  1,171

  790

  949

  Prison Officers (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Prison Officers Association to seek to resolve the action by prison officers at Wandsworth prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Meetings have taken place recently between officials and the Prison Officers' Association aimed at the resolution of the current dispute. A further meeting has been arranged for today.

  Guernsey (Employment Law)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley on Thursday 5 May, whether the state of Jersey has passed a protection of employment opportunities law; if it has been seen by his Department; when the state of Guernsey plans to discuss similar legislation which would involve restrictions on United Kingdom citizens; what action he proposes to take to protect their interests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Protection of Employment Opportunities (Jersey) Law 1988 was examined by the Home Office before my right hon. Friend advised Her Majesty The Queen in Council on the matter of Royal Assent which was given on 17 February 1988. The law enables the island authorities to make regulations, should the need arise, to protect employment opportunities in prescribed categories of employment for those having a connection with the Bailiwick. At present, no such regulations have been made and I understand none is planned in the foreseeable future. The freedom of movement of British citizens between the United Kingdom and the island is not curtailed by the Law.

  I understand that the states of Guernsey intend to debate legislation, which might include matters relating to employment controls, in the near future. As with Jersey, should any such measures be proposed, they will be examined by the Home Office in the light of the need to ensure that those with close links with the island have adequate opportunities for employment.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of installation of the new message switch system in local authority emergency centres.
  168
  Mr. John Patten
  A limited scale of equipment has been installed in one county in each of the home defence regions, except London, and additional installations have taken place in regions 4, 7 and 10.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement of the performance of Chernikeef Telecommunications in the provision of message switch equipment for local authority emergency centres.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is not the practice to comment on matters which are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether his Department will meet grant-aid requirements incurred by the installation of the new message switch system in local authority emergency centres;

  (2) why expenditure relating to the installation of the new message switch system in local authority emergency centres is eligible for 100 per cent. grant-aid at county level installations but only 75 per cent. grant-aid at district level installations.

  Mr. John Patten
  Subject to prior approval, adaption work necessary for the installation of civil defence communications equipment at local authority emergency centres is eligible for grant aid at the relevant rate. Differential rates of grant were determined at a time when shire district centres contained little or no Home Office communications equipment, and it was decided that available funds should be concentrated elsewhere. The policy is under review.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he expects any additional costs to be incurred as a result of problems encountered during the installation and commissioning of the new message switch system in local authority emergency centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  No, although some additional costs may arise in connection with the provision of extra features in the equipment specification.

  Satellite Television
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has concerning the likely schemes or proposals for satellite television services capable of being received in the United Kingdom which are the responsibility of(a) companies or organisations subject to United Kingdom legislation, (b) not in (a) above, but subject to legislation of the European Economic Community, and (c) not susceptible to either (a) or (b) above; and if he will make a statement concerning any activities or initiatives by Her Majesty's Government concerning international agreements concerning the standards of broadcast material in respect of (c) above.

  Mr. Renton
  There is a distinction between services transmitted by satellite for reception and distribution via cable systems, and services for direct reception in the home. Services of the former type are subject to regulation by the Cable Authority under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 in the same way as other cable services. Since May 1985 it has, however, been open to anyone to obtain
  169
  a licence for the direct reception of any satellite programme service, whether primarily intended for cable distribution or not.

  Services broadcast direct to the home by satellite and not distributed on cable are not subject to Cable Authority regulation. I am aware of two current schemes for such services. British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd.(BSB) has been awarded the contract by the Independent Broadcasting Authority to provide a three-channel direct broadcasting by satellite service for the United Kingdom as part of its television broadcasting services under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 and the Broadcasting Act 1981. BSB plans to launch its service in autumn 1989.

  The Luxembourg-based company, Societe Europeenne des Satellites, plans to launch the Astra medium-powered satellite to provide a 16-channel service to Northern Europe, including the United Kingdom. Up to 11 channels are likely to be in English. I understand that Astra hopes to start its service towards the end of 1988 or early in 1989.

  In addition, I understand that the European Telecommunications Satellite Organisation (EUTELSAT) has undertaken a feasibility study, in collaboration with the European Space Agency, into the possible implementation of a European satellite for direct broadcasting. EUTELSAT has yet to make a decision as to whether to proceed.

  The Government are continuing to play an active part in the Council of Europe in negotiations on a draft convention on transfrontier broadcasting. The purpose of the convention will be to facilitate the transfrontier transmission and retransmission of television programme services that comply with prescribed minimum standards. The Government are seeking to ensure that the code of standards is compatible with the United Kingdom's national standards on taste and decency. It is hoped that the convention can be agreed in time for it to be open for signature and ratification at the Stockholm conference of European broadcasting Ministers in November.

  Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act (Prosecutions)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prosecutions have been brought under the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act in the most recent years for which figures are available;

  (2) how many convictions have been recorded under the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act in the most recent years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information available to me, which may be incomplete, shows no prosecutions under the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 in 1985 and six prosecutions in 1986, two of which resulted in convictions.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to seek to increase the sentences available to the courts under the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. We consider the existing maximum penalties—six months' imprisonment or a fine of £2,000, or both—to be adequate.

  Departmental Employees (Registered Disabled)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of employees of his Department is registered disabled.
  170
  Mr. Hurd
  One hundred and fifty three members of staff are registered disabled. They represent 0·4 per cent. of all staff, including the prison service in England and Wales.

  Police Air Support Units
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost to the public funds of the Home Office sponsored experiment carried out by the West Midlands police air support unit in February over a stretch of the M42.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Home Office share of the cost of the three patrol flights over the M42 in February was £1,064. There were no additional police costs incurred.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans for further sponsored experiments by his Department involving police air support units being used for road traffic purposes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No, but we shall be considering this matter again when we have received the report on the recently completed experiment.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 May, when he intends to reach a conclusion on the outcome of the experiment of using police air support units for road traffic purposes; and if he will make it his policy to make an oral statement to the House when he has reached a decision.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A report on the experiment, which formed a minor part of an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the midlands police air operation, is being prepared. I shall write to my hon. Friend when it is available.

  Lonrho plc, Blarg and Contargo
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police for the City of London as to whether inquiries into the Liechtenstein subsidiaries of Lonhro plc, Blarg and Contargo have now been completed; and whether the papers have been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that the papers have now been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Police Officers' Notebooks
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 18 May,Official Report, column 462, if, in the light of the acquittal of eight defendants at Knightsbridge Crown court on 20 May, following the sending of the log books of police officers involved for forensic examination after irregularities were found, he will now reconsider his refusal to adopt the proposal to time-stamp police officers' notebooks where it is intended that the contents of these notebooks are to be used as evidence in court proceedings; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The circumstances which led to the acquittal are being investigated by the metropolitan police under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority.
  171
  It would be wrong to make any comment or decision on any matter which may be covered by that investigation until it has been completed.

  Bail Information Schemes
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a report on the pilot bail information schemes set up in 1987.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Vera Institute of Justice has today published its report on eight pilot bail information schemes which were established during 1987 under the auspices of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation. The object of these schemes is to provide the Crown Prosecution Service with verified information about defendants, for example, on accommodation or community ties, which is relevant to the decision on whether to oppose bail.

  The report shows that the schemes enabled the Crown Prosecution Service to take better informed decisions on whether to oppose bail or not. This in turn enabled the courts in the pilot areas to make more use of bail, without any increase in the failure rate of those on bail.

  I am now urgently considering how best we can build on the experience of these schemes in co-operation with the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and probation service.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Prisons (Opticians)
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Liverpool prison has been without the services of an optician for eight months; and why it was four months before the vacancy was advertised.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The visiting optician to Liverpool prison resigned without notice last October. Local medical management sought to arrange a temporary appointment but experienced difficulty in identifying a suitable optician. In the meantime, the matter was referred to prison service headquarters for local advertising to be arranged. Regrettably, the advertisements were considerably delayed by staff sickness and work pressures in the personnel division concerned.

  Throughout the period in which the prison was without the service of a visiting optician, optical referrals were made as appropriate to the visiting consultant ophthalmologist.

  A visiting optician has now been appointed and commenced work on 23 May.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedure is used to ensure that prisoners can have eye examinations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A prisoner who requests optical treatment will be examined by the medical officer who will refer him to the optician if he considers that to be medically appropriate.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons are currently without the services of an optician.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Department is not aware that any establishment is without such a service.

  Police Interviews (Tape Recording)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to when tape recording facilities will be installed for police interviews in the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that a phased programme to install tape recording facilities at police stations throughout the whole area served by the Hampshire constabulary is well under way. Work to equip interview rooms at police stations in Newport and Shanklin on the Isle of Wight has already begun, and work will start shortly at Ryde and Cowes.

  Community Radio
  Mr. Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce further details on the community radio stations licence procedures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The position remains as set out in my replies to various questions on 27 January from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) at columns 251–54.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Attorney-General whether any changes will be made to the serious fraud office's cash limit and running cost limit for 1988–89.

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit on class XI, vote 12, will be increased by £606,000 from £5,480,000 to £6,086,000 and the running costs limit by £606,000 from £4,174,000 to £4,780,000. It was originally hoped that the serious fraud office, in line with other departments, would be able to restrict its expenditure to the provision agreed during the 1987 public expenditure survey. It is not clear that this will not be possible, the PES provision having necessarily been agreed at a stage in the office's development when precise information about its costs—particularly those relating to accommodation—was not available. No net increase to public expenditure results from this change as the cash limit increase will be charged to the 1988–89 reserve.

ENERGY

  Energy Efficiency (Scotland)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the promotion of energy efficiency in Scotland.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Government have achieved considerable success in encouraging the efficient use of energy in all sectors in Scotland. There are now over 1,000 energy managers in Scotland. Grants of about £0·7 million have been given for energy surveys which have identified potential estimated savings of almost £20 million per year. In addition, through the energy efficiency demonstration scheme, £2·1 million has been provided to test new
  173
  energy-saving technologies. In the domestic sector, 412,000 grants totalling just under £9·25 million have been provided through the homes insulation scheme. On 11 May I opened a successful conference in Glasgow on energy efficiency in commercial properties in Glasgow.

  Nirex
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the Government's intentions for ownership and management of Nirex following privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Present expectations are that the Central Electricity Generating Board's shareholding in UK Nirex Ltd. will pass to the successor operator of CEGB nuclear power stations. The management of the company is a matter for the company and its shareholders.

TRANSPORT

  A49 (Bartington Crossroads)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the traffic lights scheme at the Bartington crossroads on the A49 to be completed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  During this financial year. Work will start as soon as design and land entry details are finalised.

  Ferries Safety Steering Committee
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will publish in the Official Report the payments made to (a) Captain Tony Barrett, director and general manager of P and O European Transport Services Ltd., and (b) other members of the steering committee investigating safety measures for British roll-on/roll-off ferries.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No payments are made to members of the steering committee other than expenses for travelling and subsistence.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will remove Captain Tony Barrett from the steering committee investigating safety measures for British roll-on/roll-off ferries.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No.

  Tolls
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report a list of road, bridge and tunnel facilities in each of the four countries of the United Kingdom for which tolls are levied, with a note for each entry of the name and address of the responsible authority; whether it produces published accounts for that specific facility; which Minister is responsible for authorising changes in such tolls and on which (i) public expenditure programme and (ii) class, vote and subhead, the toll revenue and associated expenditure is to be found.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I can answer for tolled facilities in England.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for the Severn bridge. Toll
  174
  revenue and associated expenditure there is part of the roads public expenditure programme and appears in class VIII, vote 1, under subheads A 1.7—new construction and renewals; A1.8—toll and operating equipment; B1.5—toll collection and breakdown service; and B2.1—toll revenue.

  Toll revenue and associated expenditure at other crossings does not appear in the roads public expenditure programme. The Secretary of State is responsible for authorising changes in the tolls on a number of other bridges, floating bridges and roads. Details of ownership and accounting arrangements are not readily available for all minor crossings and roads. The major estuarial crossings in England, for which accounts are published annually and the authorities responsible for those crossings, are as follows:

  Dartford tunnels

  Dartford Tunnel Joint Committee

  Tunnel offices

  South orbital way

  Dartford

  DA1 5PR

  Humber bridge

  Humber Bridge Board

  Guildhall

  Kingston upon Hull

  HU1 2AA

  Itchen bridge

  Hampshire county council

  The Castle

  Winchester

  SO23 8UJ

  Mersey tunnels

  Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority

  PO Box 87

  Tithebarn House

  Liverpool

  L69 2LU

  Tamar bridge

  Tamar Bridge and Torpoint Ferry Joint Committee

  The Manager

  Torport Ferry Office

  Torpoint

  Cornwall

  PL11 2AX

  Tyne tunnel

  Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Authority

  Civic Centre

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  NE99 2BN

  A40 (Improvement)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost figure used for the acquisition of publicly owned land in the metropolitan green belt for the purpose of enabling the A40 improvement scheme to be undertaken at the junction with Long Lane, Hillingdon.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  At the 1987 public inquiry the total cost of all the land, including Hillingdon station, needed for this scheme was estimated at £3·375 million. No separate estimate was made for metropolitan green belt land. The actual purchase price will be a matter for negotiation with the landowners concerned.

  Cars and Motor Cycles (Statistics)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cars and how many motor cycles
  175
  were registered and used on the roads of the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and how many were involved in road accidents with (a) other vehicles, (b) no other vehicles involved and (c) pedestrians in each of the last five years.

  Cars and motor cycles: Great Britain: 1982 to 1986

  New registrations

  Currently licensed vehicles

  Total involved in single vehicle accidents

  Total involved in multiple vehicle accidents

  Total colliding with a pedestrian

  1982

  Cars

  1,584,300

  15,453,000

  65,603

  203,154

  44,543

  Motor cycles

  231,600

  1,370,000

  19,571

  53,462

  6,907

  1983

  Cars

  1,806,100

  15,854,000

  62,622

  192,864

  46,138

  Motor cycles

  174,500

  1,290,000

  16,831

  49,131

  5,938

  1984

  Cars

  1,759,300

  16,529,000

  66,105

  207,324

  48,020

  Motor cycles

  145,200

  1,225,000

  16,593

  48,747

  5,658

  1985

  Cars

  1,842,100

  16,829,000

  65,228

  207,037

  46,860

  Motor cycles

  125,800

  1,148,000

  14,261

  43,561

  4,719

  1986

  Cars

  1,883,200

  17,389,000

  65,978

  218,003

  46,908

  Motor cycles

  106,400

  1,065,000

  12,831

  40,731

  4,305

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Single Market (Competition Rules)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, in the light of his Department's promotion of the European single market, he will bring forward proposals for revising competition rules so as to be based on the European Community rather than the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the timescale for such reforms.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Proposals for reform of restrictive trade practices legislation were published in my Department's Green Paper of March 1988, Cm. 331. These envisage a system which will be broadly consistent with the equivalent Community rules. The Government are participating fully in working party discussions of the draft

  Crude balance of trade in manufactures1 (US$ Billion)

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  Denmark

  France

  Netherlands

  United Kingdom

  United States of America

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Japan

  1975

  +3·4

  -2·0

  +9·4

  -1·2

  +7·7

  +17·3

  +38·7

  +41·6

  1976

  +3·4

  -3·3

  +5·4

  -0·8

  +7·3

  +9·8

  +42·1

  +51·2

  1977

  +3·0

  -3·0

  +9·0

  -3·1

  +9·0

  +0·3

  +46·9

  +63·0

  1978

  +3·5

  -3·3

  +9·9

  -4·8

  +7·0

  -14·7

  +53·6

  +74·8

  1979

  +3·5

  -3·7

  +11·5

  -4·7

  +2·6

  -3·3

  +59·1

  +72·6

  1980

  +3·9

  -2·2

  +7·3

  -3·9

  +8·4

  10·8

  +63·2

  +95·1

  1981

  +4·4

  -1·1

  +8·8

  -0·5

  +5·1

  +3·1

  +61·7

  +116·4

  1982

  +3·8

  -1·6

  +3·4

  -0·1

  +0·3

  -14·1

  +67·5

  +104·6

  1983

  +4·8

  -1·1

  +6·3

  -0·1

  -7·5

  -41·0

  +58·7

  +110·9

  1984

  +4·1

  -1·7

  +8·9

  -0·5

  -8·6

  -90·8

  +59·5

  +128·5

  1985

  +5·1

  -2·4

  +7·3

  -2·1

  -7·6

  -115·3

  +67·5

  +134·7

  1986

  +4·7

  -4·5

  +1·3

  -4·7

  -12·1

  -147·1

  +89·4

  +160·2

  1987

  2+1½

  2-3½

  2-2½

  2-7½

  2-16·3

  2-154

  2+105

  2+164

  1 Standard International Trade Classification Sections 5 to 8.

  2 Estimate.

  Sources: OECD National Sources.

  Regional Development Grants
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of regional development grant allocated, by region, for each financial year from 1979–80 to 1987–88, what these figures are as a percentage
  176
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested for the last five years for which complete road accident data are available, is given in the table:

  EC proposals for a merger control regulation. It is expected that progress will be reviewed by the Council in June.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what, for each year since 1975, was the percentage change in the balance of trade in manufacturing goods of Belgium, Denmark, France, Holland, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, West Germany and Japan.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  As the sign of the balance can vary from year to year, it is not appropriate to measure changes in the balance of trade in percentage terms. The balances in US dollars are in the table:

  of the total budget; and what they were in cash terms.

  Mr. Atkins
  Expenditure on regional development grant by English region, and as a percentage of the RDG total for England, in the financial years 1979–80 to 1987–88 is as follows:
  177

  £ million (percentage of England total in brackets)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–882

  East Midlands

  2·4 (1·1)

  3·2 (1·2)

  7·2 (2·0)

  8·8 (3·1)

  8·2 (3·7)

  3·8 (1·8)

  4·4 (2·6)

  8·4 (3·3)

  7·1 (5·1)

  North East

  107·0(51·0)

  101·1(36·9)

  109·7(31·2)

  91·4(32·6)

  68·8(30·7)

  61·6(29·5)

  46·4(27·9)

  89·8(35·3)

  57·6(41·4)

  North West

  74·1(35·3)

  122·2(44·6)

  177·5(50·5)

  133·1(47·4)

  115·5(51·6)

  107·4(51·4)

  83·0(49·8)

  113·7(44·7)

  49·7(35·7)

  South West

  5·0 (2·4)

  8·5 (3·1)

  10·3 (2·9)

  11·0 (3·9)

  7·8 (3·5)

  9·5 (4·5)

  8·6 (5·2)

  15·3 (6·0)

  7·0 (5·0)

  West Midlands

  1—

  0·1 (0·04)

  1—

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  21·5(10·2)

  38·7(14·1)

  47·1(13·4)

  36·4(13·0)

  23·5(10·5)

  26·8(12·8)

  24·2(14·5)

  27·1(10·7)

  17·8(12·8)

  Total RDG expenditure in England

  210·0

  273·8

  351·8

  280·7

  223·8

  209·1

  166·6

  254·3

  139·2

  1 Negligible (that is, less than £50,000).

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of regional development grant allocated to each of the counties of Cleveland, Cumbria, Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear, for each financial year from 1979–80 to 1987–88, in cash terms.

  £ million

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Cleveland

  61·6

  43·7

  43·7

  22·8

  22·6

  20·6

  10·6

  30·0

  15·5

  Cumbria

  15·4

  16·5

  34·1

  35·8

  32·5

  25·5

  19·7

  10·8

  3·7

  Durham

  7·3

  7·3

  9·4

  8·3

  4·6

  7·1

  5·2

  11·3

  9·5

  Northumberland

  2·5

  4·3

  5·9

  5·4

  2·2

  3·1

  0·9

  2·1

  3·4

  Tyne and Wear

  8·2

  12·6

  18·0

  23·4

  16·5

  13·1

  13·6

  27·8

  22·3

  Note:

  1987–88 data are provisional.

  Chemical Weapon Detection Kits
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will lift the restrictions on the sales and export of chemical weapon detection kits to enable humanitarian aid to be given to victims and potential victims of chemical attack; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. Equipment specially designed for detection of chemical weapons is controlled under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1987. There is no absolute ban on export. Applications for licences to export such goods are carefully considered on their merits depending upon the destination and the potential end user.

  Joint Ventures (Soviet Union)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the implications for British industry of the clauses relating to joint ventures between Soviet and Western enterprises in the Soviet law on state enterprises which came into effect on 1 January.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Soviet legislation permitting joint ventures with Western companies was introduced in January 1987 and amended in October 1987 to take account of some concerns expressed by potential Western participants. My Department and the British embassy in Moscow both constantly monitor the available information and provide advice to United Kingdom companies considering the possibility of joint ventures with a Soviet partner. It is for individual companies themselves to decide whether joint ventures are in their best commercial interests, and to negotiate terms which are acceptable to
  178
  Mr. Atkins
  Expenditure on regional development grant in the areas and financial years requested was as follows:

  both partners. So far, two United Kingdom companies have signed such contracts, and several more are under active discussion.

  Enterprise Zones (Soviet Union)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received any proposals from the Soviet Government for British investment and involvement in the establishment of enterprise zones in that country; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No proposals for British investment or involvement in the establishment of enterprise zones in the USSR have been received from the Soviet Government. If any are received in the future, we shall study them with interest.

  Anglo-Soviet Trade
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the figures for the amount of official credit to finance Anglo-Soviet trade for each year between 1975 and 1987; and what information lie has about any additional credit provided to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not the practice of this or previous Governments to reveal the amount of official credit guaranteed by ECGD to individual countries. Figures for business insured and exports insured by area are published in ECGD's Summary of Audited Trading Results 1986–87. For information on other credit provided to the USSR one would need to approach those financial institutions involved.

  Guinness plc
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the report of the inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of Guinness plc will be delayed until completion of the associated criminal prosecutions.

  Mr. Maude
  Yes.

  House of Fraser (Holdings) plc
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he now expects the inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of House of Fraser (Holdings) plc to report.

  Mr. Maude
  The investigation continues, but I am unable to say when a report will be received.

  Furniture (Fire Safety)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has received any representations from officials or Ministers of European Community member states concerning the new furniture fire safety regulations.

  Mr. Butcher
  The only official approach to the Government on this subject of which I am aware has been from the Italian embassy in London. As a result a discussion of the implications of the draft regulations for Italian suppliers of furnishing fabrics took place on 9 May.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (I) what steps he has taken to discover the extent to which the pattern book industry has the capacity to replace the pattern books of furnishing fabric suppliers within the proposed time scale for the introduction of new furniture fire safety legislation;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the cost to the suppliers of soft furnishing fabric of replacing pattern books when the new furniture fire safety regulations are implemented;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the amount of time that small suppliers of soft furnishing fabric will require in order to replace their pattern books prior to the introduction of new furniture fire safety regulations.

  Mr. Butcher
  I have received representations on these subjects and I am taking them into account in my consideration of possible changes to the draft regulations.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what technological assistance will be provided by his Department in order to help suppliers of soft furnishing fabric to conform with the requirements of the new furniture fire safety regulations.

  Mr. Butcher
  Detailed technological assistance is available in industry from many furniture manufacturers, from the research associations for the furniture industry and textile suppliers, from fire retardant processing companies, from independent consultants and from test houses. Many of these bodies have done a great deal of work in the past in readiness for the announcement of a date when match resistance will be required and are ready to assist fabric suppliers in meeting the requirement.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) in how many domestic fires in each of the last five years furniture has been judged to be the point of ignition;
  180
  (2) in how many domestic fires in which the ignition point was judged to be furniture death has resulted from (a) burns and (b) fumes from furniture foam, in each of the last five years;

  (3) how many people have died in domestic fires in each of the last five years; and how many of those deaths were judged to have been caused by (a) burns and (b) fumes from furniture foam.

  Mr. Butcher
  The last five full years' statistics give the following figures for fires where the material first ignited was upholstered furniture or covers:

  Year

  Number

  1982

  3,554

  1983

  3,325

  1984

  3,571

  1985

  3,551

  1986

  3,660

  The numbers of deaths resulting from fires in which upholstered furniture was judged to be the item first ignited for the last available five years' statistics are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1982

  145

  1983

  133

  1984

  148

  1985

  146

  1986

  156

  I am not able at this point to provide specific data concerning cause of death for these, but there seems no reason to suppose that there is any disparity in the breakdown in the causes of death between these furniture fires and the general fire figures which are as follows:

  Total Fires in Occupied Buildings

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Death due to

  Burns, number

  258

  249

  262

  281

  300

  as a percentage

  33

  31

  32

  30

  33

  Gas or Smoke asphyxiation, number

  520

  553

  553

  655

  615

  as a percentage

  67

  69

  68

  70

  67

  Accordingly the estimated answer to question (3) is as follows:

  Fires in upholstered furniture

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Death due to

  Burns

  48

  41

  47

  44

  51

  Gas or smoke

  97

  92

  101

  102

  105

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representations he has so far received concerning furniture fire safety regulations.

  Mr. Butcher
  I have received about 260 representations about the draft regulations circulated on 1 March.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what funding will be provided by his Department in order to assist the suppliers of soft furnishing fabric to conform to new furniture fire safety regulations.
  181
  Mr. Butcher
  All worthwhile proposals for financial assistance towards the development of products which make a contribution to consumer safety, such as chemical treatments which make textiles more resistant to fire, receive sympathetic consideration provided that such proposals meet the criteria for R and D policy set out in the White Paper.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment his Department has made of the effect that the new furniture fire safety regulations will have on European Community trade after 1992.

  Mr. Butcher
  All suppliers of furniture, components, and furnishings to the British market will compete on an equal basis. It is possible that some continental suppliers will find the British market less attractive than they do at present, since our legal requirements for fire resistance of furniture will be so far ahead of those in the rest of Europe. But differences already exist and do not inhibit trade within the Community. I am satisfied that our new regulations will not have the effect of erecting new barriers to trade, in contravention of the treaty of Rome.

  As for any effect on British exports, the regulations will not apply to goods destined for export. Some exporters of furnishing textiles have claimed that the effect of the draft regulations would be to require them to offer separate ranges of fabrics for the home and export trades and that this would involve unacceptable extra costs, so that their export business would in practice be adversely affected. I am taking this possibility into account in my consideration of possible changes to the draft regulations.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the overall cost for soft furnishing suppliers of meeting the new furniture fire safety regulations.

  Mr. Butcher
  All proposals for new regulations are subject to compliance cost assessment, a formal procedure carried out by professional economists within the DTI and designed to establish whether the compliance costs to industry, and to consumers, are proportionate to the benefits which the regulations will bring.

  A correct assessment of costs will depend on the final detail of the regulations to be determined in the near future.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what steps he has taken to discover the extent to which the capacity and the proven technology exist for the full variety of furnishing fabrics to conform to the new furniture fire safety regulations;

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the effects of present fire retardant treatments on high quality textiles.

  Mr. Butcher
  The objective of the draft regulations is to reduce the risk of fire associated with upholstered furniture and bedding. There is therefore no question of tailoring them to enable the full variety of furnishing fabrics now commercially available to conform. On the contrary, it will be necessary for suppliers of furnishing fabrics to modify the range of products which they offer. The majority of furnishing fabrics now in use can be effectively treated to make them match-resistant and still viable in other respects such as appearance and durability. I accept that 182
  some high quality textiles may be adversely affected, for example, in appearance. I am considering the ways in which the regulations may be modified in order to take account of consumer preferences for fabrics which present problems in this respect. But the industry should recognise that a reduction in consumer choice is part of the price to be paid for increased safety.

DEFENCE

  Falkland Islands
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military projects undertaken by the Government in the Falkland Islands and the cost of each to date both in current and 1988 prices.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 20 May 1988]: The two major military works projects were the construction of the airfield at Mount Pleasant, and the works undertaken to concentrate the garrison at Mount Pleasant, for which the cash costs were about £300 million and £110 million respectively. The costs at September 1987 prices were about £370 million and £130 million respectively.

SCOTLAND

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Millan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the Scottish electricity industry, if privatised, will not fall under foreign control.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Government are considering whether any special share arrangements are required for the privatised electricity industry. Our decision will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to make a definitive statement on the Government's strategic priorities for the electricity supply industry, as foreshadowed in his White Paper, Cm. 327.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Discussions with the Scottish electricity boards on the future structure of the privatised industry and a range of other related issues are continuing. I 'will announce the outcome of these deliberations in due course.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further consultations he has undertaken on the privatisation of the electricity industry.

  Mr. Lang
  Detailed discussions with the Scottish electricity boards on a wide range of issues relating to privatisation are continuing on a regular basis. Representatives of customers and employees are also being consulted about matters of concern to them.

  Job Creation
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the level of job creation in Scotland over the past five years.

  Mr. Lang
  Comprehensive figures on the level of job creation in Scotland are not available. However, in the
  183
  period April 1983 to March 1988, offers of regional selective assistance (RSA) were associated with the creation of 48,000 new jobs, and the safeguarding of a further 32,000 jobs.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scottish local authorities about the impact of changes in the housing benefit system on the application of the Government's housing policies in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Seven letters from individual local authorities, and one from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have included reference to the impact of housing benefit changes along with other comments on the Government's housing proposals.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the impact of recent changes in the housing benefit system on the objectives set out in his White Paper "Housing in Scotland" (Cm. 242).

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The changes made recently to the housing benefit system ensure that housing benefit is better targeted to those who need it. This will help them to take advantage of the new opportunities for renting being provided by the Housing (Scotland) Bill.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the effects on local government in Scotland of the recent alterations to the system of housing benefit payments.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Representations on the reformed housing benefit system, including the most recent changes, have been received from local authorities and members of the public. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have had discussions over the last year with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about the new system as part of our regular round of meetings on local government finance.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes will occur in the level of rate support grant paid to local authorities by his Department as a result of the alterations in the system of housing benefit payments.

  Mr. Lang
  The costs of preparing for the new system of housing benefit payments were met through a 100 per cent. specific grant. There was therefore no direct effect on rate support grant.

  Devolution
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on devolving political decision-making on exclusively Scottish matters from Westminster to Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The hon. Member must know that the Scottish Office already has responsibility for a very wide range of Government functions in Scotland.

  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to meet the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board to discuss electricity generation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board from time to time to discuss a wide range of issues affecting the industry, although he has no immediate plans for a meeting.

  Hospital Catering and Cleaning Services
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with the privatisation of hospital catering and cleaning services; and if he proposes to seek further powers in this connection.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards are making good progress with the current phase of competitive tendering and are now seeking tenders for domestic and catering contracts. No additional powers are required in this area.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the clergy over the impact of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received 81 representations from the clergy and church organisations since the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill was enacted in May last year. These representations covered a range of issues related to the introduction of the community charge including the effects of rating reform on church buildings, and the effects of the community charge on members of religious communities and on ministers of religion and their families.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library copies of all written guidance he has issued to community charge registration officers.

  Mr. Lang
  The procedural requirements for the community charge registration system are fully set out in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and the regulations which have been made under it. Copies of the departmental circulars drawing the attention of local authorities to the Act and the regulations have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the latest numbers registering for exemption from the poll tax on the basis of returns to community charge registration officers.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not available centrally.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to what level of community charge registration has been reached in the Highland region.

  Mr. Lang
  Detailed information on the progress of community charge registration is not available centrally.
  185
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters concerning poll tax registration his Department has received from members of the public since 1 April.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received 144 such letters since 1 April.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions have taken place between his Department and community charge registration officials concerning the process of registration for poll tax purposes since I April.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has had any communications with poll tax registration officers to ascertain what progress is being made in the registration process.

  Mr. Lang
  There have been no formal discussions. Informal contacts with registration officers indicate that the registration process is going smoothly.

  Nationalised Industries
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are employed by nationalised industries in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The estimate of the latest employment in nationalised industries in Scotland is about 70,000. This estimate has been compiled from figures based on somewhat different dates and methods of compilation.

  Electricity Boards
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board concerning the geographical divisions between the two boards following privatisation.

  Mr. Lang
  None.

  Schools (Opting Out)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with education authorities on the opting out of Scottish schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the opting out of schools from local authority management; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have published no proposals on this subject and have received few representations specifically concerned with it; but I am aware that a recent independent opinion poll indicated that 31 per cent. of parents supported the proposition that parents should be allowed to take their school out of education authority control if a majority wished to do so.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce his plans for the opting out of Scottish schools; what arrangements will be made for consultation with interested parties; and if he will make a statement.
  186
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No decisions have been taken about the introduction of legislation on this subject.

  Health Boards
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what rate of inflation was used when he calculated the level of resources allocated to Scottish health boards for 1988–89.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  4·5 per cent.

  Co-Star Ltd
  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the affairs of Co-Star Ltd.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The affairs of this company are still the subject of investigation by the liquidator who will report any evidence of criminality to the police or procurator fiscal.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange to meet representatives of the Scottish Development Agency and Renfrew district council to consider future industrial development plans for the Renfrew area.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans at present. I understand, however, that the Renfrew Development Company, comprising representatives of the private sector, the Scottish Development Agency and the regional and district councils now meets on a monthly basis and discusses, among other things, the development of the local economy.

  National Farmers Union
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met members of the Scottish National Farmers Union; and what issues were discussed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met members of the union at their annual dinner in Glasgow on 10 March, where a wide range of matters of mutual concern was discussed.

  Overseas Development Agency (East Kilbride)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to publish the report commissioned by his Department on the relocation of Civil Service posts to the Overseas Development Agency establishment in East Kilbride.

  Mr. Lang
  I anticipate that the report, which was commissioned by the Industry Department for Scotland, will be published in the second half of June this year. A summary article will also appear in the next issue of the Scottish Economic Bulletin which is due to be published around the end of June.

  Maternity Services (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the future of maternity services provision in rural areas.
  187
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I have received a considerable number of representations about the future of maternity services provision in Grampian. These will be fully taken into account when we come to consider the board's formal closure submissions.

  Local Government
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans there are to reform the structure of local government in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have no specific plans at present, but shall be taking views on whether and how the present structure could be improved.

  Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent meetings he has had with the United Kingdom Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive; and what subjects were discussed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no recent meetings with the executive.

  Crime Prevention Panels
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce guidelines to chief constables in the matter of appointments to crime prevention panels; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Seals
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest evidence available to him of the trend in the population of seals around the coast of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The most recent advice obtained from the National Environment Research Council on grey seals estimated the population around the coast of Scotland to be approximately 87,000 in 1986 and 92,500 in 1987. Comparable figures for common seals are not available. The most recent surveys by the council estimated the minimum size of this population to be approximately 18,000 in 1986. Further surveys are planned for 1989 and 1990.

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Ayrshire and Arran health board to discuss the development of National Health Service facilities in Ayrshire.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have not met the chairman of Ayrshire and Arran health board to discuss development of National Health Service facilities in Ayrshire. On behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend I meet health board chairmen three times a year to discuss a range of matters. The last in this series of meetings was on 18 March.

  COSLA
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met representatives of COSLA on Friday 29 April to discuss local government finance.

  Class Actions
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations the Lord Advocate has received about the introduction of class actions into Scottish legal procedure; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Representations have been received recently from the Consumers' Association. My noble and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, and my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, are considering steps to improve the availability in Scotland of an effective judicial remedy for a number of individuals with similar complaints against a common defender.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current level of unemployment in Scotland; and what it was in 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  On 14 April 1988 (the latest date for which information is available) the number of unemployed claimants in Scotland was 309,084 (12·6 per cent.). The corresponding figure for April 1979 was 164,432 (6·7 per cent.). The figures are not directly comparable due to changes in the compilation of the statistics.

  Private Medical Clinics
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of beds in private medical clinics in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In terms of the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 as amended, 5,063 beds were available in private nursing homes and hospitals as at 31 March 1987.

  Ruchill Hospital, Glasgow
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the proposed closure of the pathology department at Ruchill hospital, Glasgow; what effect the closure will have on the treatment of AIDS; and what consultations have taken place with staff.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that the Greater Glasgow health board is conducting a review of the laboratory services in its area, including the pathology units. No decision will be taken concerning the future of any of the pathology departments, including that at Ruchill, until the outcome of the review is known later this year. The board intends that there will be full consultation with the staff associations.

  Patients (Transport Costs)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the costs, both in absolute and percentage terms, spent on transportation of patients to and from medical establishments in the latest year for which figures are available in(a) the Western Isles, (b) the Highlands and (c) the Borders.

  £,000 1986–87

  Scottish ambulance service

  Highlands and Western Isles

  Fife, Lothian and Borders

  Scotland

  £

  £

  £

  Total costs

  2,048

  5,861

  26,994

  Percentage of Scotland total

  7·6

  21·7

  100

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the health budget accounts for travel costs in each of the following health boards(a) the Western Isles (b) the Highlands and (c) the Borders in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I assume the question relates to reimbursement of patients' travel costs. The patients' travelling expenses schemes are centrally funded and do not affect the annual allocation to each health board. Expenditure on the schemes in 1986–87 in the respective health board areas is set out in the table.

  Expenditure on patients travelling expenses schemes 1986–87

  Equivalent percentage of health board allocation for 1986–87

  £'000s

  Percentage

  Western Isles Health Board area

  256

  3·3

  Highland Health Board area

  361

  0·6

  Borders Health Board area

  1

  0·004

  Chief Medical Officer
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whom outside Her Majesty's Government he is consulting about the appointment of the new chief medical officer; and when he expects to make an appointment.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The appointment of a chief medical officer, Scottish Home and Health Department, is being made under Civil Service Commission arrangements. A public advertisement has invited suitably qualified persons to apply for the post. The selection board interviews will be held in June with a view to appointing a successful candidate who will be expected to take up post on the retirement of the present chief medical officer.

  Audit
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the British Medical Association and the Medical Practitioners Union concerning audit.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Hospitals (Quality of Care)
  Mr Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list since 1979 the projects with their
  190
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The transportation of patients in Scotland is the prime responsibility of the Scottish ambulance service. In financial year 1986–87, costs incurred in the two Scottish ambulance service areas which include the Western Isles, the Highlands and the Borders were as follows:

  costs approved by the Scottish Home and Health Department designed to examine quality of care in Scottish hospitals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and will arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Library.

  Farmers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers there are in each region of Scotland at the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information required is shown in the table. The data is from the June agricultural census 1987.

  Region

  Number of farmers

  Islands

  2,061

  Highlands

  2,629

  Grampian

  4,431

  Tayside

  1,952

  Fife

  681

  Lothian

  706

  Borders

  1,190

  Central

  731

  Strathclyde

  4,078

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,240

  Scotland

  20,699

  Farm Workers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farm workers are employed in each region of Scotland at the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information required is shown in the table. The data is from the June agricultural census 1987:

  Region

  Total employed

  Islands

  968

  Highlands

  2,020

  Grampian

  5,603

  Tayside

  3,892

  Fife

  1,777

  Lothian

  1,892

  Borders

  2,724

  Central

  1,068

  Strathclyde

  5,724

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,173

  191

  Region

  Total employed

  Scotland

  29,841

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients are currently on waiting lists for in-patient treatment at National Health Service hospitals in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provisional figure for 30 September 1987 is 77,772. The industrial action in 1982 led to an increase of over 29,000 in the waiting lists between March 1981 and March 1983, and the recent industrial action has resulted in nearly 3,500 operations being cancelled between January and April this year.

  Prisons (Reports)
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library copies of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland's reports on Aberdeen, Inverness and Dungavel prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Copies of the reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland on Aberdeen, Inverness and Dungavel prisons, with my response, are being placed in the Library today. I have also sent copies of the relevant reports to the Members in whose constituencies the prisons are located and to the chairman of the Scottish all-party penal affairs group, and to other interested bodies. Further copies may also be purchased from the Department.

  Table 1

  "Host" district populations

  Mid year

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  East Kilbride

  Kirkcaldy

  Cunninghame

  West Lothian

  1974

  51,868

  79,458

  148,234

  130,356

  122,906

  1975

  53,534

  81,861

  148,353

  132,265

  123,708

  1976

  55,557

  84,083

  149,006

  134,322

  127,338

  1977

  56,873

  85,556

  149,448

  136,179

  131,475

  1978

  60,969

  84,403

  150,036

  136,174

  134,273

  1979

  62,463

  84,096

  149,508

  137,042

  136,670

  1980

  63,103

  83,757

  149,933

  137,556

  137,875

  1981

  62,245

  83,204

  149,527

  137,304

  139,314

  1982

  62,802

  82,951

  149,488

  137,207

  140,244

  1983

  62,794

  82,524

  149,491

  137,683

  140,700

  1984

  63,040

  82,441

  149,423

  137,291

  141,532

  1985

  62,970

  81,952

  148,894

  137,094

  141,944

  1986

  62,503

  81,837

  148,193

  137,147

  140,545

  1987

  62,547

  81,718

  147,963

  137,265

  141,684

  Source: General Register Office (Scotland).

  Table 2

  Area (in hectares) of "Host" district councils for Scottish new towns

  Town

  "Host" district

  11975

  1980

  1985

  1988

  Cumbernauld

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  7,918

  9,481

  10,298

  10,298

  East Kilbride

  East Kilbride

  34,312

  28,490

  28,490

  28,490

  Glenrothes

  Kirkcaldy

  23,754

  24,835

  24,820

  24,835

  Legal Aid
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered making legal aid available for multi-party actions as is now provided for, as respects England and Wales, by the Legal Aid Bill.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I consider that my regulation-making powers under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 are sufficiently wide to allow legal aid for multi-party actions without the need for primary legislation.

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing, for each of the five Scottish new towns for the years 1974–75 to 1989–90, inclusive, the actual or estimated (a) hectares and population within the designated area, (b) hectares and population of the host district councils, (c) numbers of employed persons within the designated area and (d) numbers of employed persons within the area of the district council.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 April 1988]: The information requested is as follows:

  A. Hectares and population within the designated area.

  Table 1 shows population for each of the towns as at 31 March each year and is based on figures supplied to the Industry Department for Scotland by the development corporations. Table 2 details the designated areas as at 31 March for 1974, 1975, 1986 and 1987; no detailed information is available for the years 1976–85 inclusive, or for 1988–90.

  B. Hectares and population of the "host" district councils.

  Table 1 gives the Registrar General's mid-year estimates of population for the "host" district councils. Table 2 details the area in hectares of the host district councils for the years shown; information for other years between 1974 and 1988 is not available.
  193

  Town

  "Host" district

  11975

  1980

  1985

  1988

  Irvine

  Cunninghame

  63,345

  87,859

  87,859

  87,859

  Livingston

  West Lothian

  42,230

  42,305

  42,305

  42,305

  Source: Municipal Year Book

  11975 was the year in which the reforms embodied in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 were implemented.

  C. Numbers of employed persons within the designated area.

  Up to 1981 the Census of Employment was based on the Department of Employment's Local Employment Office Areas (LEOA's). These correspond quite closely to the designated areas of the New Towns but are not precisely comparable. Irvine New Town covers 2 LEOA's, namely Irvine and Kilwinning. The 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1981 Census of Employment data is shown in Table 1; no Census was conducted in 1979, 1980, 1982 or 1983. The Livingston LEOA includes Mid Calder in 1981. The 1984 and 1987 Census of Employment data is based on travel to work areas, which do not correspond to New Town designated areas [eg East Kilbride lies within the Glasgow travel to work area]. No Census of Employment

  Table 1

  Numbers of employed persons within new town designated areas

  Local employment office area

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1981

  Cumbernauld

  11,873

  12,167

  12,088

  11,244

  11,458

  11,579

  East Kilbride

  29,246

  29,137

  30,904

  29,790

  28,728

  26,094

  Glenrothes

  19,189

  16,725

  18,999

  18,881

  19,946

  18,858

  Irvine

  22,192

  22,013

  23,086

  23,356

  22,258

  18,715

  Livingston

  8,546

  8,771

  9,722

  9,641

  11,551

  13,145

  Total

  91,046

  88,813

  94,799

  92,912

  93,941

  88,391

  Note: The figures relate to persons in employment and do not distinguish between full and part time employment.

  D. Numbers of employed persons within the area of the district council.

  Census of Employment data for local government districts is only readily available for 1981 and 1984 and is reproduced below.

  Table 1

  Scottish new towns' population 1974–87

  Cumbernauld

  East Kilbride

  Glenrothes

  Irvine

  Livingston

  1974

  36,800

  69,540

  31,500

  47,600

  20,938

  1975

  39,810

  71,830

  31,100

  48,700

  22,459

  1976

  43,418

  74,800

  32,500

  50,700

  25,117

  1977

  44,709

  76,250

  33,900

  53,800

  30,600

  1978

  47,111

  76,100

  35,100

  58,000

  33,864

  1979

  49,406

  75,850

  35,650

  59,000

  35,294

  1980

  50,433

  75,800

  37,000

  58,700

  37,064

  1981

  50,748

  76,100

  37,000

  58,900

  38,677

  1982

  50,812

  71,000

  37,500

  57,300

  37,295

  1983

  49,216

  70,600

  36,500

  56,300

  38,828

  1984

  49,469

  70,500

  37,500

  57,150

  39,300

  1985

  49,739

  70,200

  38,000

  57,500

  39,550

  1986

  50,308

  70,000

  38,000

  58,000

  40,380

  1987

  48,839

  69,700

  38,400

  58,600

  40,500

  Table 2

  Scottish new towns' designated areas 1974–1987 (hectares)

  1974

  1975

  1986

  1987

  Cumbernauld

  3,115·2

  3,115·2

  3,154

  3,154

  East Kilbride

  4,100

  4,100

  4,151

  4,151

  Glenrothes

  2,292

  2,292

  2,321

  2,321

  Irvine

  4,976

  4,976

  5,038

  5,038

  Livingston

  2,676

  2,676

  2,780

  2,780

  194
  took place in 1985 or 1986 and none is planned for 1988. The results from the 1987 Census of Employment are not yet available; there are no forecasts of employment for the years 1989–90.

  The New Town Development Corporations conduct regular surveys of employment within their areas. These surveys employ different definitions and methods of data collection as between Towns and the resultant figures are not necessarily consistent with official sources. These figures were collated and replicated as Appendix 2 in the National Audit Office Report no. 276, "Industry Department for Scotland: Review of Scottish new Towns", published on 22 January 1988; copies of that Report are available in the Library.

  New town

  District council

  1981

  1984

  Cumbernauld

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  14,180

  14,603

  East Kilbride

  East Kilbride

  28,303

  29,772

  Glenrothes

  Kirkcaldy

  58,059

  56,019

  Irvine

  Cunninghame

  36,949

  37,042

  Livingston

  West Lothian

  42,186

  43,607

  Note: The figures relate to numbers of employed persons and do not distinguish between full and part-time employees.

  Forestry Grant-aid
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 107, information concerning the payment of forestry grant-aid in Sutherland and Caithness is not kept on a readily available basis; and if he will make a statement.
  195
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: The information is readily available on a case-by-case basis. Since however, these records are not computerised, it would have been necessary to examine hundreds of individual files in order to provide the comprehensive information requested by the hon. Member.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's response to the proposals of the Warsaw treaty countries for a comprehensive ban on nuclear weapons testing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have not responded to the proposal of the Warsaw treaty countries, nor do we intend to do so.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's commitment to human rights in their conduct of foreign policy.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are firmly committed to the promotion and protection of human rights and seek universal observance of the standards which have been agreed internationally for that purpose. We are concerned about violations of human rights wherever they occur and regularly raise such problems in our bilateral contacts with other Governments and in international forums such as the United Nations. Our position was set out clearly in the statement issued by Foreign Ministers of the Twelve on 21 July 1986. Copies of that statement and of the speech given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the United Nations Commission on human rights on 18 February have been placed in the Library.

  Federated European State
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to progression towards a federated European state.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our policy within the Community is based on commitments we entered into under the EC treaties. Nowhere do these treaties refer to progression towards a federated European state.

  Chemical Disarmament
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further initiatives Her Majesty's Government have planned in the field of chemical disarmament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information about the exchange of visits between the United Kingdom chemical defence establishment at Porton Down and the Soviet chemical warfare facility at Shikhany was given to the House by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 5 May. The Soviet team is visiting Porton Down this week and as part of the programme will have talks in the FCO on 27 May about the continuing negotiations in Geneva for a comprehensive and global ban on chemical weapons.
  196
  I expect to visit Geneva in July to address the conference on disarmament. A substantial part of my speech will deal with the subject of chemical weapons, particularly some of the remaining problem areas in the negotiations for a global ban.

  Grenada
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Grenada concerning the plight of political prisoners and the operation of the judicial system there; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  No such representations have been made to the Government of Grenada. We are unaware of any political prisoners there. As an independent Commonwealth country, it is for Grenada alone to determine the judicial system it wishes to operate.

  Fiji
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to ensure that there is a commitment to equal rights in Fiji before continuing with any aid.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our policy on the allocation of bilateral aid to developing countries is based on a set of criteria published in 1987 in Cm. 225 "Bilateral Aid: Country Programmes Observations by the Government." We will continue to be guided by these criteria when considering appropriate levels of aid.

  North Korea
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there are any plans to recognise the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no plans to recognise North Korea.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current relations with North Korea.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not recognise North Korea as a state and have no diplomatic relations with any authorities there.

  Syria
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with the Syrian Arab Republic.

  Mr. Mellor
  We broke diplomatic relations with Syria in 1986 following evidence of Syrian Government complicity in the attempt by Nizar Hindawi to plant a bomb in an El Al airliner.

  We do not propose to resume relations until the Syrians abandon their support for international terrorism.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Chancellor f the Exchequer what was the corporation tax yield from regional selective assistance in 1987–88; and what is the estimated yield for 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information required to provide an estimate is not available and could not be collected without disproportionate expense.

  Debt Provision
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total tax relief made available to United Kingdom banks for debt provision to less developed countries in each financial year from 1973–74 in constant 1987 pound sterling.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The reductions in tax receipts as a result of losses incurred by banks on irrecoverable overseas loans are estimated to be as follows:

  Effective exchange rates: percentage changes in annual averages

  Belgium

  Denmark

  France

  Netherlands

  United Kingdom

  United Stales

  Germany

  Japan

  1975

  -2·6

  0·7

  8·1

  -4·2

  -7·7

  -2·5

  1·3

  -1·9

  1976

  1·5

  1·4

  -4·4

  2·3

  -14·3

  5·1

  4·9

  4·2

  1977

  5·6

  0·5

  -4·5

  6·8

  -5·2

  -0·5

  7·8

  10·6

  1978

  3·7

  2·0

  0·0

  4·7

  0·4

  -8·6

  6·3

  23·0

  1979

  2·4

  1·3

  2·2

  3·4

  7·1

  -2·2

  6·1

  -7·2

  1980

  0·2

  ·70

  1·0

  1·1

  10·0

  0·1

  1·0

  -3·8

  1981

  -6·8

  -10·0

  -10·6

  -6·8

  -1·1

  12·7

  -7·3

  13·1

  1982

  -9·8

  -5·5

  -9·2

  4·0

  -4·7

  11·7

  4·2

  -5·7

  1983

  -4·0

  -2·0

  -8·7

  0·9

  -8·0

  5·8

  2·3

  10·1

  1984

  -3·2

  -5·0

  -6·0

  -3·1

  -5·6

  7·9

  -2·7

  5·7

  1985

  0·7

  1·4

  0·9

  0·4

  -0·5

  4·5

  -0·2

  2·4

  1986

  6·2

  10·4

  6·1

  11·0

  -6·9

  -18·4

  10·9

  26·7

  1987

  4·7

  6·6

  2·4

  7·2

  -0·4

  -11·9

  7·6

  8·2

  Source: IMF international Financial Statistics.

  Incomes
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax units will be on incomes, including unearned income, in excess of £30,000 in 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  About one million. This estimate is based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and is therefore provisional.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration has been given to the taxation of child benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) on 17 May.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that in 1988–89 less revenue is lost from vehicle excise duty evasion in the United Kingdom than during the 1987–88 financial year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.
  198

  £ million

  1985–86

  20

  1986–87

  30

  1987–88

  270

  The effects on receipts for earlier years are zero or negligible.

  Currency Fluctuations
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, for each year since 1975, was the percentage fluctuation in the value of the national currencies of Belgium, Denmark, France, Holland, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, West Germany and Japan.

  Mr. Lilley
  The following table shows, for each of the eight countries in question, percentage changes in effective exchange rates. as computed by the International Monetary Fund, for the years 1975 to 1987.

  In 1988–89 we shall, with the support of the police, pursue VED evadors more vigorously. A record number of enforcement campaigns is planned, covering almost half the vehicle population in England, Scotland and Wales.

  Campaigns induce motorists to tax their vehicles voluntarily through local publicity and lead to the automatic prosecution of those who ignore the warnings given. During the year, the last of the vehicle registration offices will get computer terminals linked to the DVLC vehicles register.

  The number of evadors brought to book through prosecutions or out of court settlements has increased every year since 1981–82 and a further increase is planned in 1988–89.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated annual cost of abolishing the income limits for the various age allowances against income tax; and how many taxpayers would benefit respectively.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 16 May 1988]: The full year cost of abolishing the aged income limit in 1988–89 would be about £190 million and about 750,000

  199
  single people and married couples would benefit. The estimates are based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Scottish Confederation of British Industry for a stable exchange rate; and what response he has sent.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received no representations from the Scottish CBI about the exchange rate this year.

WALES

  Water Rates
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average annual cost of water rates in Wales; what is the environmental services component; and if he will give this information in real and cash terms for the current year and 1987.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is as follows:

  Welsh water authority: Average household bills

  Pounds

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1988–89

  (Estimated outturn)

  (Budget estimate)

  (1987–88 prices)

  Average household bill

  122·61

  134·57

  128·78

  Environmental service charge component

  2·15

  2·32

  2·22

  Riverways and Freshwater Lakes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated total length of riverways and total surface area of freshwater lakes in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is not available in the form requested. Estimates made for the Welsh Water Authority's "A strategic plan for water-space recreation and amenity" showed that the surface area of inland waters in Wales was 30,700 acres. The surface area of freshwater lakes in the ownership of the water authorities in Wales is some 13,400 acres. The estimated total length of "main" rivers in Wales is 3,600 miles.

  Notes:

  Inland waters are:

  (a) rivers, streams, other watercourses, whether or not natural, artificial or tidal;

  (b) lakes, ponds, reservoirs, docks;

  (c) channels, creeks, bays, estuaries and arms of the sea.

  Main rivers are:

  A watercourse for which a water authority accepts responsibility for its land drainage functions.

  Welsh Water Authority
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent by the Welsh water authority on(a) water quality regulation, (b) water resources, (c) water supply, (d) land drainage and flood protection, (e) recreation, amenities, fisheries and navigation, and (f) sewage collection treatment and disposal in 1987–88.
  200
  Mr. Grist
  The information requested will not be available until the Welsh water authority publishes its annual accounts for 1987–88.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff were employed by the Welsh water authority at the latest available date.

  Mr. Grist
  At 31 March 1988, the Welsh water authority employed 4,618 people (full-time equivalents).

  Ofwat
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals his Department is currently making with regard to the prospective powers of Ofwat; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on Friday 20 May 1988.

  Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the main areas of spending in Welsh regional health authorities.

  Mr. Grist
  There are no regional health authorities in Wales. However, the main areas of health authorities' spending in Wales in 1986–87, the latest financial year for which information is available, were as follows:

  £ thousands

  Hospital services

  542,762

  Community health service

  67,270

  Other services1

  33,737

  Headquarters administration

  26,931

  Total revenue expenditure

  670,700

  Capital expenditure

  60,716

  Total expenditure

  731,416

  Source: Health Authorities Annual Accounts.

  1Includes ambulance services, blood transfusion services, emergency bed services, contractual hospitals and, homes, community health councils and other expenditure.

  Handicapped Pupils
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of local education authority areas in which there is a physiotherapy service available in schools, including special schools, to answer the needs of handicapped pupils.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are being taken to ensure that all the technical, polytechnical and further education colleges in Wales are fully accessible for students in wheelchairs.

  Mr. Grist
  It is the responsibility of education authorities and others providing educational buildings to make provision for disabled students. For new buildings, education authorities must observe the minimum requirements of the Department of Education and Science
  201
  design note No. 18 (1984) "Access for disabled people to Educational Buildings" which cover the question of wheelchair access.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many handicapped pupils were registered in January 1987 with local education authorities in Wales as having a need for special education and have that need satisfied at special schools outside Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  In January 1987 local authorities in Wales recorded 13,163 pupils for whom they were or will be maintaining a statement of special educational needs. Information is not available on the number of statemented pupils receiving special education at special schools outside Wales, but in January 1987 a total of 458 statemented pupils were receiving special education in a Welsh or English local authority other than their own.

  Dale of Issue

  Reference

  Title

  29 November 1977

  WO 185/77

  Local education authority arrangements for the school curriculum 1

  12 December 1978

  WO 153/78

  Co-ordination of services for children under five

  15 August 1980

  WO 31/80

  Grants for Welsh language education 1980–81

  5 January 1981

  WO 3/81

  Grants for Welsh language education 1981–82

  10 August 1981

  WO 38/81

  Grants for Welsh language education 1982–83

  1 October 1981

  WO 44/81

  "The School Curriculum" and "Welsh in Schools"

  29 June 1982

  WO 28/82

  Grants for Welsh language education 1983–84

  24 June 1983

  WO 37/83

  Grants for Welsh language education 1984–85

  8 December 1983

  WO 59/83

  "The School Curriculum" and "Welsh in Schools" 2

  12 June 1984

  WO 31/84

  Education Act 1980: Section 21 Grants for Welsh language education 1985–86

  4 June 1985

  WO 30/85

  Education Act 1980: Section 21 Grants for Welsh language education 1986–87

  18 June 1986

  WO 29/86

  Education Act 1980: Section 21 Grants for Welsh language education 1987–88

  24 June 1987

  WO 34/87

  Education Act 1980: Section 21 Grants for Welsh language education 1988–89

  Notes:

  1. Responses to Section G (Welsh language) of this circular are summarized in "Local Authority arrangements for the School curriculum" (Welsh Office, 1979)

  2. Responses to this circular are summarised in "Local Authority reviews of the school curriculum in Wales" (Welsh Office, June 1986).

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in how many secondary schools in Wales it is now possible for pupils to undertake most or all of their education through the medium of the Welsh language; and how many pupils currently receive all or a large part of their secondary education through the medium of the Welsh language.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The latest available information for maintained secondary schools relates to September 1987 and is given in the table:

  Number of subjects taught through the medium of Welsh

  Number of schools

  Number of pupils on roll

  16 or more subjects

  25

  17,634

  11 to 15 subjects

  13

  7,628

  6 to 10 subjects

  2

  1,563

  1 to 5 subjects

  13

  10,043

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the present employment level in Welsh Development Agency factories; and what were the comparable figures for 1979.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information in the form requested is not available. I have asked the Welsh Development Agency to undertake the necessary analysis and when this is complete I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.
  202
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department has spent or provided in the last financial year on improving access to educational buildings in Wales for disabled students.

  Mr. Grist
  Improved access for disabled students is incorporated into the design of new and improved educational buildings. The costs of such provision are not normally separately distinguished.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the circulars which have been issued by his Department over the past 20 years to local education authorities in Wales dealing with the teaching of the Welsh language or the provision of education through the medium of the Welsh language.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many people have been employed by the Welsh Development Agency in each year from 1979 to 1987;

  (2) what was the last budget of the Welsh Development Agency in each year since 1979; what was the increase in real terms in the budget from 1979 to 1981–82, 1982–83, 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87; and what was the increase in staff from 1979 to the present time.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is as follows:

  Gross mainstream latest budgets (£ million)

  Cash

  1988–89 prices1

  Increase on 1979–80

  Average number of staff in post

  1979–80

  34·5

  63·2

  —

  472

  1980–81

  70·6

  109·1

  45·9

  497

  1981–82

  72·5

  101·9

  38·7

  502

  1982–83

  71·4

  93·7

  30·5

  506

  1983–84

  59·1

  74·1

  10·9

  499

  1984–85

  72·0

  86·5

  23·3

  441

  1985–86

  63·3

  71·7

  8·5

  436

  1986–87

  73·0

  80·1

  16·9

  470

  1987–88

  286·0

  89·9

  26·7

  493

  1988–89

  3113·0

  113·0

  49·8

  n/a

  1 Adjusted using GDP deflator.

  2 Excluding the £11·25 million one off cost of acquiring the residual industrial assets of Cwmbran Development Corporation.

  3 Initial Budget.

  203
  In addition to the mainstream budgets shown above the Agency was provided with special resources to help mitigate the effects of the steel closures in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The resources involved are as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  Cash

  27·5

  22·3

  33·2

  13·8

  5·6

  1988–89 prices1

  50·4

  34·5

  46·7

  18·1

  7·0

  1 Adjusted using GDP deflator.

  Teachers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many full-time peripatetic teachers were working for each local authority in Wales in January; how many were shared with other authorities; and how many were part-time peripatetic technical teachers.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Information in respect of peripatetic teachers is not yet available for January 1988. However the numbers in January 1987 are given in the table. Information is not available on the number of peripatetic teachers shared between authorities, or on the number of part-time peripatetic technical teachers employed.

  Number of peripatetic teachers employed by local authorities1 at January 1987

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Clwyd

  57

  64

  Dyfed

  113

  7

  Gwent

  29

  —

  Gwynedd

  56

  38

  Mid Glamorgan

  270

  79

  Powys

  46

  5

  South Glamorgan

  50

  27

  West Glamorgan

  60

  21

  1 Teachers released or seconded for service in schools outside each authority's area should be included in the count of the authorities maintaining the schools to which the teachers are released and excluded from the count for the releasing authority. Teachers shared equally between authorities may be double-counted.

  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued to local education authorities in Wales to ensure that educational facilities for mentally handicapped children give due regard to the home language of such children.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The policy statement "Welsh in Schools" issued in July 1981 gave advice to local education authorities in respect of all pupils, including those with special educational needs, on the place of Welsh in the

  Term of Leaving1

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Autumn

  940

  930

  1,420

  1,310

  1,190

  870

  —

  Spring

  5,510

  4,170

  4,070

  3,950

  3,500

  3,605

  4,160

  Summer

  38,675

  38,795

  39,745

  40,065

  39,350

  39,955

  39,025

  All leavers

  45,125

  43,895

  45,235

  45,325

  44,040

  44,430

  43,185

  Intended Destination1

  Labour Market2

  34,270

  32,040

  32,195

  31,410

  30,950

  30,610

  29,840

  Of which still unemployed next March3

  2,464

  5,039

  7,053

  6,536

  5,157

  5,173

  3,799

  Full-time Education

  10,855

  11,855

  13,040

  13,915

  13,090

  13,820

  13,345

  All leavers

  45,125

  43,895

  45,235

  45,325

  44,040

  44,430

  43,185

  Notes:

  1 School Leavers 10 per cent. Sample Survey. Data is therefore subject to some sampling error.
  204
  school curriculum. Welsh Office circulars 59/81 and 5/83 make the point that linguistic factors are not to be construed as a learning difficulty within the definition of the Education Act 1981, but that, in assessing a child's special educational needs, care should be taken to use a language with which the child and his parents are familiar.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the Welsh Development Agency budget was spent in each Welsh district during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information in the form requested is not available.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total expenditure of the Welsh Development Agency since its inception.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Welsh Development Agency's gross expenditure to the end of 1987–88 amounts to £791 million, inclusive of the special resources allocated to mitigate the effects of the steel closures in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons left school at the end of the last summer term; and, of these, how many are(a) in full-time permanent employment, (b) in full-time education, (c) in youth training or temporary employment schemes and (d) unemployed; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information on the number of persons who left school at the end of the last summer term is not yet available. Detailed information on the first destination of school leavers is not available in the form required. Information on those who left school, by term, for each year since 1979 and their intended destination is available in the table:
  205
  2 Includes leavers who have been accepted under the Youth Training Scheme or temporary employment schemes, and those known to be looking for employment as well as those in full-time employment.

  3 Department of Employment. Shows the number of school leavers under 18 at March each year who had yet to find their first job after leaving school the previous summer.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Stretford of Wednesday 20 April, Official Report, columns 472–73, if he will give for each standard region, from March to March, for each of the last 10 years(a) the

  Employees in Employment thousands

  March of each year

  Total employees in employment

  Change since previous year

  Annual change as a percentage of the working population for June of each year

  1979

  South East

  7,405

  n/a

  n/a

  East Anglia

  687

  n/a

  n/a

  South West

  1,557

  n/a

  n/a

  West Midlands

  2,232

  n/a

  n/a

  East Midlands

  1,543

  n/a

  n/a

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,990

  n/a

  n/a

  North West

  2,666

  n/a

  n/a

  North

  1,234

  n/a

  n/a

  Wales

  1,015

  n/a

  n/a

  Scotland

  2,064

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  South East

  7,475

  70

  0·83

  East Anglia

  695

  8

  0·98

  South West

  1,570

  13

  0·70

  West Midlands

  2,230

  -2

  -0·08

  East Midlands

  1,542

  -1

  -0·06

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,982

  -8

  -0·35

  North West

  2,640

  -26

  -0·84

  North

  1,218

  -16

  -1·10

  Wales

  1,012

  -3

  -0·24

  Scotland

  2,074

  10

  0·41

  1981

  South East

  7,278

  -197

  -2·30

  East Anglia

  678

  -17

  -2·03

  South West

  1,520

  -50

  -2·63

  West Midlands

  2,069

  -161

  -6·35

  East Midlands

  1,473

  -69

  -3·87

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,871

  -111

  -4·84

  North West

  2,496

  -144

  -4·61

  North

  1,142

  -76

  -5·27

  Wales

  942

  -70

  -5·69

  Scotland

  1,998

  -76

  -3·08

  1982

  South East

  7,121

  -157

  -1·83

  East Anglia

  670

  -8

  -0·96

  South West

  1,499

  -21

  -1·09

  West Midlands

  1,991

  -78

  -3·08

  East Midlands

  1,452

  -1

  -1·18

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,807

  -64

  -2·82

  North West

  2,392

  -104

  -3·40

  North

  1,101

  -41

  -2·92

  Wales

  914

  -28

  -2·32

  Scotland

  1,933

  -65

  -2·65

  1983

  South East

  7,038

  -83

  -0·97

  East Anglia

  668

  -2

  -0·24

  South West

  1,470

  -29

  -1·50

  West Midlands

  1,928

  -63

  -2·51

  East Midlands

  1,405

  -47

  -2·62

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,772

  -35

  -1·55

  North West

  2,301

  -91

  -3·01

  206
  total number of employees in employment, and the annual change in employees in employment expressed numerically and as a percentage of the available work force, (b) the number of people in receipt of unemployment benefit, together with the percentage annual change, (c) the average number of hours worked per employee, (c1) the total number of hours worked and (e) the annual change in hours worked, in numerical and percentage terms.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information is as follows:
  207

  March of each year

  Total employees in employment

  Change since previous year

  Annual change as a percentage of the working population for June of each year

  North

  1,061

  -40

  -2·85

  Wales

  879

  -35

  -2·92

  Scotland

  1,879

  -54

  -2·21

  1984

  South East

  7,143

  105

  1·22

  East Anglia

  688

  20

  2·31

  South West

  1,507

  37

  1·92

  West Midlands

  1,956

  28

  1·12

  East Midlands

  1,430

  25

  1·40

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,765

  -7

  -0·31

  North West

  2,280

  -21

  -0·70

  North

  1,056

  -5

  -0·36

  Wales

  873

  -6

  -0·50

  Scotland

  1,880

  1

  0·04

  1985

  South East

  7,239

  96

  1·08

  East Anglia

  721

  33

  3·68

  South West

  1,527

  20

  1·01

  West Midlands

  1,984

  28

  1·11

  East Midlands

  1,472

  42

  2·31

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,769

  4

  0·18

  North West

  2,277

  -3

  -0·10

  North

  1,070

  14

  1·01

  Wales

  873

  —

  —

  Scotland

  1,892

  12

  0·49

  1986

  South East

  7,312

  73

  0·81

  East Anglia

  748

  27

  2·88

  South West

  1,536

  9

  0·44

  West Midlands

  2,011

  27

  1·06

  East Midlands

  1,495

  23

  1·22

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,774

  5

  0·21

  North West

  2,260

  -17

  -0·56

  North

  1,073

  3

  0·21

  Wales

  855

  -18

  -1·49

  Scotland

  1,875

  -17

  -0·69

  1987

  South East

  7,377

  65

  0·71

  East Anglia

  780

  32

  3·33

  South West

  1,555

  19

  0·93

  West Midlands

  2,039

  28

  1,09

  East Midlands

  1,505

  10

  0·52

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,778

  4

  0·17

  North West

  2,259

  -1

  -0·03

  North

  1,077

  4

  0·28

  Wales

  852

  -3

  -0·25

  Scotland

  1,862

  -13

  -0·53

  ..—Not available.

  The working population is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed, members of HM forces and the unemployed.

  Thousands

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  South East

  Number of unemployed claimants

  275·9

  243·0

  230·1

  442·5

  578·3

  653·7

  698·8

  745·4

  777·8

  716·1

  557·1

  Percentage change on year

  -11·9

  -5·3

  92·3

  30·7

  13·0

  6·9

  6·7

  4·3

  -7·9

  -22·2

  Greater London

  Number of unemployed claimants

  134·1

  120·4

  115·4

  211·8

  281·5

  323·3

  354·9

  381·1

  399·2

  377·5

  315·8

  Percentage change on year

  -10·2

  -4·2

  83·5

  32·9

  14·8

  9·8

  7·4

  4·7

  -5·4

  -16·3

  East Anglia

  Number of unemployed claimants

  30·9

  28·8

  27·2

  51·9

  62·6

  71·6

  73·5

  76·4

  82·4

  77·0

  57·0

  Percentage change on year

  -6·8

  -5·6

  90·8

  20·6

  14·4

  2·7

  3·9

  7·9

  -6·6

  -26·0

  South West

  Number of unemployed claimants

  92·7

  81·5

  76·9

  128·7

  152·2

  169·6

  181·1

  194·5

  203·0

  188·1

  149·1

  208
  The table shows seasonally adjusted adult unemployment together with the percentage annual change for each of the standard regions for each March from 1979 to 1988.
  209

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Percentage change on year

  -12·0

  -5·6

  67·4

  19·3

  11·4

  6·8

  7·4

  4·4

  -7·3

  -20·7

  West Midlands

  Number of unemployed claimants

  107·3

  106·9

  115·4

  242·0

  296·4

  327·2

  327·3

  334·3

  337·8

  316·1

  254·8

  Percentage change on year

  -0·5

  8·1

  109·7

  22·5

  10·4

  0·0

  2·1

  1·0

  -6·4

  -19·4

  East Midlands

  Number of unemployed claimants

  68·5

  65·2

  66·1

  130·4

  150·2

  171·8

  183·5

  193·6

  198·0

  189·5

  156·1

  Percentage change on year

  -4·8

  1·4

  97·3

  15·2

  14·4

  5·8

  5·5

  2·3

  -4·3

  -17·6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Number of unemployed claimants

  104·7

  105·0

  109·1

  198·8

  232·5

  260·9

  270·9

  286·0

  302·1

  293·5

  243·4

  Percentage change on year

  ·3

  3·9

  82·2

  17·0

  12·2

  3·8

  5·6

  5·6

  -2·8

  -17·1

  North West

  Number of unemployed claimants

  176·2

  169·5

  183·4

  301·2

  360·0

  401·9

  422·8

  429·2

  435·0

  413·0

  347·8

  Percentage change on year

  -3·8

  8·2

  64·2

  19·5

  11·6

  5·2

  1·5

  1·4

  -5·1

  -15·8

  Northern

  Number of unemployed claimants

  102·0

  102·4

  108·2

  162·9

  184·3

  202·7

  215·6

  223·6

  231·0

  216·2

  187·0

  Percentage change on year

  ·4

  5·7

  50·6

  13·1

  10·0

  6·4

  3·7

  3·3

  -6·4

  -13·5

  Wales

  Number of unemployed claimants

  75·6

  74·9

  73·5

  124·2

  143·8

  156·4

  162·3

  170·7

  176·4

  159·3

  135·9

  Percentage change on year

  -·9

  -1·9

  69·0

  15·8

  8·8

  3·8

  5·2

  3·3

  -9·7

  -14·7

  Scotland

  Number of unemployed claimants

  159·8

  152·9

  163·5

  239·4

  278·3

  303·0

  317·5

  327·2

  338·5

  343·3

  300·1

  Percentage change on year

  -4·3

  6·9

  46·4

  16·2

  8·9

  4·8

  3·1

  3·5

  1·4

  -12·6

  Northern Ireland

  Number of unemployed claimants

  54·9

  55·2

  57·9

  86·3

  95·1

  105·8

  112·9

  113·5

  122·8

  125·4

  116·4

  Percentage change on year

  ·5

  4·9

  49·1

  10·2

  11·3

  6·7

  ·5

  8·2

  2·1

  -7·2

  The Labour Forece Survey provides information on a

  Great Britain Labour Force Survey—Spring each year

  Employees in employment total usual person hours worked per week

  Thousands

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  All persons

  South East

  253,688

  258,117

  261,797

  262,985

  263,139

  East Anglia

  26,762

  26,889

  27,889

  28,927

  29,151

  South West

  58,404

  57,973

  60,657

  60,028

  62,092

  West Midlands

  69,915

  70,366

  71,319

  74,229

  72,850

  East Midlands

  55,562

  56,474

  56,004

  57,755

  56,917

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  66,153

  65,964

  66,123

  65,729

  66,061

  North West

  83,702

  82,183

  85,521

  84,343

  86,225

  Northern

  40,433

  39,341

  38,569

  39,863

  40,694

  Wales

  32,886

  32,773

  33,722

  34,118

  34,169

  Scotland

  72,014

  70,600

  71,328

  69,964

  69,448

  1 1987 LFS data are provisional.

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Change to year ending: thousands

  All persons

  South East

  4,429

  3,680

  1,188

  154

  East Anglia

  128

  999

  1,038

  223

  South West

  -430

  2,684

  -629

  2,064

  West Midlands

  450

  954

  2,910

  -1,379

  East Midlands

  911

  -469

  1,751

  -838

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  -189

  159

  -394

  332

  North West

  -1,518

  3,338

  -1,178

  1,882

  Northern

  -1,092

  -772

  1,295

  830

  Wales

  -113

  949

  396

  51

  Scotland

  -1,414

  728

  -1,364

  -516

  Change to year ending: per cent.

  All persons

  South East

  1·7

  1·4

  0·5

  0·1

  East Anglia

  0·5

  3·7

  3·7

  0·8

  South West

  -0·7

  4·6

  -1·0

  3·4

  West Midlands

  0·6

  1·4

  4·1

  -1·9

  210
  different basis from which can be calculated the person hours usually worked by employees and average total usual hours given in the tables:
  211

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  East Midlands

  1·6

  -0·8

  3·1

  -1·5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  -0·3

  0·2

  -0·6

  0·5

  North West

  -1·8

  4·1

  -1·4

  2·2

  Northern

  -2·7

  -2·0

  3·4

  2·1

  Wales

  -0·3

  2·9

  1·2

  0·1

  Scotland

  ·2·0

  1·0

  -1·9

  -0·7

  Great Britain labour force survey spring of each year

  Employees—A verage total usual hours

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  All persons

  South East

  37·87

  37·54

  37·87

  38·20

  38·13

  East Anglia

  37·10

  36·73

  38·05

  38·07

  38·23

  South West

  37·10

  36·77

  36·65

  36·90

  36·76

  West Midlands

  37·28

  37·61

  37·55

  37·69

  37·36

  East Midlands

  37·57

  37·24

  37·41

  37·42

  37·90

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  36·74

  36·49

  37·07

  36·70

  36·70

  North West

  36·74

  36·57

  37·02

  36·87

  37·28

  Northern

  37·06

  36·47

  36·67

  36·64

  36·61

  Wales

  37·14

  36·34

  37·03

  37·20

  37·58

  Scotland

  37·96

  38·02

  37·92

  37·86

  37·81

  11987 LFS data are provisional.

  Mines and Quarries Act 1954
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will specify the associated legislation which is to be replaced along with the Mines and Quarries Act 1954.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In addition to the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 the new legislation will replace the Mines Management Act 1971, approximately 50 sets of national regulations and many local regulations made under the 1954 Act. A small number of regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, before the start of the legislative renewal programme, will also be replaced.

  Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the national weekly average gross earnings and gross hours of work, excluding underemployment hours, for registered dock workers in all dock labour scheme ports for the calendar year 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The national weekly average gross earnings for registered dock workers in all dock labour scheme ports in the calendar year 1987, excluding underemployment hours, was £298·56; and the national weekly average gross hours of work, excluding underemployment hours, for registered dock workers in all dock labour scheme ports for the calendar year 1987 was 41.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for each of the last three years for which figures are available(a) the total number of patients detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983, (b) the number of such patients treated with electroconvulsive therapy and (c) the number of such cases where emergency powers were used to permit treatment with electro-convulsive therapy.
  212
  Mrs. Currie
  The total number of admissions of patients detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is as follows:

  Mental illness and mental handicap hospitals and units, and Special Hospitals, England

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Number of admissions under s.2 Mental Health Act 1983

  6,855

  7,758

  8,260

  Figures relate to admissions and not individual patients since an individual may be admitted more than once during the year.

  Details relating to the number of patients detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 who are treated with electro-convulsive therapy, and the number of such cases where emergency powers were used to permit treatment with electro-convulsive therapy, are not collected centrally.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what regulations are currently in force regarding the treatment of patients detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

  Mrs. Currie
  Regulations governing the use of treatment for mental disorder for all patients detained under the powers of the Mental Health Act 1983 are contained in part IV of the Act and also in Statutory Instrument 1983, No. 893 (The Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Consent to Treatment) Regulations 1983).

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much was spent on agency staff in the National Health Service in the latest period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  Following is information derived from annual accounts submitted to the Department for 1986–87 (the latest year available):
  213

  Expenditure on Non-national Health Service (Agency, etc) Staff

  £000

  Regional and district health authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals

  150,092

  Family practitioner committees

  296

  England total

  150,388

  Note:

  The figures exclude expenditure by special health authorities and other bodies providing central services to the National Health

  Expenditure on non-National Health Service (agency, etc.)—Administrative and Clerical staff

  £'000

  Regions

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Northern

  35

  54

  38

  20

  30

  37

  47

  78

  96

  Yorkshire

  86

  68

  73

  74

  93

  192

  295

  590

  670

  Trent

  239

  258

  139

  227

  402

  562

  694

  705

  993

  East Anglian

  92

  140

  122

  106

  169

  238

  376

  520

  954

  North-West Thames

  1,874

  3,065

  2,819

  1,927

  1,707

  2,084

  2,672

  3,710

  5,407

  North-East Thames

  1,464

  2,079

  1,699

  1,239

  1,466

  2,282

  3,109

  3,735

  5,961

  South-East Thames

  1,171

  1,591

  1,197

  952

  980

  1,170

  1,853

  2,548

  3,783

  South-West Thames

  852

  1,552

  1,374

  887

  1,000

  1,238

  1,992

  3,407

  6,563

  Wessex

  176

  245

  180

  227

  384

  420

  566

  725

  1,089

  Oxford

  177

  303

  94

  82

  86

  156

  251

  444

  663

  South Western

  106

  178

  125

  126

  289

  207

  531

  708

  791

  West Midlands

  300

  480

  496

  427

  409

  623

  900

  1,254

  1,718

  Mersey

  51

  33

  12

  13

  43

  43

  86

  126

  144

  North Western

  176

  153

  243

  255

  270

  335

  490

  391

  384

  Regions total

  6,799

  10,199

  8,611

  6,562

  7,328

  9,587

  13,862

  18,941

  29,216

  Special Health Authorities1

  932

  1,232

  1,138

  775

  648

  723

  1,079

  1,541

  1,962

  Total

  7,731

  11,431

  9,749

  7,337

  7,976

  10,310

  14,941

  20,482

  31,178

  1 Special Health Authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  Source:

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

  Note:

  The total expenditure figures for 1985–86 and 1986–87 exclude expenditure incurred by family practitioner committies (£146,000 and £240,000, respectively). Prior to 1 April 1985 family practitioner committees (FPCs) were associated with district (formerly area) health authorities and their relevant expenditure was included in the annual accounts of those health authorities and is not separately indentifiable.

  Flood Damage
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make additional resources available in the Ealing district under the social fund to enable payments to be made in respect of recent severe flood damage to people's furniture and fittings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Additional allocations from the contingency reserve will be considered following an unforeseen and unforeseeable demand which could not be met from a local office's budget. There is no indication that circumstances in Ealing warrant an additional allocation.

  Private Medical Clinics
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the total number of beds in private medical clinics in England.

  Mrs. Currie
  On 31 December 1986, the latest date for which information is available centrally, there were 62,112 beds in private hospitals, homes and clinics registered under section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984. Details from Form SBH 212 are published annually and are available in the Library.
  214
  Serivce. Their annual accounts do not separately indentify such expenditure but, given the level of their total expenditure, that on agency staff is not thought to be significant.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the expenditure in each regional health authority on agency staff employed on administrative, secretarial and clerical work in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Newton
  The table shows the information that is available for total expenditure incurred on agency staff employed on administrative, secretarial and clerical work by each health region in England from 1978–79 to 1986–87 (the latest year available):

  Benefit Claims (Lambeth)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications for single payments, additional requirement claims and supplementary benefit claims, made before 11 April are outstanding at his Department's offices serving the London borough of Lambeth.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information on outstanding additional requirement claims is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The number of outstanding single payments and supplementary benefit claims in each of the 10 local offices serving the London borough of Lambeth is given in the table. The boundaries of these offices are not conterminous with those of the borough.

  Single payment and supplementary benefit claims outstanding at 29 April 1988

  Office

  Single payments claims

  Supplementary benefits claims

  Balham

  544

  83

  Battersea

  99

  141

  Brixton

  497

  266

  Camberwell

  303

  161

  Crystal Palace

  507

  491

  Kennington Park

  814

  119

  215

  Office

  Single payments claims

  Supplementary benefits claims

  Oval

  3,835

  220

  Peckham

  173

  203

  Southwark

  168

  166

  Streatham

  236

  421

  Mr. J. Wall (Application)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why no decision has yet been made on an application to his Department's offices at 6 Camberwell new road, London SE5, by Mr. Julian Wall, of 13 Carlton mansions, Coldharbour lane, London SW9, which was made to that office in October 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Leicester Royal Infirmary
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take immediate steps to remedy the shortage of skilled staff which has brought about the closure of the recently opened bone marrow transplant unit at the Leicester Royal infirmary.

  Mrs. Currie
  Responsibility for the management of local health services lies with the district health authority concerned. However, I understand that the bone marrow unit referred to which closed because of staff shortages on 16 May will reopen on 30 May. Nationally the recent pay awards and the clinical grading review should help to overcome difficulties associated with recruitment of specialised nursing staff. We are also encouraging district health authorities to broaden their recruitment methods. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of Leicestershire district health authority for more detailed information.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to ensure that the enterprise allowance is not regarded as income in the determination of housing benefit.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. An enterprise allowance is a business receipt which counts as gross income of that business. The determination of a claim for housing benefit is made by reference to net business profit and any other income or capital held by the claimant. In some cases, maximum housing benefit would be payable even where an enterprise allowance was in payment.

  Pensions
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the cost of giving all pensioners aged over 80 years an extra £2 a week.

  Mr. Scott
  The estimated annual cost of increasing retirement pensions for those over 80 by £2 a week would be about £200 million if the rates of income support and housing benefit were increased by corresponding amounts.

  Age Allowance
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services for how long the 25p age addition has been paid to pensioners; and what is its value in real terms now in relation to its inaugural value.

  Mr. Scott
  At 1971 prices, the 25p age addition is currently worth 5p.

  Women's Pensions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to what percentage of pension schemes allow women to pass on their rights to their husbands.

  Mr. Scott
  The Department does not collect information centrally or keep records of occupational pension schemes provisions. However, schemes which contract-out of the state earnings related pension scheme are required to make provision for both widows' and widowers' benefits.

  Women's Refuges
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the number of places per 10,000 women at women's refuges for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information in this form is not available for each year since 1979. Currently, however, the national voluntary organisation, Women's Aid Federation (England), estimates that there are 1,282 places at women's refuges in England and Wales. This represents 0·64 of a place for every 10,000 women aged 18 and over, or one place per 15,600 women.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the financial saving to the Exchequer of removing the link between the average earnings index in November 1980 and social security benefits, with figures to be shown for each individual benefit effect for each financial year up to and including 1988–89.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether any changes will be made to cash limits for his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Newton
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the following changes will be made:

  The cash limit for class XIV, vote 1, (Hospital and community health and other services, England) will be increased by £538,303,000 (from £10,653,687,000 to £11,191,990,000). This increase follows the decision to implement, from 1 April 1988, the recommendations of the review bodies in respect of doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives and professions allied to medicine, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 April 1988.
  217
  The cash limit for class XIV, vote 3 (Miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England) will be increased by £400,000 (from £417,746,000 to £418,146,000), reflecting the transfer, from the non-cash limited class XIV, vote 2, of provision to meet the cost of location incentives to dentists.

  The public expenditure costs of these changes have been charged to the Reserve and do not add to the public expenditure planning total.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) which of the Korner recommendations suggested the abolition of the distinction between urgent and non-urgent cases;

  (2) which professional organisations were consulted about the abolition of the distinction between urgent and non-urgent cases; and if any representations have been received from them;

  (3) what change he will now make to principle 14·3 contained in his booklet "Management of Private Practice in Health Service Hospitals in England and Wales" after the abolition of the distincion between urgent and non-urgent cases.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 5 May 1988]: In paragraph 11.20 of its first report to the Secretary of State, the Korner steering group listed the minimum data which it recommended should be collected on the demand for hospital treatment. The steering group purposely did not include a distinction between urgent and non-urgent cases. Paragraph 11.21 makes clear that the recording of such a distinction should be left to local choice.

  Comments on the report were received from the Joint Consultants Committee, the General Medical Services Committee, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Radiologists. None of these commented specifically on the recommendations in paragraphs 11.20 and 11.21.

  The discontinuation of the distinction between urgent and non-urgent cases in central statistical returns does not affect the operation of common waiting lists for private and national health service patients which will continue to be based on clinical priority.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what specific steps are being taken to reduce waiting lists for orthopaedic surgery in Dartford and Gravesham district health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 5 May 1988]: There is a variety of local developments going on in orthopaedics in Dartford and Gravesham. If my hon. Friend cares to write to the chairman of the health authority, I am sure he will be pleased to provide the information required.

  Social Security Reform
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the cost of retraining staff to enable them to administer the new social security system following the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 16 May 1988]: £21 million.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep Movements (Cumbria)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he refused to designate the area of Cumbria immediately adjacent to the Solway Firth from Maryport eastwards as a restricted area for sheep movement on 20 June 1986.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The determination of the boundaries of the restricted area was based on all information available at the time. This included sheep, milk and crop monitoring results and an extensive deposition survey carried out by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology.

  Livestock (Genetic Improvement)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends meeting representatives of animal welfare groups to discuss the genetic improvement of livestock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no plans at present for such a meeting, but I and my officials meet the animal welfare societies from time to time to discuss matters of current interest.

  Food Act 1984
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the review of the Food Act 1984; and when he expects consultations to be concluded.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Following my announcement in October last year officials have held informal discussions with organisations affected by our proposals to review the food Acts on the outstanding issues that need to be decided in the detail of the revisions.

  The consultations are continuing but are expected to be completed by late summer.

  Milk
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much milk is currently being produced in herds subject to BST testing.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The animal test certificates under which the trials are authorised permit the treatment of a maximum of 1,130 cows. However, the number of cows treated at any one time is likely to be less than this. Information on the volume of milk produced in herds involved in the trial is not available.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning the outcome of the last meeting of the European Community Agriculture Council.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Waltnarnstow (Mr. Summerson) on 18 May at columns 473–74.

  Animal Disease Research
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the recommendations contained in the Wildy report on the future of animal disease research in Britain with particular reference to proposals for decentralisation and a new animal disease co-ordinating board.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: The Wildy report to Agriculture Ministers and the chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council on research and development in farm animal diseases was published on 4 March 1988. The report's recommendations, including those for the establishment of an animal disease co-ordinating board and on the restructuring of establishments, are under consideration and no conclusions have yet been reached.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of new inward investment into Northern Ireland in the last year.

  Mr. Viggers
  During the year 1987–88 12 new projects which are expected to create 867 jobs were finalised. This represents a considerable improvement upon the results for 1986–87. The aggregate investment associated with the 12 new projects is £21·5 million against which IDB has offered selective financial assistance totalling £6·2 million.

  Social Security
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what resources his Department is devoting to monitoring the effects of the recent social security changes on the Province.

  Mr. Needham
  The effects of the social security reforms are being monitored in the main using the wide range of data derived from the Department's management, expenditure and statistical returns. This involves a substantial staff effort, but it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the cost.

  Member's Questions
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the written answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 565, to the hon. Member for Brent, East, what are the reasons for the delay in providing substantive replies to the remaining questions put down for answer on 26 and 28 April.

  Mr. Stanley
  Replies to the hon. Member's remaining questions have now been given.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to publish his White Paper on fair employment in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  A White Paper entitled "Fair Employment in Northern Ireland" was published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are also available in the Vote Office.
  220
  I outlined the main features of our proposals for new fair employment legislation in my written answer of 2 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), and they were published in the form of a brochure, copies of which were placed in the Library. Today's White Paper explains the policy more fully and sets out in some detail the key elements of the proposed legislation. The Government intend to introduce a Bill into Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

  The Government's proposals for new legislation are designed to strengthen existing fair employment law in Northern Ireland. They clearly demonstrate our continuing commitment to eradicate job discrimination and to promote genuine equality of opportunity in employment. the proposed measures will improve the institutional structure within which the policy will operate and will lead to better equal opportunity practice in both the public and private sectors.

  These proposals represent an effective and constructive response from the Government to a serious economic and social problem in Northern Ireland. Despite the progress which has been made, and the sound work of the Fair Employment Agency since 1976, it is clear that a broader approach to the problems of disadvantage and discrimination is necessary, and that this must also deal with the problems of indirect and unintentional discrimination. The elimination of all discrimination in the workplace is one of the Government's major priorities.

  The proposals set out in the White Paper are far reaching. They impose important new responsibilities on employers, and entail serious penalties for breach of duty. But the emphasis throughout our proposals is on fairness. We do not want to transfer hardship from one section of the community to another. we do not wish to impose an intolerable administrative burden on employers. We intend to give support to anyone who is genuinely trying to create employment and prosperity in Northern Ireland. The problems which the Government are addressing in this White Paper are of long standing and will require time and determination to resolve. The proposals published today represent a major step in the right direction.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will name each employer for which the Fair Employment Agency has completed or initiated formal investigations under section 12 and section 24 of the Fair Employment Act (NI) 1976, stating the nature of the finding in each case;

  (2) how many complaints under section 24 of the Fair Employment Act (NI) 1976 have been made against (a) public bodies and (b) private employers; and what has been the outcome in each case.

  Mr. Viggers
  It is not the practice to release the names of employers who are the subject of an investigation by the Fair Employment Agency under section 12 of the 1976 Act, unless it is considered appropriate on completion of an investigation, nor to identify the parties in a formal investigation under section 24 of the Act. Agency reports on section 12 investigations, where published, are available in the Library as are copies of agency's annual reports which contain an account of investigations under section 24 of the Act. A breakdown of agency investigations under each section, together with the names of employers published by the agency, is given in the tables.
  221
  Table I

  Section 12 (to end April 1988)

  Employers identified but no report published*

  Department of Health and Social Services, local office, Enniskillen

  British Broadcasting Corporation

  Northern Ireland Polytechnic

  Bass Charrington

  Cantrell and Cochrane

  Ormeau Bakery

  Employer identified but final report not published

  Cookstown District Council

  Employers identified and reports published

  Northern Ireland Electricity Service

  British Broadcasting Corporation (2nd phase)

  Northern Ireland Civil Service

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  Ulster Museum

  Deny City Council

  Northern Ireland Railways

  Belfast Telegraph

  Unipork

  Report of an investigation into the nine building societies in Northern Ireland

  (Halifax Building Society, Woolwich Building Society, Abbey National Building Society, Gateway Building Society, Nationwide Building Society, Leicester Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society, Anglia Building Society, Progressive Building Society)

  Report on investigations into the principal banks in Northern Ireland

  (TSB, Northern Bank, Allied Irish Bank, Ulster Bank, Bank of Ireland)

  Report of investigation into eight insurance companies

  (Prudential Insurance Company, Pearl Insurance Company, Commercial Insurance Company, General Accident Assurance Company, Britannic Insurance Company, Refuge Assurance, United Friendly Society, Royal Insurance)

  Employers not identified but general report published

  Employment patterns in the Belfast area with particular reference to engineering.

  Employment patterns in the Londonderry area.

  Investigations completed and reports in course of preparation

  Investigations currently under way

  * When first established agency policy was not to publish reports of section 12 investigations.

  Table II

  Section 24 (to end April 1988)

  Private sector

  Public sector

  Trade unions

  Total number of complaints

  320

  389

  3

  Unlawful discrimination

  23

  29

  1

  No discrimination

  165

  198

  2

  Section 42

  1

  20

  —

  Withdrawn or not pursued

  82

  89

  —

  Outstanding

  49

  53

  —

  Bombs (Detonation)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the maximum distance between bomb and person detonating it over which a remote-controlled bomb has been known to have detonated in 222
  Northern Ireland in the following circumstances: (a) in open countryside, (b) in an urban area and (c) where there was a high concrete obstruction between the bomb and the person detonating it.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: I have been asked to reply.

  The circumstances in which a bomb can be remotely detonated by means of a command wire or by radio control are extremely variable. It is not possible to provide the information requested.

  Firearms and Explosives
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions from 1972 to the current date members of the security forces supplied(a) firearms, (b) ammunition and (c) explosives to civilians in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: I am aware of only one such incident. This came to light following an RUC investigation into the murder of Mr. William Strathearn in April 1977. It was established that two serving police officers had taken part in the murder and that the murder weapon had been provided by one of them. In June 1980 both men were found guilty of murder and firearms offences and were sentenced to life imprisonment. If the hon. Member has evidence of possible further offences he will no doubt bring them to the attention of the police.

  Security Forces (Attacks)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions from 1972 to the current date, members of the security forces have asked civilians(a) to fire on and (b) to attack other members of the security forces or their property.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: I am not aware of any such occasions. If the hon. Member has evidence of possible offences he will no doubt bring them to the attention of the police.

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings with the Friends of the Earth the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have had no official meetings with the Friends of the Earth during the past year although I have met individual members of that organisation from time to time.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many meetings concerning historic buildings the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them;

  (2) how many meetings concerning ancient monuments the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.
  223
  Mr. Moynihan
  I attended meetings concerning historic buildings and ancient monuments on 22 June 1987, 28 June 1987, 30 July 1987, 24 September 1987, 28 September 1987, 20 January 1988, 27 January 1988, 9 February 1988 and 24 February 1988.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings concerning royal parks the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I attended meetings on 30 July 1987 and 3 November 1987 and I visited the royal parks on 30 October 1987.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings with trade unions involved in the water industry the Minister of Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Since taking office I have had no meetings with the trades unions involved in the water industry.

  On 18 April officials of the Department met representatives of NALGO to discuss the proposed establishment of the National Rivers Authority and the privatisation of the water authorities' utility functions. The water authorities will themselves consult the trades unions on the schemes of reorganisation which they have been asked to prepare.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings with regional water authorities the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Since taking office I have met representatives of the regional water authorities on 16 occasions as listed:

  Authority

  Number of meetings

  Anglian

  2

  Northumbrian

  2

  North West

  1

  Severn-Trent

  1

  Southern

  2

  South West

  1

  Thames

  3

  Wessex

  1

  Yorkshire

  3

  I have visited all the water authorities in England.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings with the Countryside Commission the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Two. I met the chairman of the Countryside Commission, Sir Derek Barber, on 27 January when we discussed, among other things, appointments to the national park authorities. On 8224
  October 1987 I attended the international symposium on protected landscapes in Grange-over-Sands which was organised by the commission.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings with the Nature Conservancy Council the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have not needed to attend any meetings with the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) since my appointment last year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and other ministerial colleagues who are more closely involved in the council's affairs have met members of the NCC on several occasions during the last year.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings concerning the Ordnance Survey the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have attended meetings concerning Ordnance Survey on 11 occasions since June 1987.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings with the British Waterways Board the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I met the British Waterways Board (BWB) chairman on 19 November 1987, and on 15 January, 5 February, 21 March and 19 May this year. In addition, I visited the BWB Birmingham area on 11 March and opened the Milton Keynes marina on 30 April.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings with the League Against Cruel Sports the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  None.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings with the Ramblers Association the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  None. But representatives of the Ramblers Association met my right hon. Friend, Lord Belstead, when he was Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water, on 27 October 1987 and I have had informal discussions in the course of my official duties.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings with the Long Distance Walkers Association the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.
  225
  Mr. Moynihan
  None.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings with the Water Authorities Association the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Since taking office I have met the Water Authorities Association on four occasions.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings with English Heritage the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I attended a meeting with English Heritage on 15 July 1987.

  Surrey Docks
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current sale price of land in the Surrey docks area of the London Docklands development corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  Between £1 million and £4 million per acre for housing and commercial development.

  Schools (Newham)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what land the London Docklands development corporation is making available for new schools in the Newham area of the London Docklands development corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  Sites for three primary schools. The corporation is discussing with the local education authority how it might further assist in the royal docks area.

  Docklands
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a breakdown of the 36,000 new jobs referred to on 12 May,Official Report, column 466, in Docklands; if they are new; how many are relocations; and if the figures are net.

  Mr. Trippier
  The figure of 36,000 is for the total number of jobs now in docklands. Analysis of the net changes is being undertaken by the corporation. I will write to the hon. Member when details are available.

  Housing Revenue Accounts
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a summarised housing revenue account, consistent with table 9·1 of Cm. 288-II, for each of the years 1982–83 to 1990–91 for (i) English local authorities, (ii) new town development corporations in England and (iii) Housing Corporation-financed housing in England.

  Mrs. Roe
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information has been collected.

  Construction Products Directive
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has concerning the 226
  progress of the draft construction products directive; when it will be finalised; and when it is expected to become operative;

  (2) if he will consider the desirability of rationalising the three sets of building regulations in operation in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The draft construction products directive is being considered by the Internal Market Council working party on economic questions, and is to be referred to the Permanent Representatives Commit tee (COREPER) very shortly. A number of issues are outstanding, but it may be possible to reach agreement in the Council of Ministers before the end of the German presidency. It is intended that the directive should come into effect 12 months after adoption by the Council.

  One of the objectives of the current review of the building regulations is to bring the technical requirements in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland closer together. My officials are working closely with officials in Scotland and Northern Ireland on the principle that technical requirements ought to be the same, unless differences can be specifically justified.

  Water Regulations
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to introduce water regulations throughout the United Kingdom; what is the time scale for introducing such regulations; and how such regulations will be enforced.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales intend to table a number of regulations before the summer recess to do with water metering under sections of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988. These regulations will apply only in England and Wales and will come into force this year.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated number of schemes which will now have to be vetted by his Department as a result of the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulations.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 May 1988]: The regulations referred to in the question do not in themselves require any schemes to be submitted to my right hon. Friend for approval. It is too soon to say how many applications for additional capital allocations will be submitted as a result of the concessions announced by my right hon. Friend on 25 April at columns 103–104. The great majority of those so far received do not relate to schemes affected by the regulations.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if short-term leases of private properties taken by local authorities in order to provide temporary homes for the homeless will be exempt from the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 May 1988]: The Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulations 1988 provide, inter alia, that, with certain

  227
  exceptions, expenditure by a local authority on the acquisition of a leasehold interest in land, including buildings, for a term not exceeding three years is not prescribed expenditure and thus is not subject to the limits on capital expenditure laid down in part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of pensioner households and pensioner tax units, both single persons and married couples, who would be eligible for a community charge rebate under a taper of(a) 20 per cent. and (b) 15 per cent. in calculating rebate entitlement.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: The information requested is as set out. The estimates assume that the community charge is fully in place.
  228

  England, thousands

  20 per cent, taper

  15 per cent, taper

  1. Pensioner households

  2,260

  2,400

  2. Pensioner tax units

  2,920

  3,080

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will recalculate the number of pensioner households and pensioner tax units, both single persons and married couples, who(a) gain and (b) lose under the community charge on the basis of a taper of 15 per cent. for calculating entitlement to rebate.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]The information requested is as set out:

  England, thousands

  Number

  1. Pensioner households

  Gaining

  3,120

  Losing

  1,150

  2. Pensioner tax units

  Gaining

  3,470

  Losing

  1,960

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Leicester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the West Midlands Regional Health Authority has allocated sufficient funds to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, renal dialysis unit for 1988–89 to ensure that funding problems which occurred in 1987 do not recur.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the renal unit at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital is one of seven such units serving the West Midlands health region and it is for the regional health authority to decide how to allocate resources between them. I understand however that the regional health authority has already decided to increase its renal programme funding by £320,000 over last year's level and is considering the possibility of increasing this still further.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that quite helpful reply. Is he aware that despite the fact that this £320,000 is to be allocated shortfalls are forecast of £120,000 at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and of £300,000 at the other renal units in the region? Can the noble Lord give some assurance that what happened last year when the Secretary of State suddenly had to provide £250,000 in the autumn to save an estimated 100 lives will not occur again and that consultants will not be put in the position as they were when my brother suffered kidney failure in 1967, when I was told that they would have to play God—that as my brother had no dependants, he would have to die?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid that I am unable to answer a hypothetical question reaching into the future. However, I can say that the West Midlands Regional Health Authority is reviewing the region's renal services and is looking very carefully at the complex issues involved in defining the appropriate level of funds required at each of the seven centres I mentioned, including of course the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. In addition, the regional health authority is considering how best to utilise the funds released by the recent announcement of the full funding of the pay review body awards. I understand that the region considers it prudent to release some £3.6 million from its pay reserve at this stage. Extra funding for renal services is high on the list of the region's priorities for use of that money.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied that within the figures he has given
890
there is sufficient funding for the renal care of children?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. I am indeed satisfied. We believe that both in the West Midlands and in England as a whole services have now been developed to the stage where they meet the needs of all children with chronic renal failure. Fortunately the number of children who develop this distressing condition is very small. We understand for example that in 1987 the West Midlands region took on only 11 patients below the age of 16.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that naturally I welcome the additional funds that have been found? Will he say when the report will be available indicating what the situation will be like for the other centres in the region to which he made reference? Can he also say how a decision is taken by doctors as to who should be refused renal dialysis when it is known that the outcome will be death?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my understanding is that renal dialysis is something which can be used and does not necessarily have to start as it were on day one. Therefore there is quite a strong element of clinical judgment involved. As regards the policy review on renal services, the West Midlands health authority is getting on with that review, but I do not know what point the review has reached.
Lord Morris: My Lords, following on the question of my noble friend, is my noble friend the Minister aware that routine examination of the kidneys of children of approximately one year by the simplest of ultrasound techniques would save hundreds upon thousands of pounds in treatment in later years—a vast amount in terms of resources in the National Health Service?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am interested in that. I was not aware of that technique. But I repeat what I said earlier. The number of children who develop chronic renal failure is indeed very small, although obviously one would like to get it down by earlier tests if at all possible.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, there has been a general problem of underfunding for the West Midlands health authority. Has the noble Lord any figures to show to what extent the region has been helped by a reallocation of funds? If not, can he write to me and let me know in particular whether any extra funds have been made available for Shropshire where there has been a considerable problem?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the best thing I can do is to refer the noble Lord to the Hansard record of yesterday's proceedings when we discussed this matter extensively at Question Time. I shall have to write to the noble Lord with the figures for Shropshire.

Breast Cancer Screening
2.35 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in establishing a national breast cancer screening programme.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government are proud of the excellent progress of the national breast cancer screening programme. Each regional health authority in England has set up at least one centre serving a population of about half a million. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also well advanced with their plans.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very satisfactory reply. Will he tell the House whether all patients who attend a mammograph test will receive the results? Are there sufficient staff to be able to cope with this very ambitious scheme?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the training of staff is going extremely well. The regional health authorities have now designated 17 centres around the country which will provide back-up facilities for diagnosis, treatment, counselling and care. As regards all "screenees", for want of a better expression, being told the results of their tests, that would again on occasion depend on clinical judgment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if patients are found to have cancer how long will it be before they are admitted to hospital for treatment?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that would depend entirely on the progress of the disease in the individual. I could not give a general answer.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, what is the optimum number of units required reasonably to cover the whole country?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we believe that about 100 units including the 17 in England to which I referred will indeed be adequate. By 1990 it is intended that the whole of Wales will be served by two static and five mobile basic screening units. The position in Scotland is presently being discussed but the current intention is to have 10 centres there.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider changing the name "screenees" to women? The Question is about breast cancer screening, so it could not possibly refer to men. It could not apply to "screenees" either.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I stand corrected. I appreciate the fact that this is hardly a unisex matter.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a few years ago we had a discussion in your Lordships' House about the possibility of having a place within the Houses of
892
Parliament where women could go to be screened? Has that been implemented or is there any chance of it being implemented?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that question is rather a fast ball. Speaking entirely from memory, I believe that arrangements have been made for the female staff of both Houses to be screened. I am unable to say whether the unit is actually within the precincts of the Palace.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the main problem in establishing a national framework is that of training radiologists? Perhaps he can tell the House what progress is being made in that field so that we shall know how long it will be before the service is fully effective.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. That is the reason the programme has not been introduced much faster than has been the case so far. However, all parts of the country should have a service by 1990. We hope to be able to announce details for the remaining centres in England by July.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome what the Minister has said, particularly as regards Wales and Scotland. Does he agree that in this case, as in so many others, the problem is to present the service in areas which are predominently rural? Does he agree that the percentage of screening which is carried out in rural areas is far lower than that carried out in urban areas, where the problem is not as great? Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what progress can be made in the rural areas of England, Scotland and Wales.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in my earlier answer I mentioned five mobile basic screening units for Wales. Those units are particularly applicable to use in rural areas. So far as concerns rural areas of Scotland and England, I do not have details at the moment. I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Blease: My Lords, can the Minister give the House details of mobile and other units which are available in Northern Ireland?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, breast cancer screening will be introduced in stages. It is intended that the first screening unit should be in place later this year and that a service covering the whole of Northern Ireland should be operational by the end of 1990. Initially, arrangements are being made to train Northern Ireland staff at one of the national centres.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister has said about the screening process. However, I am sure he will agree that nothing is worse for a woman than to be told that she has cancer and to then find herself waiting for treatment. Is there any possibility that when a woman is told that her screening test is positive, she will be sent an appointment to see a consultant at the same time?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is indeed a possibility. That is why I was a little cagey in answering my noble friend's first supplementary question. Counselling and clinical judgments by the doctors concerned are all-important in this area.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that British Telecom is providing a screening service for its female staff? Are there plans to invite other large companies to do the same and thus relieve some of the pressures on the National Health Service?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. There is constant discussion on those matters. I welcome British Telecom's approach. It is very important that such private screening should be fully interlinked with the National Health Service. Otherwise, gaps may occur.

Unemployment in Scotland: Statistics
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the most recent unemployment figures for Scotland, as compared with previous years, and what measures they are taking to improve the situation.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, on 14th April 1988 there were 309,084 unemployed claimants in Scotland. Unemployment is now below the 1983 level and in the last year alone has fallen by over 50,000. We can best improve the employment prospects in Scotland by the creation of a healthy and vigorous economy. That is what our economic policies are achieving.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Is he aware that, in last week's Dundee Courier and Advertiser, on Monday there were 34 jobs offered, on Tuesday there were 37 jobs, on Wednesday there were 62 jobs, on Thursday there were 56 jobs, on Friday there were 320 jobs, and on Saturday there were 37 jobs? Those figures should be compared with a total of 30 people who were seeking employment during that week.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those interesting statistics. Looking at the published figures for job vacancies which we know about in the Dundee area, we can see that the number has risen considerably over the past year. That is encouraging news. In addition, in the Dundee area alone unemployment has fallen by 3 per cent. in the last year, from 16·7 per cent. in April 1987 to 13·6 per cent. in April 1988. I am delighted at that move in the right direction.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what the figures were in 1979?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: No, my Lords; I do not have those figures. I know that the noble Lord is
894
delighted to see that the trend of the last few years is continuing. The difference between now and 1979 is that we now have a reasonable rate of inflation and a reasonable rate of taxation, and not the spiralling inflation rate that there was then, which was so detrimental to industry.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister agree with the Scottish Development Agency that the existence of regional development grants was an important contributory factor in the progress which he has reported? In view of that, will not the withdrawal of regional development grants which has just taken place on the initiative of the Government work against similar results in the future?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am well aware of the views of the noble Lord on that matter. I remember that he questioned that change of policy. However, such automatic grants inevitably go to some projects which would go ahead in the same location without support. By concentrating on selective assistance money will be directed where it is needed. Regional enterprise grants are designed to meet the needs of small firms in development areas which may have difficulty in raising finance for growth. I know that the Scottish Development Agency supports that policy.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the evangelical sortie of the Prime Minister north of the Border was intended to convince the natives or to bring more employment to Scotland?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I do not know which evangelical mission the noble Lord means. The Prime Minister has been on two missions to Scotland recently. The most important part of her visits was to try to bring confidence to the business community and confidence to the workforce, as well as ensuring that there are no sales prevention officers in Government, industry or the trade unions.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that the Prime Minister's address to the General Assembly was well received among those who almost certainly voted against the Conservative Party simply because she spoke the truth from her heart?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comment. I know that the Prime Minister's visit was well received.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I shall not follow the line of the last question. I know the attitude of many people in Scotland on the matter, and I believe that the Minister is aware of that. As regards the Question, since 1979 the number of people employed in Scotland has dropped from 2·1 million to 1·8 million. When the Minister gave a figure of 309,000 people unemployed, he was careful to say that he was referring to claimants for unemployment pay. Because of what has happened recently, many people are not allowed to register for

895
unemployment pay. Does the Minister believe that the figures, which show a drop in manufacturing industry of 34 per cent. since 1979, say little for the benefits which the Government have brought to Scotland?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, manufacturing output in Scotland in the three quarters of last year for which figures are available show an increase of 3½ per cent. CBI business surveys for the first quarter of this year show a trend which is very positive. Some of our severest critics in the Scottish press are well known to the noble Lord and to me. I was very heartened to see that one of them said in the press this week:
"There have been some solid achievements".
I believe that to be the case and I am certain that the noble Lord realises that those who have been involved in Scottish manufacturing, as I have, realise that what we want is a vibrant business sector. That is what is happening at the moment. I think that progress is very commendable and is welcomed by the Scottish CBI and others.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what steps the Government are taking to improve the position of Scotland in view of two forthcoming events: first, the opening of the Channel Tunnel; and, secondly, the European market? For instance, what are they doing to improve transport in Scotland?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I think that that question is some way wide of the Question I am answering. However, I would point out to the noble Lord the opportunities provided not only by the opening of the Channel Tunnel but also by the construction work.
As he himself will know, the Howden group in Scotland has already benefited considerably from the construction of the Channel Tunnel. The opportunities exist. As for the single European market, Scotland, like every other part of the United Kingdom, must realise that there are opportunities but also that it has to be competitive; otherwise it too will suffer from competition from Europe which it may not have experienced up to now.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I welcome the increase in productivity, but I should like to ask whether the Minister can give us a base date to which the figures apply. I gave the base date to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred in his question about 1979. Surely we are discussing the progress of this Government and that is the date we should take as the base line.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, it is always easy to choose a base date that would allow one to arrive at the figures one wants to arrive at. I am a fair person and I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that in Scotland 1986 was not a particularly good year because of matters concerning in particular oil related development. The progress that is now occurring in Scotland is beginning to show the turn around which we have fully expected.
896
I think that if one looks at the figures for Scotland as against those for the United Kingdom for the past year one will see that the trend is very encouraging indeed. It is fully in line with what the Government expect, which is a vibrant Scottish economy.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what has been the impact on the statistics that he has just quoted of the transfer of the long-term unemployed from the unemployed register to social security benefit?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, it is quite clear that all the measures which have been brought forward by the Government to help the long-term unemployed and others have helped in bringing down the figures. However, we are in the business of training and retraining and finding real jobs for real people, which is more than happened in the 1970s.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that if some of those from the other side of the House who are making suggestions about statistics were to use their efforts in trying to persuade their friends in the trade union movement that Mr. Gavin Laird and the AEU were very savagely treated by their colleagues and that they should not have been so treated, there would be 400 potential Ford workers in Dundee who could be looking forward to jobs today?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for mentioning the situation in Dundee. I—like many others oh this side of the House at least—do not applaud those who give standing ovations to people who lose jobs in Dundee rather than gain them. Quite frankly, it is time that we put that sad episode behind us. I am very happy to be able to say that progress in getting real jobs into Dundee is going as well there as anywhere else in Scotland.
Perhaps I may remind my noble friend of a quotation which appealed to me:
"Skilled workers rightly resent heavy tax burdens".
That came from Mr. Ken Livingstone.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept another plea to tell us what the figures were in 1979? I have had his lecture on inflation. Now two people have asked him. Does he know the figures?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I do not have them to hand but I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord.

Nomura and Daiwa Companies
2.55 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what grounds they have withheld permission for Nomura and Daiwa to commence trading in London as gilt-edge market makers.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the question of access to gilt-edge market maker status is one of a number of issues which are being considered.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Even if one accepts—as I am sure that many of us do—that reciprocity is a perfectly reasonable instrument to use to secure access for British firms to overseas financial markets, is it not questionable in this instance whether it is entirely wise to make a monkey of the Bank of England's regulatory role since the Bank of England had already given clearance for those two Japanese firms to operate as market makers in the City of London?
Also, is it altogether practical to see the City of London operating as one of the world's three tripod markets in the global financial markets of the future without the presence of major Japanese operators?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, taking my noble friend's second point first, I believe that major Japanese security houses such as Nomura and Daiwa are here in London for the long term. I believe that my noble friend may be reading too much into what he has read in newspapers about potential disagreements. The Bank of England, my department and the Treasury are fully in agreement on the importance of maintaining London's lead in the global markets and on working together to achieve access for British houses to financial markets in Japan and elsewhere.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that in this matter we are far more vulnerable in London than the Japanese are in Tokyo? Does he also agree that to take sanctions against two of the world's biggest financial houses on an issue of this kind hardly increases confidence in London as a European financial centre?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, that is an interesting view. We have to look to the Japanese to remove restrictions and perhaps sources of friction in a trading relationship which we are otherwise finding of increasing value.
The Earl of Eniskillen: My Lords, does the Minister really feel that this is the best way of doing it?
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, can my noble friend shed light on one further aspect of this matter? At the same time my honourable friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is saying that in no circumstances will Her Majesty's Government tolerate European Community rules for the application of reciprocity for access to financial markets. Surely there is a fundamental contradiction here which has to be resolved.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, there is no question of the Government having implemented any reciprocity powers which they have been given by Parliament in the Financial Services Act. That is not the case at all.

Rowntree: Takeover Bid
2.59 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, with the leave of the House I wish to make a Statement. This morning I announced my decision not to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission Nestle's bid for Rowntree or Suchard's 29.9 per cent. holding in Rowntree. This decision was in accordance with the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. It is now for Rowntree's shareholders to decide whether to accept Nestle's bid.
My policy is that in deciding whether to refer a merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the main consideration is the effect of the merger on competition. Neither of those proposals raises competition issues which justify a reference. Nestle and Suchard have only 3 per cent. and 2 per cent. respectively of the United Kingdom chocolate market. I also concluded, after considering the Director General's advice, that there were no employment, reciprocity or other public interest issues which justified a reference.
The United Kingdom has benefited greatly from both inward and outward investment. I believe that open markets are the best means of encouraging efficiency and generating wealth and jobs. This applies to capital markets as well as to markets for goods and services. The success of the United Kingdom economy is the best evidence of the effectiveness of our policies on competition and investment. My decision is consistent with those policies and is in the best interests of our continued economic prosperity.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for making that Statement but he must realise that we on these Benches find his decision profoundly unsatisfactory. He must be aware that it will be deeply resented by all who are concerned with Rowntree—management and workforce alike—by the city of York and by the whole of the North of England.
Do the Government not understand that it will give quite the wrong signal in the run-up to 1992? Our companies will be viewed as sitting ducks because of the freedom of our financial markets, whereas companies in other countries are protected either by law or culture. Do the Government not appreciate that, one after another, our major companies are now open to be taken over by any foreign predator who is looking to the longer term future, because the City of London prefers to take its money and run, unlike financial institutions on the continent, which stay with the companies in which they have invested? We have reached a curious pass when a merger such as Rowntree-Cadbury on the competition grounds set out in the Minister's Statement would be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission almost inevitably but a foreign bid would not.
If ever there were a case for a calm study of the public interest while a bid was under review by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, surely this is it. The public interest in a precedent-setting case such

899
as this cannot simply be determined in the short and hectic timescale of a contested takeover bid. I beg the Minister to reconsider his decision even at this late stage. What he has done is not just bad for Rowntree, for the city of York or for the North of England; it is a kick in the teeth for the whole of British industry and in the long run will be disastrous for Britain.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware that while in general I share his views against economic chauvinism and am in favour of the advantages of both inward and outward investment, I regret his decision not to let the Monopolies and Mergers Commission have a look at this case? Apart from the issues raised by the special problem of a bid from a protected and therefore unequal base, consideration must also be given to the fact that, as we move toward 1992, this country, with its desirably open economy, may be peculiarly open to predatory bids from outside the Community by people who wish to establish a position here. Does his decision today and the way in which he has put it forward mean that now the only criterion for referring a bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is market share and the effect of that quantitative share upon the competitive position?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, though I fear that I cannot welcome his remarks today. We must look very carefully at the facts and not at something that mythology would have us believe. We live today in a world where at the end of 1986 there was £4,300 worth of overseas investment for each and every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom. Last year, 1987, no less than 30 billion dollars worth of American companies was acquired by this country. Only a week or two ago Marks & Spencer acquired Brooks Brothers. When a British citizen goes overseas and stays in a Hilton hotel, he is staying with a British company. We have more interest than any other country in the world, barring Japan, in ensuring that we have an open system and that we do not set up artificial barriers.
Far from the United Kingdom being open to European predators, in the first four months of this year we made 70 bids for European companies. In the last week or so Piaget was bought by Cartier. It might be asked, "What is that to us?". The answer is that Cartier, in its turn, is owned by a British company. Wherever one looks around the world one finds that almost a third empire in terms of British overseas investment is beginning. Therefore, it behoves anyone in my position to tread very carefully indeed before we start putting up artificial barriers.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that the Swiss live in a protected and therefore unequal environment. I must tell your Lordships that there is nothing in the Swiss legal system that allows the Swiss Government to stop overseas bids, just as there is nothing in our system to stop overseas bids for that reason only. It is true that the Swiss system allows companies to protect themselves with the consent of their shareholders, but the same is true of this country. Day after day one reads in the papers about
900
cases of companies which live in a protected bid-proof position. So do all our mutuals, many of our institutions and many companies which operate in this country. What we must do is ensure that we use the weapon of reciprocity as a test for referring a bid or allowing a bid where it actually exists, but we must not let that suddenly become a new shield for chauvinism; it will recoil back upon us more than upon anyone else.
Perhaps I may once again confirm that the criteria for the reference of bids to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission remain what they have always been. Indeed, they were restated in the Blue Paper on mergers policy which I brought to your Lordships' House not many weeks ago. Of course competition is pre-eminent. We look at competition in the home market in the light of the emerging market in 1992. As our home market gradually evolves into that emerging market in 1992, so will the competition test be taken that way. Perhaps I may describe a very good instance of that. During the course of this year we hope to bring the British Steel Corporation to this market. It has 85 per cent., or thereabouts, of United Kingdom home sales. There is no case for a reference for a merger in that instance because there is more than adequate competition in Europe. There may well be other sectors of British industry that have no such protection.
The second ground is considerations of national interest. I do not believe that anyone in your Lordships' House would say that chocolate is a matter of strategic reserve. The third matter is reciprocity. I hope that what I have already said will be enough to establish that the case for reciprocity has not been made in the view of the director general, and that view is one that I have accepted.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, my family has been connected with Rowntree for several generations. Noble Lords may therefore be surprised to hear, perhaps, that I entirely agree with what the Minister has just said.
This is the second hostile bid that Rowntree has had. On the last occasion, which was 20 years ago, I was chairman of the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust, and together with the other two trusts we had a controlling interest in Rowntree. We received what looked like a very profitable bid from the General Food Corporation of America. As chairman of the largest trust I called a meeting in London of all the trustees of the three trusts. I asked if there was anybody in the room who wished to accept or go ahead with that bid. Not one hand went up. So the meeting took three minutes, and we turned the bid down. I did not receive one single letter of complaint from any shareholder, although in the short-term they sacrificed what appeared to be quite a large sum of money. In fact, the reverse happened: there were sighs of relief from most people.
My grouse is not about this particular bid being allowed to go ahead. Personally—I confess that I am a shareholder—I put my offer from Nestle straight into the bin. I believe that most ordinary shareholders did the same. What worries me is that the decision is not taken by all the small shareholders—and there is a mass of them in England

901
and no doubt in the United Kingdom. I am sure that the majority of the workers who are shareholders will take the same view as I did. The tragedy is that decisions are taken by sharp-pencilled fund managers and not by those I would call the ordinary shareholders who ought to be consulted.
Instead of taking the short-term view previously we took the long-term view. In a very few years it became evident that if we had accepted the General Food Corporations's bid we should have done very badly compared to sticking with Rowntree.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps I may make it clear to all in your Lordships' House that I am not today coming here and saying that the bid should or should not go ahead. That is a matter for the shareholders. I listened closely to what the noble Lord said. I can only say that there are no grounds in law and no reason for exercising my discretion to refer this bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Even if it were so referred, I suspect that the answer would be no different from the answer today, because there are no grounds on competition and there are precious few other grounds. The matter rests where it should rest all the time: with the shareholders.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people regard it as rather odd that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, should describe this bid as a kick in the teeth for this country? Is it not an indication of the confidence of overseas companies that they are anxious to invest in a British economy which they know is being well conducted? If that is a kick in the teeth, many of us would welcome many of them.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not think that I can add anything to what my noble friend has said.
Lord Moran: My Lords, perhaps I may first declare a very modest financial interest, in that my wife has a small number of shares in Rowntree, and a family interest. My wife is half a Rowntree. Her father, George Harris, was the man who picked up this company when it was almost on the rocks in the 1930s, built it up into a great British company and originated many of the brands such as Black Magic, Kit Kat and Aero which have made the company so attractive to foreign predators today.
Does the Minister think that it is in the national interest that bid-proof companies from outside the European Community—looking ahead to 1992—should be able to take over a major British company in this way? Would it not be more in the national interest to encourage a merger at this stage—if it is felt that only mega-companies can compete in the European Community—between Rowntree and the confectionery side of Cadbury-Schweppes?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is not within my power. The days have long since gone when Ministers made those judgments. The 1960s and 1970s stand as testimony to the judgment of Ministers when they take these decisions. The noble
902
Lord asked me whether this was in the national interest; or what we should do. I think the term "predator" is a difficult one. I am told that Nestle came to these shores in 1860 and has 10,000 employees in this country. I am told that it has 6,000 in Switzerland. What, therefore, makes a Swiss company and what makes a British company, I know not. It is a very difficult test to say that bid-proof companies should not be allowed to make bids. If one did that, and it became a worldwide position, it would stop mutuals, private companies and many of our other companies from making bids. It would become a very difficult test indeed.
However, one matter is clearly in the national interest. The economy of this country has rarely gone as well as it is going today. It is expanding all over the world. We are seeing levels of growth that we have not seen, certainly in my lifetime. That is not unconnected with the fact that we have probably one of the best competition policies in this country. Companies should expect that if their performance is not up to standard then there may well be predators after them; otherwise they are not worth, and would not be worth, saving.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not so much a question—unfortunately, perhaps—of the national interest but of the public interest as defined by statute. I think it is Section 84. If there are no grounds, as the Minister says, for referring the matter under this statute, then it follows that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In those circumstances therefore is not the Minister wholly justified in refusing to refer? But what about the future?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we shall have to await what happens in the future; I cannot predict all possible occurrences. At the present time it is British companies that are buying up foreign companies. At this instance I am advised by the director general that there are no grounds for reference. It would become an odd world if, arbitrarily, people in my position decided that they would have to refer a bid on no grounds other than those that the director general had already advised.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the board, the management and the workers of Rowntree will be devasted by his decision not to refer this bid? Is he able to give the workers in York, in Rowntree, the assurance that production will continue at Rowntree and that their jobs will be safeguarded?
Can he clear up this matter of whether there is fairness between ourselves and the Swiss companies? He has said today that it is perfectly possible for, and no Swiss law prevents, a British firm bidding for Nestle and Suchard. However, there is a general impression in this country that any bid made by a British company for either or both of those two firms would not be allowed? Can he say emphatically and definitely that if Cadbury-Schweppes, for example, bid for either or both of those companies it would be allowable and that no obstacles would be placed in its way?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. On his point about assurances, perhaps he can help me by letting all noble Lords on his side of the House into this secret. The Government are incapable of giving assurances about jobs. They never have been able to; and they never will. The only assurance that can ever be given about jobs is by customers. As long as companies have products that sell, then jobs will be secure. The day that ceases to happen no government guarantee will ever secure jobs.
On the second point, I am afraid that the noble Lord did not follow exactly what I said. The test of reciprocity is whether there are any unfair conditions as such. There is no law in Switzerland which gives the government power to say whether bids can or cannot be made by foreign companies, just as there is no law in this country that gives me the power to stop bids merely because they are foreign. It is true that Swiss companies can, and many do, so construct their affairs, with the agreement of their shareholders, that they are bid proof. There are many British companies in the same position. Perhaps I may give a few examples: GUS; P&O; Savoy Hotels; and Trusthouse Forte. There are a considerable number who so construct themselves. Indeed, Sothebys came to the market only this week with 25 per cent. of the capital containing but 3 per cent. of the voting rights.
The difference is that we are an international market and far fewer of our companies so construct their affairs. The economy is the beneficiary because competition stops our companies being complacent. It is the spur of competition that has enabled these companies to win so many overseas markets in the last few years.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, in addition to the many cogent arguments that my noble friend has advanced against a reference in this case, is it not the fact that the monopolies commission in the past has indicated that it does not feel able to adjudicate over the issue of reciprocity of access to markets? If we have rules on reciprocity of access to markets, we have to do it—as in the case of financial banking companies—by government action and not by looking to the monopolies commission for that purpose.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe that policy is the responsibility of government and should be taken by government Ministers and not by a surrogacy through the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will have been interested as always in the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, as to jurisdiction. Can the Minister clear up one point for the benefit of the House: Is it a fact that continuity of employment and security of employment in these critical days of unemployment is not in the public or the national interest to consider? Do the Government not think that the proper course is to ask for an assurance from a Swiss company concerning the security of employment in the future? Would the Minister regard it as objectionable if another government looking
904
after their citizens did the same thing in regard to an English company that might be bidding?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a curious assertion that somehow the bidder company, whichever company it may be—and I have no means of knowing—is to invest £2,000 million in buying a company just to close it down. The only assurance anybody can give relates to customers and having products that sell. One of these companies will be voting a considerable vote of confidence in the United Kingdom by bringing in over £2 billion, unless the shareholders decide otherwise. Surely they are not doing that to destroy their investment, but to build it up.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sorry to persist but the Minister, who is always frank with the House, has not been frank on this occasion because he has not answered one question that I put to him. I was asking about national and public interest and employment, whether an assurance could not be sought and whether it was not right to seek it. May I remind him that, unfortunately, the past has shown that some people bid for companies to break them up and not to continue them?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, whether they bid for them to break them up or not, the point that the noble Lord was making was whether employment would continue. The director general has advised me that the employment part did not necessitate a reference, and I accepted his advice. I would not seek to get an undertaking. From whom would I obtain such an undertaking? The noble Lord may have seen only today that other parties have entered the bidding and I have no knowledge who will end up, if anybody does, as the owner of Rowntree. But at the end of the day, even if an assurance was given, would it be worth more than an assurance from the customers?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister tell us when the criteria will change in referring bids to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, because surely, if Cadbury-Schweppes were to bid for Rowntree or a merger were to be arranged, it would be quite wrong to base the share of the market on the British market when we are looking to an open market in Europe in 1992? Is he not being a little naive when he says that a company will not pay £2 billion and then close the concern down? It is all a question of what they are bidding for. Are they bidding for the brand names which are so successful, or are they bidding for the productive capacity?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is not for me to say what is in the mind of any company bidding for Rowntree. We shall have to see what happens. Nor can I give any view about what might or might not happen in the hypothetical case of a bid from another company. In the event of other bids I have to wait until the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading gives me his advice and not consider the matter until that time. It is because I am in a quasi judicial position that I am inhibited from speaking about it, as I have been inhibited until today from

905
speaking about this matter. The noble Lord asked me about Europe and 1992. Let me repeat what I said at the recent CBI annual dinner. The year 1992 is about competition. As our home market grows into the larger single market then we shall consider the effect on competition in the United Kingdom in the light of that larger market. In some areas we are already there, but in others there has so far been no impact.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in the course of his replies the noble Lord has said that the justification for a bid such as this to go through would be that the British company concerned is badly run or unsuccessful. In order to remove any possibility of misunderstanding, will he confirm without question that Rowntree is an excellent and well run firm?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I find it very difficult to confirm something that I did not say. I am not aware of ever having said that. It is not my position to say whether any company in the land is an excellent company or not. That is not a judgment that I should make. Those days have long since gone. It is a judgment that the shareholders themselves will make in the fullness of time.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, did not the noble Lord say that if a British company could not stand on its own feet it must fall by the wayside or be taken over by what he described as a foreign predator company?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. I should like to assure the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that I did not say that. What I said was that if we so insulate our companies from competition they would quickly get slack and lose their competitive edge. That is a different matter. What all companies realise, have continued to realise and will always realise is that if they fall by the wayside then they are likely to become prey to a predator, be it British or foreign. It is that which provides the spur of competition.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware of what stress and sorrow his announcement will create in York? Is he also aware of how sad the men and women who work for Rowntree will be to hear him say that he cannot assure them that their jobs will be safe? It is sad not only for those who live in the city of York, but for those who live in the surrounding villages.
Lord Young of Graffbam: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady, but it is not for me to say whether those jobs will be secure or not. I am aware of the great concern and feeling in York, which I suspect has been whipped up in many ways by an enormous speculation—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Young of Graffham: I have repeated already that if anybody should buy this company that they will want to develop it. However that is not for me to say. I have had no conversations with any of the
906
parties, nor do I intend to have any. My job is simple: Are there issues under the law of the land that require me to refer this bid? The answer is that I am assured there is none. I accept that advice and I come to your Lordships' House to confirm it today. The rest is up to the shareholders and to the market.

Port of Tyne Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

British Broadcasting: Independence
3.29 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter rose to call attention to the importance of maintaining the independence of British broadcasting; and to move for papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the debate on this Motion is intimately concerned with the liberties of the people of this country. In particular, it is concerned with the future of the BBC and the IBA and with the future of public service broadcasting more generally. In addition it will probably need to take into account the technological changes which have taken place and which at some date in the future will offer viewers as many as 20 television channels, so we are told, some controlled from abroad and a huge variety of radio frequencies.
It is in many respects a continuation of the debate of 2nd March initiated by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead in which he drew attention to the present Government's disapproval of, in his words,
"the great independent public institutions in our national life." [Official Report, 2/3/88; col. 183.]
Among those he mentioned in this context on that occasion were the local authorities, the Church of England, the universities and the BBC.
In that connection I must repeat a factual statement. This country, unlike the United States of America and France for example, does not have a written constitution. Hence our liberties depend on self-restraint on the part of the Government, no matter how large their majority; on convention and precedent; and on the independence of those great national institutions to which I have referred. It is an independence which allows them to resist the pressure of governments, which will occur at all times whatever their complexion. They will try to exert such pressures; but this Government do so more frequently than most.
The questions at issue are these. Is broadcasting to remain independent, protected by boards acting as buffers between broadcasters and governments? Or is it to become a creature of political manipulation, as it is in France, or of commercial interests as it is in the United States? There it was recently described as a consumer product comparable to toasters with pictures. Or, as in my view seems more likely, is it to be fettered by a whole hierarchy of quangos, those animals once deeply disapproved of by the present Government. Each of those animals will be appointed by the Government; each will be more or

907
less politicised, if not tamed, by the threat of politicisation; and each will act with creeping restrictions and with more and more intrusive supervision.
I should like to recite the present Government's record in relation to the BBC. In 1983 the late Stuart Young was appointed chairman of the BBC with Sir William Rees-Mogg as vice-chairman. They were both quite open members of the Conservative Party. In my view their appointments are without precedent in the history of the BBC. In March 1985 the Peacock Committee was set up. Its terms of reference were virtually instructions to find ways in which the BBC could be financed by advertising. Nobly, the Peacock Committee disobeyed its instructions. None of its members was shot and none sent to do community service in the House of Lords. In July 1985 the "Real Lives" fiasco started with the right honourable Leon Brittan's letter to the chairman of the BBC. In April 1986 the right honourable Norman Tebbit attacked the BBC's coverage of Libya and the partiality of its views. In January 1987 there was the "Zircon" episode. Meanwhile The Times, in a pre-Peacock anti-BBC campaign, published no fewer than six leading articles.
This series of events I regard to be what is known as "systematic". In other words, and according to the Oxford Dictionary, it was "an organised scheme or plan of action" to put the frighteners on the BBC's board of governors.
The latest step in this history is the Gibraltar affair. I do not propose to dwell on that matter for long, except to say that the first official statement about the shooting was inaccurate; that the local police inquiries were transparently inadequate; that an inquest is not to take place until August, so we are told, and is no substitute for a proper inquiry given the important issues at stake; that the sub judice issue was successfully blown up, destroyed and demolished by the letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, published in The Times; and that the calling in aid of the Salmon Report by the Prime Minister and the right honourable Sir Geoffrey Howe was a classic piece of selective quoting. The Salmon Report condemns rather than supports their cause. That hardly encourages one in regard to the Government's openness in these matters.
Finally in this connection, the following quotation seems apposite and, if I may say so, conclusive:
"It is the interest of rulers that the people should believe all their proceedings to be the best possible: everything, therefore, which has a tendency to make them think otherwise, and among the rest, all strictures, however well deserved, government will use its most strenuous exertions to prevent. If these endeavours could succeed, if it could suppress all censure, its dominion, to whatever degree it might pillage and oppress people, would be forever secured.
This is so palpable, that a man must be either insincere or imbecile to deny it: and no one … will openly affirm that rulers should have the power to suppress all opinions which they may call mischievous …".
Needless to say, that was John Stuart Mill on Democracy and Freedom. I do not believe that I really need to continue my speech for much longer—however, I shall.
It is against that background that we must look at the Broadcasting Standards Council under the
908
chairmanship of Sir William Rees-Mogg—an old friend to whom I have told my opinions—and announced by the Home Secretary on 16th May. It appears to me to be a classic case of solvitur ambulando; a half-baked idea which has been worked out on the move; a non-statutory body which in due course is to become a statutory body; a council which so far has only one member. It is to monitor and report on sex and violence and standards of taste and decency on television and radio received in the UK and in video works. It is to undertake research—this Government have rarely before shown interest in research—on the effect of sex and violence on human attitudes and behaviour.
I should like to say that there has been massive research on this subject in the United States, here and elsewhere. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Swann, will agree, almost all of it has been inconclusive. Perhaps the worst aspect is that the chairman is to make arrangements to preview fictional material acquired from abroad. At the moment the material is from abroad and we do not know that it will be fictional for much longer. This is creeping censorship. The Government create an appointed council to decide whether or not certain mischievous opinions should be suppressed. Once the principle is accepted will it creep beyound sex and violence to other matters? Some Members of another place appear to believe that it should.
As regards previewing, that was abolished in the case of the written word in 1694, I believe. It seems strange that it should be introduced for television and radio in 1988. The written word is subject to law, libel, obscenity and, bad though it is, the Official Secrets Act. What is so special about TV and radio that makes it impossible for them to be subject to law? In so far as these matters warrant supervision we have the board of governors and the IBA about which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, spoke so forthrightly in the recent debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. He was quite right, and I hope that he will repeat his forthright statement today.
What the Broadcasting Standards Council reveals is a fundamental contradiction in the Thatcherite philosophy. A free market in money and a captive market in morals appears to be the definition.
Lastly and briefly, I must say a few words about the future of broadcasting in this country in the light of the new technology. The future of broadcasting is in the melting pot because of the new technology. The structure by means of which we respond to that new technology is a matter of great public interest. How is it being planned? It is being planned, so we are informed, by a Cabinet committee of which the Prime Minister is chairman. Who are the other members? I should be grateful if the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will tell the House who the other members are. It is important that we should know, but I shall be surprised if we learn.
In the past these matters have generally been decided by Royal Commissions, committees of inquiry, Crawford, Beveridge, Pilkington and Annan, which tried to reach a consensus which took evidence from the public and from interested parties and which produced results working openly and publicly. Has that policy now been altered? Will the

909
country be presented with a White Paper and Bill, in the fullness of time—we are now told that it will be later rather than sooner—concocted in private, in which the Home Office appears to be playing a diminishing role? All we know at present is that the Prime Minister is chairman and that private meetings are being held by Sir Jeffrey Sterling, chairman of P & O, and Professor Griffiths, with Mr. Rupert Murdoch, Mr. Robert Maxwell, with senior figures in the broadcasting world from the BBC, the IBA and independent companies.
All these meetings are being held and at none of them, so far as I can discover, is a representative of the Home Office present. Will the noble Earl tell us the significance of the meetings, the position which Sir Jeffrey Sterling, who is an adviser to the DTI, and Professor Griffiths hold in, or in relation to, the Cabinet Committee? It is, I think, public knowledge that the DTI has long wanted to get its hands on broadcasting. Am I right in thinking that it looks as though it is succeeding?
Broadcasting is most obviously a matter of public interest. I hope that the Government will take the public into their confidence and tell us how and in what direction their mind is moving. The drift of events—what I have described as "system"—is to me profoundly disturbing and I look for reassurance.
British broadcasting, as the Peacock Committee discovered, is widely admired abroad. The Home Secretary has a heritage which he has a real obligation to protect, on the one hand from the censors and on the other hand from those who would sell it off to the highest bidder—and to hell with standards, impartiality and all the rest of it. I hope that on this occasion, as he did on an earlier occasion, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will be able to provide reassurance and to persuade your Lordships that the fears which I have expressed are unjustified.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not agree that censorship is a two-way matter? Does he agree with the censorship of that play which happens to support Britain in the Falklands? Does he agree with the censorship of my eldest son, cut off in midstream on television, about to tell the truth of the man behind the Gibraltar programme?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I was unaware that the BBC treated the Falklands in any way differently from the way in which it treated other conflicts in which this country has taken part. I beg to move my Motion for Papers.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is a good thing that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has raised this matter today for it enables some subjects which were raised in our debate on 27th April to be amplified and clarified. I shall be expressing my own views, but I hope very much that many of my noble friends agree with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that the Government's record with regard to their attitude to the BBC is without precedent. I must say that I find that rather a strange comment in view of the speech
910
made by my noble friend Lord Ferrers at the end of our last debate. However, I feel bound also to say—and I shall be giving some reasons for doing so—that some of the BBC's recent programmes are also without precedent.
Most of what is shown on television is well done, including the reports of proceedings in Parliament. I know that your Lordships will join in paying tribute to the impartiality and excellence of the programmes showing debates in your Lordships' House. I live mainly in East Anglia, and I frequently and keenly watch the programmes both of the BBC and of ITV, and I have never had much to complain about there. The BBC's wildlife programmes, their sporting, their documentary and most of their humorous programmes are well worth watching. "Mastermind" is, of course, a winner. When so much of their work is well done, I suggest that it is tragic that they should let their record be spoiled and should ignore their responsibilities by showing so many programmes depicting violence, sex and political and social bias. The legal position of the BBC is mainly contained in its charter of 1926, which, by the way, does not expire until 1996. It is also, of course, subject to its licence, and the annex to it.
The Government regard all those provisions, whether in the charter or in the licence and its annex, as being incapable of enforcement. At any rate, the Government are not willing to enforce them, and to that extent those provisions are "a dead letter". The Independent Broadcasting Authority and ITN are in a different position from that of the BBC. They are subject to the Broadcasting Act 1981, and have observed its terms pretty faithfully with only rare exceptions.
However, let us consider the current attitude of the BBC. In our debate on 27th April the programme "Airbase" was condemned by nearly every noble Lord who spoke. My noble friend Lord Ferrers quoted the chairman of the BBC as saying that there was little merit in it and that it was
"one of those failures which are inevitable in such a wide and varied dramatic output."
I must say that I felt then, and I have felt increasingly since, that the board of governors of the BBC seems to think that the governors themselves should not exert much influence over their own programmes. We have it on record that generally speaking they do not see them before they are broadcast.
On Tuesday night the BBC will present "Tumbledown", which we learn is a production of a pacifist, Mr. Charles Wood, who has declared somewhat proudly, it seems, that all his work is subversive and that he is not interested in writers who are not subversive. That programme—and this has been stated in The Listener—cost £900,000 to produce. It will be shown for 115 minutes in prime broadcasting time. This pacifist play, which has already been shown at the National Film Theatre, presents an extreme, one-sided view of the Falklands war. It is to be shown in place of a production by Mr. Ian Curteis, which was based on our determination to resist the unprovoked aggression in the Falklands of a Right-wing dictator. It was aggression against the then defenceless British people in the Falklands. It was going to be shown before the last general

911
election, but it was withdrawn because it was thought to favour the present Government. Mr. Ian Curteis was told that it would, however, be shown after the election. It never has been. We are to have "Tumbledown" instead. I remind your Lordships that "Tumbledown" follows an earlier anti-Falklands TV transmission by the BBC called "Queen's Arms".
The BBC commissioned a six-part series, entitled "Secret Society", by Mr. Duncan Campbell, who has been twice convicted—on the last occasion after a long trial at the Old Bailey following an offence under the Official Secrets Act. That series includes a programme on our secret signals intelligence satellite, called "Zircon".
The BBC also commissioned another six-part series called "Heartlands", this time by a self-confessed Marxist, Mr. Trevor Griffiths. That series extols Mr. Scargill and his Left-wing supporters to the exclusion of the independent miners. It ignores and, I am told, up to a point condemns the steadfastness of the police. Of course, it also criticises Her Majesty's Government. One is not opposed to the Government being criticised from time to time, even on the BBC—indeed, we must become accustomed to it—but the BBC has, I shall show in a moment, a duty of impartiality. Where is the impartiality in all those programmes?
As we know, the BBC has immense power. The Independent Broadcasting Authority and the BBC have access to nearly all the 23 million homes in this country. They can and do use that power to mould the opinions of people on political, economic, social and moral matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, stressed, the BBC insists on having complete, untrammelled freedom to exercise that power.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I speak now in all ignorance, but perhaps the noble Lord will tell the House whether there are any programmes which point in the opposite political direction.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have yet to know of programmes which will balance those programmes I have mentioned. Obviously there have been programmes from time to time which run the other way, but the present trend in the BBC seems to be such that anything that is anti-Government, anti-Establishment, and anti the opinions of vast numbers of people in this country shall be shown without any programmes to balance them and without any refutation.
In saying that the BBC should have complete independence, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, presumably means that no democratically-elected Government who are answerable to Parliament and, ultimately, to the people should even warn the BBC, much less criticise it, and should not in any way inhibit it, however it behaves and however sleazy or biased its programmes become.
Therefore, in reality the BBC is to have power without responsibility. The corporation claims to be
912
responsible by stressing, as it does on page 63 of its annual report for 1986–87, that,
"its impartiality and its independence go hand in hand".
Impartiality and independence, hand in hand! It adds:
"Without genuine independence there cannot be a genuine aspiration to truthfulness and impartiality, and the credibility which follows".
Those are fine words, but nobody in authority is to dare to say anything even when the BBC has failed to be impartial or truthful. Other people can do so and the board of governors is supposed to take on board the complaints made to it. But one does not often hear the outcome of those complaints. The truth is, therefore, that the BBC claims to be the only judge of its own behaviour. As I say, it has power without responsibility.
In our debate on 27th April my noble friend Lord Ferrers in effect confirmed that. One can read that in col. 277; there is no need for me to quote it now. The situation arises not because the Home Secretary has no legal power over the board of governors—he clearly has such power, acknowledged under Article 20 of the charter—but because he does not intend to use it. Article 20 of the charter is the ultimate deterrent, but if it is never to be used it is no deterrent at all.
Similarly, although the licence and the annex to it give express authority to the Government to intervene, it is a reserve power which has never been invoked and which the Government will never use. The licence and the annex in practice do no more than provide internal guidelines which, as I have said, are not always followed.
We are therefore left with the situation where the BBC is its own master and its own judge and is de facto in possession of even greater independence than Her Majesty's judges who can at least be dismissed by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament or be asked by the Lord Chancellor to resign. That has happened from time to time—not often, I am happy to say, but occasionally, even in recent years.
In our last debate the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, a former governor of the BBC, in what struck me as a wise and penetrating speech, recommended that there should be refresher courses on the charter and that it should be signed by members of the staff. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Ferrers can say whether he has heard that the BBC intends to take any action on the lines of that excellent recommendation, but I should like to know whether anything has been done. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow said, the BBC must play the charter rules.
Next year we are to have a Bill to cover the work of the new Broadcasting Standards Council, the appointment of which should, in my view, be welcomed. I suggest that that Bill should be used to turn the merely formal responsibility of the BBC into a constitutional reality.
3.59 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it is clear that today's debate is particularly timely, and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for initiating

913
it. However, I feel that I must immediately take up some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. What particularly worries me is that someone like the noble Lord, who I have always known as an extremely kindly and, I thought, libertarian figure, holds the views that he does and sees the BBC in that light; but his opinions do not at all fit in with the facts.
For example, the noble Lord said that some of the BBC's recent programmes are without precedent. I wonder which programmes the noble Lord means. There are programmes that many do not like but which some of us do like. The reaction varies according to the person because we are making subjective decisions all the time. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, also said that many programmes depict sex and violence. That is a phrase which seems to be used very widely and generally, but without coming down to specifics. The fact remains that people should detail and explain exactly what they mean, otherwise opinions are passed from ear to ear and from mouth to mouth. As regards sex, various surveys have been conducted on that subject and they seem to indicate that, on the whole, people—I am not necessarily talking about people who watch a pornography channel—find that there is very little sex (perhaps not enough) in the programmes they see.
On the question of violence, both the BBC and ITV edit programmes and they are very careful as to what goes into a programme. When programmes are imported the companies see a pilot programme and make comments upon it. Sometimes they refuse to accept the rest of the series or they insist upon certain changes. Another matter which must be brought out into the open concerns plays; for example, "Tumbledown" which has not yet been shown. During the last debate on 27th April three plays were mentioned constantly. One was called "Airbase" and I believe it was agreed by all who saw it that it was very unpleasant and probably it ought not to have been shown because it showed American airmen in a very unfortunate light. I also quoted from the letter that the chairman of the BBC had written to the Home Secretary in which he said that the programme had no merit and that it had been a mistake.
Lord Renton: My Lords, a failure.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, that is correct—a failure. I am very grateful to the noble Lord because that brings me to another point. I believe he said that that programme was one of those failures that are inevitable. I have worked for many years as a journalist and I do not believe it is possible to have a fair share of creativity and the freedom to exercise it without on some occasions making a mistake. Sometimes one falls absolutely flat on one's face. That is part of what one has to accept in a democracy. We believe in freedom and I do not consider it too high a price to pay. If we were squeezed so tightly that nobody could take an adventurous leap without glancing over his shoulder and wondering whether they were going too far, our whole culture, literature, and broadcasting—which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, quite rightly said is admired all over the world—would be far less rich, far duller and far less good.
914
There is one other point I need to raise because the author wrote to me about it. The noble Lord referred to Charles Wood, the writer of the play "Tumbledown". It is an illustration of how these issues develop. During the debate on the 27th April, many noble Lords mentioned three plays out of about 800 produced in the past two years by the BBC; namely, "The Monacled Mutineer", "Airbase" and "Tumbledown". During that debate I meant to refer just to "The Monacled Mutineer" and "Airbase". I did not particularly like them. I included in that list "Tumbledown" because everyone else had referred to it and somehow it slipped in. I realised afterwards that it had not been shown and I had not seen it. I do not think any other noble Lord has seen it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it has been shown at the National Film Theatre and a good deal has already been written about it, including articles in The Listener.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it has not been seen on television. However, I shall be interested to know whether the noble Lord has seen it because I value his own judgment rather than what he has heard from other people.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have not yet had the advantage or the disadvantage of seeing it, but when one has heard so much about a play one should not be inhibited from expressing some views about it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, if I may say so, that is a rather dubious judgment and I am rather surprised that the noble Lord made it. I felt that I owed an apology to the author for inadvertently mentioning "Tumbledown" when I had not seen it. However, that is probably neither here nor there.
The noble Lord also said the BBC has complete and untrammelled freedom. He added that the Home Secretary can use his powers but that he does not. As regards political prejudice I believe that, looking back, whatever government are in power—this applies to Labour or Conservative governments—there is always the feeling that the BBC or the broadcasting authorities are being unfair to government. Somewhere in the middle one should give the broadcasting companies credit for having got the balance right.
Before one considers the question of the Home Secretary using his powers against the BBC we have to think very carefully what that means. If such a course is taken it means the end of a free broadcasting system in this country. I find it very difficult to sacrifice that freedom, because even if there were a run of programmes that were not very good and which many people found to be offensive, I still believe it would be too high a price to pay. It worries me to hear the noble Lord, Lord Renton, express such views, and I hope he will reconsider these matters and come to a different conclusion. I am sure he understands why the BBC and ITV have developed in the way they have. It is true that the charter and licence provide the legal basis upon which the BBC rests and it is asked to do what it considers best in the interests of broadcasting and to

915
act—to use a phrase first employed in 1977—"as trustees of the public interest". Therefore, the various commitments to taste and decency in programming derive historically not from statute but from the codification of the BBC's own thinking and practices.
Parliament drew the parameter of broadcasting in this way because of the repeated recognition that if we as a society wished to have an independent broadcasting service acting in the public interest, a system that is free from the partialities of political or commercial commitment, then it did not make sense to try to define in detail the operation of that service. In the same way, it was felt that it did not make sense to force the BBC to fund itself in an aggressively commercial market. That same thinking motivated what happened in the creation of the IBA and the ITV system. In the first instance it was committed to public service values and only then to commercial criteria. This may be seen in the character of the Broadcasting Act and in the parliamentary debates over many years concerning the terms of that Act.
The IBA provides the protective layer of political independence as well as being the guarantor of the demand that over-commercialism should not be the prime consideration in the programme making activities of' the ITV companies. That is why many of us are most disturbed at the recommendation in the Peacock Committee's report that the ITV companies should be auctioned off to the highest bidder. We feel that way because, should that happen, all we can see is a great deterioration in the quality of the programmes that we shall receive from ITV. Similarly, the privatisation of the innovative Channel 4—which is an extension of the principle which has provided the keystone in the arch of British broadcasting—will also, in my view, have a most unfortunate effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to the coming changes in broadcasting; namely cable—which has already been started, if somewhat slowly—and then satellite. He also referred to the broadcasting committee who are discussing such matters. Today's edition of the Independent carries an article which refers to the rejuvenation of the cable system which is now, according to the author, underway. It says:
"despite the slow start, the industry is being rejuvenated with recent surges of North American investment".
It also says:
"The Government, in a controversial step, is considering whether to make cable an exception, relax the rules, and allow foreign investors to control franchises".
I hope that when the Minster replies he will tell me whether there is any truth in that statement.
The need for the coming along of those other methods of transmission is probably one of the reasons why the Government are using it as an assault on public service broadcasting, of both the BBC and ITV at the IBA. In the coming along, as I mentioned, there is the possible privatisation of Channel 4; the auctioning of the companies; the linking of the licence fee to the retail prices index; the establishment of the 5th and 6th terrestrial channels; the creation of a new radio authority; the removal of
916
radio from the purview of the IBA and public service commitments of the independent radio system; the creation of new national commercial radio channels and the establishment of a network of community radio stations. That is quite a shopping list when we consider that in addition we have the establishment of the Broadcasting Standards Council and the appointment to the position of chairman of Sir William Rees-Mogg.
I do not intend to say anything about him personally, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, seems to have covered our fears in respect of the job. Further, so much has already been written about him, and I think one of the most brilliant last words appeared in today's Financial Times in a letter from the television critic addressed to Sir William. It must be said that that gentleman could not create the council on his own; it was created by the Government, and he has been appointed as chairman. As chairman, he is of course entitled to press for the powers that he needs and should try to obtain as many powers as possible. Therefore it is not really at him that those of us who do not like the idea should direct our fire, but at the Government.
In regard to the other proposals, I am not suggesting that they are all bad; indeed, there are some that are to be welcomed. Nevertheless, I should like to ask the Minister: how far has this delayed what we understood would be two broadcasting Bills? Further, is it true that it will be at least two years before we have any changes, and then it will all be in one enormous Bill?
The net effect of the various structural changes proposed by the Government will only serve to damage and possibly even destroy that vital oxygen of independence on which the most successful broadcasting system in the world has thrived. I believe that there will be a sharpening of the competitive necessities of television by diminishing the ability of the regulatory bodies to ensure that public services values are preserved in anything other than a rump form, and by placing the Broadcasting Standards Council above the governors and the authority in the editorial pecking order.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, pointed out, there is a curious dichotomy between the free-market policy of deregulation which is in line with the Government's economic strategy on the one hand, and the heavy controlling capability of the British Broadasting Council on the other. I think that the council is an example of an engineering change without going through the process of thorough public debate. While there should be a tension between broadcasters and government, the suspicion has now developed into a most unhappy mutual antagonism. Now that the council has been established there is no point in our saying that it should not have happened, because it has happened.
However, we are most concerned, and shall continue to be so, about the power of preview, as we understand it, which is to be given to the council—although we do not think that there is much hope that we shall be able to persuade the Government to change their mind in that respect. In a lecture on 17th May the chairman of the BBC, Mr. Marmaduke Hussey, said:

917
"We are not happy about the preview of foreign imported programmes. All our imported foreign material is viewed and if necessary re-edited here with special concern for sex and violence before we transmit them. What is the logical difference between asking to preview a BBC edited bought-in foreign programme and a BBC edited programme made in house or by an independent producer?"
Therefore it is understandable that some of us feel that this could be the beginning of a creeping censorship. All the soil is ready for it, if that is what is going to be pressed and if that is the line which the Government will adopt.
In my view the changes that we have seen, currently in progress, have not a jot of moral or cultural necessity to sustain them. There has grown up an increasing autocratic attitude on the part of the Prime Minister and those of her acolytes, because we see a narrowness of vision which favours material values—even if they have some theological backing—rather than those other more complex, more subtle and ultimately more enriching values which may not serve the political and economic interests of the Prime Minister but which have, on the whole, served the nation rather well. Such values are also envied by the rest of the world. Therefore I beg the House not to throw out our healthy broadcasting baby with the sometimes impure bathwater in which it finds itself.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, it is over 10 years since I had the luck to be appointed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, to be chairman of the committee on the future of broadcasting. Like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I thought I should refresh my memory by re-reading the report. The report had two sets of recommendations. One concerned the organisation of broadcasting and the other concerned standards.
The first set of recommendations had a pretty rough passage when they were published. They were thought to be far too bureaucratic and inflationary. I must say that I do not think that committees always get matters right the first time but, nevertheless, the results were greatly helped by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, when he was Minister in the Home Office. Between them those two gentlemen knocked the recommendations about and made sense of them. However, what emerged looked quite like what we recommended. For example, Channel 4 was set up upon the lines recommended by the committee; we now have a body to deal with complaints of individuals, the broadcasters' hold public hearings; and this year the Government's Green Paper acknowledges the fact that some authority for local broadcasting is needed.
On the other hand, there was generous praise for the two chapters on programme standards and on news and current affairs. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Swann, was good enough to tell me at that time, as chairman of the BBC governors, that he saw to it that copies of those chapters were sent to all the producers of programmes who were concerned with these topics. I am bound to say I do not think they read them. They did not read the chapters—and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was entirely right on this—on due impartiality and the difference between
918
that concept and the concept of balance and neutrality.
The reason we are having a debate today is because we want to find out why in fact they disregarded them. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is absolutely right to remind us, as he does, how important is freedom of expression on our broadcasting system. We are unique in Europe in this way. Enormous pressures are brought to bear upon the BBC governors and upon the IBA; and I am very sorry that the noble Lords, Lord Wilson and Lord Callaghan, are no longer in their places—they were sitting just in front of me—because I wanted to ask them how many times they had intervened with the governors of the BBC and the IBA. Of course they intervened—and rightly. The Home Secretary is responsible for security in this country; the Foreign Secretary is responsible for the security of British subjects abroad. Of course they are right to intervene if they think that there is some danger which the broadcasters have not taken into account. And the broadcasters—that is to say, the governors and the IBA—are absolutely right to say, "We have thought about this: we do not agree with you, but of course the consequences, if there are any, will be on our heads and not on the Home Secretary's or the Foreign Secretary's".
One of the reasons why governments interfere with broadcasters is the emergence of situations which were never envisaged when television began. The first is the emergence of terrorism. For the last 20 years this country has been fighting a war of attrition against the IRA. The Government regard any programme which gives the faintest degree of publicity to the IRA as damaging to national security. The broadcasters believe that the public is entitled to know what is going on. In other words, they think they ought to explain the motivation, as well as the actions, of the IRA. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Britain is fighting a war and the broadcasters are singularly insensitive if they do not realise how profoundly the Government are concerned and involved. It seems to me odd that the "Real Lives" incident to which I shall refer in a moment came after the Cabinet had nearly been blown up in their hotel at Brighton—a fact that seemed hardly to have impinged on the consciousness of the broadcasters.
I do not think the Government are always right when they intervene on questions about Northern Ireland. In 1972 I think that the programme which went out called "The Question of Ulster", an open debate, an open forum, about the problems in Northern Ireland, was a harmless programme. But they were right to be outraged by the "Panorama" filming at Carrickmore, where the broadcasters filmed IRA men setting up a road-block and apparently governing part of Northern Ireland—very cleverly staged by the IRA. And it does perturb me that Mr. Roger Bolton, who was responsible for that, still to this day seems unable to understand why he was disciplined in any way for what went on then.
The most notorious example of this is the "Real Lives" programme. I think one is bound to have to say in retrospect that everybody got this wrong. The

919
Home Secretary was most ill-advised, not in complaining to the governors, but in giving his letter to the press before the governors had received it. That put the governors on the spot. I think the governors were therefore quite right to preview the programme. The trouble was, of course, that the governors by that time were in a very bad temper because, through the usual series of kerfuffles and nonsenses, the system of reference up in the BBC had not worked. Lady Falkner, who was the governor for Northern Ireland, had never been informed that this programme was being made, as she should have been under all the rules. So when they did view it they were disposed to think it a bad programme and they banned it. That, I think, was a mistake.
However, my severest criticism is reserved for the BBC's staff and top brass, because they deliberately staged a confrontation with the governors instead of finding a way to defuse the situation. All that was needed in connection with that programme was a "talking head" to be put on—either of the chairman of the governors or the director-general himself—before the programme was transmitted, to say something on these lines:
"The Home Secretary has expressed doubts about this programme. We believe that it shows just how difficult it is for the Government—any Government—to obtain peace in Northern Ireland when family men with religious principles are willing to murder each other in a partisan war."
Indeed, the odd thing is that when the Board of Management reviewed that programme they themselves thought that that ought to be done; but when the governors considered it they never came up with that proposal.
What then happened was, I think, a disgrace to a great national organisation. The staff went on strike, aided and abetted of course by the NUJ chapel, and the World Service went on strike, and of course that gave great comfort to all our critics in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe who dislike hearing us boast of our free service. You might have thought, from the way the broadcaster talked, that Dr. Goebbels had taken over. Is that really the way a national corporation should behave? And what seemed to me worse than the self-righteous hysteria was that the top management itself blew upon the flames. You felt that what they were really after was the humiliation of the governors. That was an occasion, as I say, when I think everybody got it wrong.
When we come to the Gibraltar incident, I think the Government were perfectly right to draw the attention of the broadcasters to this. But they were not right in urging that these programmes should be banned. I thought it was ludicrous to argue that an inquest was pending. An inquest was pending after the "Zeebrugge" disaster, but no one suggested at that time that the pictures and comments were an infringement of the court. Where the broadcasters went wrong was to transmit a programme which was palpably one-sided on a matter of national importance. Anyone would have known that to highlight one witness—I have no doubt she was honourable and truthful—was wrong unless one emphasised and make it quite clear that there were
920
other witnesses who would almost certainly have conflicting views. It is that delight in trying to create conflict and a scandal which sometimes governs too much of the transmission of news.
I maintain that the broadcasters owe a duty to the State. The State is quite different from the Government. The State is our nation and its institutions—the Monarchy, Parliament, the law courts and those who are in the service of the State. That does not mean that individual departments cannot at any moment be criticised unsparingly, but it does mean that in certain circumstances the broadcasters owe an overriding duty to the State. Why do the broadcasters find it so difficult to accept this? One may say they are arrogant, but I do not think that that is a sufficient explanation. I think it is due to two events which during the 1970s occurred in America and which I believe had a profound effect on the broadcasters.
The first was the Vietnam war in which I believe it is generally agreed that the television reporters helped to bring about a change of opinion in America about the justice of that war and the claims of the military to be winning the war. Their success in changing opinion had the effect of making broadcasters in Britain believe that they had a mission to redress the folly of governments.
The second event was the unmasking of Watergate by two remarkable investigative journalists on the Washington Post. That led, incredible though it sounded at the time, to the resignation of the President of the United States. That gave the broadcasters a romantic notion that they too might acquire the fame, and indeed the wealth, of Bob Woodward, and that they too might expose the sins and chicanery of statesmen in high places.
I sometimes have the luck to meet and talk to some of the young Turks in the BBC and ITV. They sometimes astonish me. Just after the Falklands War I remember meeting a reporter who said that he was extremely vexed with his superiors for forbidding him to go and interview the widows of the Welsh guardsmen who had been killed in the explosion on the "Sheffield" in the Falklands. I asked the reporter whether he felt that that was a proper thing to do at that time. He replied, "Oh, yes. You see there were a lot of us who thought that the war was a very bad thing". I told him that both the Opposition and the Government were in favour of that war. He replied, "You cannot expect the other side of the case to be left simply to Mr. Benn and Mr. Dalyell".
The idea that reporters have the right, as it were, to dictate what the policy of the country should be struck me as odd. Let me give another example; that is the Tripoli bombing. I was again talking to some reporters after that incident. They said that they thought that they could prevent any war from being fought in future. I asked them whether they meant that they could have prevented the Falklands War. They said, "No, it was too far away. We could not get at them. But if we could have got at them, I think we could have stopped it". I told them that if I had been the commanding officer I would never have allowed them anywhere near my front.
There have been complaints that drama is consistently subversive. It has also been argued that

921
the directors of drama productions are biased, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. I do not think that it matters very much whether we have seen or have not seen "Tumbledown". It is absolutely right that that play should be put on. It is an honest expression of opinion. What is not right is that that is the only kind of play which should be put on.
I wrote to Mr. Checkland very shortly after he became director general and suggested that it would be a very good idea to put on the Curteis play if he could find the money because then the viewers could see both sides. Anyone who was interested in drama and moral and political affairs could have seen that an interesting argument would develop. I am very sorry that he refused.
I thought Mr. Curteis's play was gripping television material when I read it. I think he was wrong—after all, this was a naturalistic drama—to portray Secretary Haig as someone who could only talk in "Haig speak". I also think he was wrong to portray General Galtieri as a drunken bore, drunken though he often was.
But I think that drama producers are too obsessed with the notion that a serious play should have a message or, at any rate, be ambiguous. Every play, in other words, should be what the Germans call problematisch. That is a difficult word to translate but I can best try to explain it by saying that "King Lear" and "Hamlet" are problematisch but "Macbeth" and "Othello" are not. Both "Othello" and "Macbeth" are serious plays. They are not at all ambiguous. Both make marvellous theatre and are highly exciting.
There are rumours that the BBC staff hated Mr. Curteis's play because it was patriotic and favoured the Prime Minister. I must say that from what happened afterwards, in all the rows that followed the cancellation of that play, I think there is something in that. Some of the top brass of the BBC were devious and dishonest on that issue and displayed no more understanding of the ethics of broadcasting than an earwig.
But one must not fail to understand that many dramas will be critical of the establishment. The greatest writers have nearly always criticised the society in which they lived. We have only to think of Dickens and his continual criticism of the Victorian age as one that worshipped money and was indifferent to the plight of the poor and the needy. We have only to think of his satire upon the Poor Law, the Civil Service, the indolent, arrogant aristocracy and the self-righteous puritans and evangelicals.
Those in authority will always feel that they do not get a fair deal from the writers of their time but it is only touchy Ministers and insensitive governments which would try to intervene and silence those critics. Every time a play is put on by Mr. Dennis Potter there really should not be an outcry. Governments should recollect what happened when Jean Paul Sartre tried his very best to enrage the Government and get them to imprison him and create tension in 1968. President de Gaulle said, "One does not arrest Voltaire". The contempt, as well as the judgment, was superb.
But what about the authorities themselves? I think the report of the Committee on the Future of
922
Broadcasting got it wrong when it criticised the IBA for interfering too much in programming. The truth is that the IBA on the whole rarely gets blamed and the BBC, which has a far greater output, gets blamed very often.
Both the IBA and the governors of the BBC get attacked for "going native" as it is called. They are appointed, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, was, by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, to put the BBC in its place and then, like Thomas à Becket, the Prime Minister of the day finds that the chairman of the governors has taken a decision totally against the one the government wanted.
But I was glad to hear Mr. Hussey say in public that when he came to the BBC he found that he was expected to write to disgruntled correspondents denying that anything was wrong with the programme or the incident of which they complained. That endorsed what our committee stated when we accused the BBC of adopting the posture, when there was the slightest breath of criticism, of a hedgehog at bay. They are specialists in the brusque brushoff.
It is for these reasons—the fear of violence on television and the standards which have not been observed—that the Government have set up the Broadcasting Standards Council. It is very unwise to criticise whoever is appointed to this job. I think that very unwise because I so well remember that when I was appointed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, to be chairman of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting, Sir William Rees-Mogg, who was editor of The Times, printed a leader stating how utterly unacceptable I would be to the Conservative Party and how wrong my appointment was. I believe that we should say to Sir William that we wish him well and hope that all goes well with his endeavours. I am certain that he will do the job sensibly, provided that the remit he has is observed and is not altered. It is a reasonable and understandable remit.
What would worry me is the possibility of a plea from another place to extend that remit and create what would in effect be a broadcasting commission or a broadcasting council. I ask the Government, before they ever consider such a thing, to read what the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting had to say about that matter.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for introducing the debate I am very conscious of the fact that probably within months we shall have one and perhaps two new broadcasting Acts. That will certainly happen in the next Session of Parliament. I am concerned as to what is likely to be contained in those Acts if the present Government or any government take into consideration everything that has been said this afternoon by the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Annan.
We should remind ourselves that all governments since the beginning of radio and television, and even since the introduction of the first BBC charter and the broadcasting Acts, have felt that they should be absolutely free from any governmental censorship or

923
interference. There are items, under the charter and the broadcasting Acts, which we may never touch—for instance, anything of a party political character. The Acts make that absolutely clear. Governments have been of the opinion and have continued to say that freedom from censorship and interference is essential to broadcasters.
We should also remind ourselves that broadcasters are required:
"to disseminate information over a wide range".
which I believe they do. In doing so, they are required to be impartial. That is an instruction which, from the broadcaster's point of view, makes doing a worthwhile job almost impossible. Broadcasters must deal with both sides of a case accurately. Nevertheless, I believe that they try. In my own experience, there is very little interference by the Government or the Opposition in the general run of broadcast programmes. One hears very little about the mass of programmes which are produced. Hundreds of them on both the BBC and the IBA appear on the screen and are viewed and enjoyed. Nothing is said about them.
I am concerned about the words we so often hear from the Dispatch Boxes in both Houses of Parliament. Whatever may be the views of the various Ministers, the usual words are:
"This is not a matter for the Government but for the broadcasting authorities".
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Ferrers, has used those precise words. I am sure that if he has not, he is likely to, because that is the position. Those words are an encouragement to broadcasters to do a worthwhile job and to do it fairly.
I shall not pretend for one moment that there are no programmes which ought to be criticised. However, we are discussing what is known as investigative journalism. If the press were to produce such an investigation, it would be balanced according to the newspaper producing it. For example, if you wanted a Conservative Party slant on an issue, you would buy the Sunday Express. If you wanted an Opposition slant on an issue, you would probably buy the Daily Mirror. However, that is the press and not broadcasting. Heaven help us if we ever have a government which interferes with a free press. That is one of the reasons why broadcasters have to be more careful than the press. I believe that they are. Within the terms of the BBC charter and the broadcasting Acts, they do a worthwhile job.
I propose to say nothing about complaints of sex and violence. We can never please everyone in those areas. I remember addressing a meeting of thousands of ladies from women's institutes at the Royal Albert Hall on the question of sex and violence in television programmes. I had a vote of thanks at the end. I understand that after I left there was a vote of no confidence. I am not surprised. The problem is difficult to deal with.
We are to have a new Broadcasting Standards Council. My view is that it may work. It should be given a chance to work. However, we have already had from the proposed leader of the council an indication of the sort of programming he will not
924
allow. That is jumping ahead of what I regard as the statutory authority for doing the job. There is as yet no statute setting up the body. I hope that he is not going to take up the job—and from what we read in the press he is indeed going to take it up—in what might be regarded as a Whitehouse frame of mind.
We should also bear in mind that within a few years we shall have programmes beamed in to us about which we are able to do very little. They will come from satellites. Our own broadcasting from satellites may be handled by the Government, if they wish to do so. But only the viewer who receives foreign broadcasting will have the opportunity to use the on and off switch. Governments will not be able to interfere with that.
I am concerned about one programme which has caused much trouble within the last three weeks. That programme concerned the shooting of the three terrorists in Gibraltar. What amazed me was that the complaint about that programme came not from the Home Secretary, as one would have imagined it would, but directly from the Prime Minister, supported by similar comments from one or two colleagues. So far as I know—I may be wrong—there has been no complaint from the Home Secretary about that programme. The Home Secretary is responsible for broadcasting. The Prime Minister is, finally, I suppose, above him. But it looks to me as if the Home Secretary was gazumped by the Prime Minister and one or two of her colleagues.
There is a great difference, as regards such a programme, between previewing it in the knowledge of what is coming and complaining about the programme before it has been seen. That is what happened on that occasion. It was an attempt to stop the broadcasting of the programme. I hope that I am right in saying that that attempt did not come from the Home Secretary.
There have been many other instances in which governments have made complaints. However, they have never been of quite that kind, with a Prime Minister complaining directly to the broadcasters. I am conscious of the fact that there may have been one such instance. I am thinking now of the occasion of Suez, something like 30 years ago, when the Prime Minister of the day, Sir Anthony Eden, attempted to prevent the BBC from filming the landing of British troops at Port Said.
The whole Suez issue was one of great controversy at the time, as many noble Lords will remember. An opinion poll showed that the country was divided 74 per cent. against the exercise and 26 per cent. in favour. The Prime Minister himself, we are told, approached the BBC with a view to preventing any programme on Suez being shown. Rumour has it—and I put it no higher than rumour—that he sent an official to Bush House, Aldwych, with a view to monitoring what the BBC was doing in its news programmes on Suez.
I have some knowledge of the events because at that time I was Opposition Chief Whip in another place. The Prime Minister decided that he would make a ministerial broadcast to put the Government's case on the Suez situation. As Opposition Chief Whip I felt that the Opposition

925
should have the right of reply. I was refused. The Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that the Leader of the Opposition should have no right of reply. Of course that started a terrific argument which went right through the greater part of the night, conducted by telephone between myself and the Government Chief Whip at the time, the right honourable Edward Heath, and the Leader of the Government in another place, the right honourable R. A. Butler. The argument went on at length and finally the Government conceded. As a result, the night after the Prime Minister's ministerial broadcast there was a broadcast by the right honourable Hugh Gaitskell. I quote that example to show that here was an example of prime ministerial interference in broadcasting. It was not the Home Secretary who was responsible.
During the period, about eight years, that I was chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority of course there were complaints. They were looked at. But there was never one complaint from the Prime Minister of the day, either Prime Minister. They were from individuals, from Chief Whips or in some other way. All those complaints were looked at most carefully.
I think that it is the undoubted right of broadcasters to cover the Gibraltar shootings. I do not know, and have no way of knowing, whether or not the people who were shot down were challenged. All I can say from my own experience during the war years is that I sincerely hope that they were. However, that has nothing to do with the broadcast. I find it difficult to accept the Government's excuse that they were concerned only about the coverage of the shootings in Gibraltar because they felt that it might prejudice the accuracy of the evidence given by witnesses. If one accepts that one must accept also that the prejudice, if there is such, of witnesses at the coroner's court could be on either side.
The chairman and governors of the BBC and the chairman and members of the IBA are all selected and appointed by government. They are appointed as individuals, usually by the Home Secretary. I hope that no one questions their integrity. I know that the Prime Minister's request not to broadcast the film would have been looked at seriously from every possible angle and full consideration would have been given to it. Certainly in the case of the IBA—because it is only in the case of the IBA that I have personal knowledge—the authority would have looked at every aspect of the programme, would perhaps have previewed some of it, and would have taken legal opinion as to whether or not the evidence of the witnesses was likely to be prejudiced by the film itself. I am quite sure, in my own mind at least, because I can speak only for myself, that after careful consideration the BBC and the IBA were right to go ahead.
The ladies and gentlemen of the two broadcasting authorities could be replaced. If the Government so wished they could be replaced almost overnight. If they were to be replaced by people who would acquiesce in every Government wish and desire it would be one of the saddest things—the saddest thing—that ever happened in this country. Of course it is not likely to happen. This Government would not
926
do it. No government would do it. If it happened it would be a sad day for democracy and a devastating day for this country.
4.55 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, ideally the media serve democracies as the chief institutions in a market place where day-to-day information, news and ideas are exchanged. They inform their readers about the world and interpret it to them. They stand as sentinels scrutinising concentrations of public and private power. They act as a means of communication among groups within the community, thus promoting social cohesion as well as social change. From a political point of view, the most important function of the media is to provide the main channels along which information runs reciprocally between government and the governed.
The indirect control over government which regular elections give to citzens in a democracy will be ineffectual unless they can rely upon a flow of accurate news and honest commentary upon government policies. That is one reason why the press in a democracy ought always to be independent of governments, and governments for the same reason should be very cautious of exercising their necessary power and influence over broadcasting. Inevitably, the relations between politicians and journalists—whether in print or in broadcasting—are generally likely to be sour and hostile.
Freedom of the media may therefore be defined as that degree of freedom from restraint which is essential to enable broadcasters, newspaper proprietors, editors and journalists to advance the public interest by publishing the facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments. Of course, the media will entertain as well as instruct, and that function should not be dismissed as trivial. But it is in the discharge of their serious role that their crucial importance to a democracy lies and about which I shall speak because I think that the new institution—the Broadcasting Standards Council—may have dangerous consequences for the press.
Few democrats would dispute the maxim of the noble Lord, Lord Acton, that:
"Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice, nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity".
But all democracies must balance the right of citizens to know against the claims—as set out in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights—both of national security and of individuals to safeguards for their reputation and privacy except where those are overridden by the public interest. Freedom of the media cannot be absolute. It is not an end in itself but a means to the end of a free society. There must be boundaries to it and the real question concerns where those boundaries ought to be set. Such boundaries should be set by law and interpreted by the courts.
In principle the less that government intervene in the media, the healthier it is for freedom. From its origins, broadcasting in every country has been more under government control than has the press. The Home Secretary has legal powers over broadcasters

927
but, happily, not yet over the press. Anyone can launch a newspaper and indeed new technology makes it more probable every year that a wider variety of newspapers will become available.
My anxiety about the Broadcasting Standards Council is rather different from that of many noble Lords. Against the background that I have just sketched, I wish to draw attention to the possible implications for the print media of the establishment of the council. Currently being discussed in Parliament are a number of proposals that severely affect the press. Your Lordships will recall that earlier this year the noble Earl, Lord Longford, initiated a discussion on a press standards council. There are two Private Member's Bills—one to establish a right of privacy and the other to establish a right of reply—which are likely to be discussed in another place very soon. I understand that the broadcasting Bill, which will give statutory shape to the broadcasting council that we are now discussing, will be in another place after Christmas.
With that potential legislation and in an environment in which public disrespect for the press has never been so great, were there to be another major excess by the tabloids it would result in all likelihood in a serious discussion—indeed, the Government have said that in such circumstances they would discuss the matter seriously—about abandoning the self-regulatory Press Council and setting up a body with statutory powers. In those circumstances may we not end up with a media council and direct government intervention in the press for the first time?
Such an outcome would not be disagreeable to the Government and would certainly not be disagreeable to a large section of the Labour Party which numbers among its members those who have adopted and disseminated authoritarian attitudes towards the press. Those attitudes were set out in the party policy document of 1974 entitled The People and the Media which so far as I know has not yet been redrafted. They are seen at their sharpest in a speech on the media made by Mr. Moss Evans to a TUC conference 11 years ago in the course of which the TUC's attitudes to the press were hammered out. I shall quote a few sentences from his speech. He said
"The problem of the media, from the trade union point of view, consists of four principle elements: 1, the ownership and control of newspapers and television networks; 2, establishing a means of monitoring the output of the media to establish balance or lack of balance; 3, devising a practicable code of objectivity, balance, fairness and accuracy, to govern presentation of news and opinion; and 4, a means of policing and enforcing any such publicly agreed criteria".
Mr. Evans went on to say that those who possess powers of command over the press,
"must be required to exercise them within the terms of an 'operator's licence'. The qualification for holding such a licence must be the acceptance and practice of clearly defined standards of responsibility and accountability. TUC policy has already defined the instruments necessary to the attainment of these ends".
The chief instrument was, and still is among those who hold that view, the commission. Mr. Evans added:
"The commission envisaged would be thoroughly representative of all major sections in the community, through public appointment following consultation with unions and employers in the industry and would, of course, be responsible to the appropriate minister".
928
In short, the TUC wanted—and wants—a Ministry of Truth. Those views may be 11 years old but they have never been repudiated by the Labour Party and are frequently advocated by people and groups within it. Is it not time that the party looked again at its policy in this general field?
I feel that there will be little public opposition to the present heavy pressures toward regulation of broadcasting. There is always the likelihood that administrative machinery designed to monitor or control the representation of sex and violence in 1988 will be applied to the press in 1990 and utilised for other, perhaps political, purposes in 1993. Unless held in constant check, governments of all political parties tend to tyranny. The democratic form possesses no magic to make it different from any other system in that respect. I believe that Tom Paine was right when he said that government even in its best state is but a necessary evil and in its worst an intolerable one.
Independent media are the most powerful of all constraints upon that evil. The media sustain a critical, because informed, electorate by enforcing openness within the law. For democrats no political faith is possible save faith in the argument itself. We can acknowledge no leadership except the argument whithersoever it goes. Today, as yesterday, I believe that the argument goes to the Duke of Wellington's command, "Publish and be dammed!"
5.10 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for giving us this opportunity to express views at this juncture in the existence of broadcasting. I ought to express a somewhat muted vested interest, being a shareholder, last month having retired as chairman of Anglia Television after 30 years in the industry, during some of them as chairman of ITN. Since the noble Lord, Lord Annan, gave such a brilliant account and review of matters over the recent decade or so, I should like very briefly to speak of things as they are from the inside.
There is a great difference between the broadcasters and I wish to imply no criticism of any broadcasters. I certainly do not wish to criticise any programmes of the BBC where I have, and have had, so many friends in the past, including the noble Lord, Lord Swann, who follows later this afternoon. Nevertheless, it would be absurd to say that on the whole the majority of producers and directors are not middle of the road, or of Left-wing tendencies. There is no need to be either ashamed or embarrassed about that. It is a fact.
Some producers in television think that they have a right to absolute freedom. However, at the same time they fail to recognise the obligations in a democracy which that freedom implies. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, some of a more activist nature feel that they have a great mission to change the country and even the world. But every time a producer fails to exercise responsibility in exchange for this freedom and is called to task for it publicly, in particular on matters of national security, something else happens. There are shrill and piercing howls of rage. The unfortunate aspect is that the

929
outcry is invariably boosted by parties who should really know better in the case of the public interest or of national security. These are the intelligentsia, the trendies, many politicians, and even some of the media. This tends to give encouragement to the notion among producers and directors that such a mission is their role in life.
Obviously, editorial freedom should not be regarded as a licence to shock, to insult, to undermine the confidence and wellbeing of society, and certainly not to undermine national security. I believe that it is absurd to suggest, however, that any government would be tempted to introduce controls if there had never been any abuse. Frankly, in television I have seen the situation arising for at least two decades, and if some measure of control is the unfortunate and wholly undesirable penalty, nobody regrets it more than myself, but certain broadcasters have little but themselves to blame.
I am not welcoming any form of control by government. It is not the producers and directors whom, I believe, we should be blaming. In my experience I would let them off the hook. Nor do I blame the IBA who are once removed from the action and can usually react only over particular incidents after the event. The responsibility for programme output, whether concerning bad taste, but in particular national security, is clearly the responsibility of the boards of ITV companies and the BBC. If, as a matter of routine, they do not scrutinise the forward plans and question the content and purpose of future current affairs and politically sensitive programmes, how can they be said to exercise their responsibility?
Without, again, implying a criticism of the BBC, there is a very considerable difference among the categories of television organisations. There are 15 television companies in ITV and at least 12, so far as I am aware, have never had any public outcry about a programme in well over 30 years. There have of course been incidents—and there must be in every single walk of life and organisation, including government—of own goals and clangers, but they are almost invariably confined to one or two of the national companies who have a much bigger responsibility and a greater output than the other dozen or more.
Therefore I wish to make it clear that such scrutiny is the responsibility of the boards. The boards of most of the regional companies have a much closer scrutiny and interest in the programme controllers' forward planning than may be the case in the BBC and one or two of the larger companies. It is nonsense to suggest that if the hoard, directors, or governors knew more about the future it would jam up the works. It would not cause operational problems because this process of scrutiny would apply only to a handful of sensitive current affairs projects over the year. It would be a simple duty for management, or one or more board members, to monitor the programme controllers' plans and decide whether or not it was necessary to refer any particular item to the board for judgment.
However, this does not happen in certain organisations. It is quite obvious from the way that
930
every time there is an unseemly clash in public—say, on a political issue as recently—the entire board, of whatever organisation it may be, closes ranks and mans the barricades behind the producer against the so-called interference with editorial freedom. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, made quite clear, there is nothing wrong with broadcasters admitting, and no reason why they should not admit, that there has been an error or that there is a difference of opinion, or whatever it may be. The tendency is invariably to batten down the hatches and defend whatever has happened. It is inconceivable in my view that a group of distinguished, experienced, intellectually competent peole, such as are on any of the boards concerned, could possibly have a unanimous, identical view about items such as the Gibraltar programmes. The suspicion must be, therefore, that they knew nothing about the matter until afterwards and were closing ranks as captives of their own routine.
Government circles have often been accused of paranoia about broadcasting. But I believe that there is another paranoia of greater proportions in broadcasting circles about any criticism of their more way-out projects. So shrill is the outrage about any criticism from the Prime Minister, or Ministers, or those responsible for running the country, that one is tempted to conclude that in certain cases the whole purpose of a programme, so far as concerns a producer or director, has been to provoke, stir and enrage. If that is not the case, then what have the appointed members of the boards, who are fundamentally responsible, been doing before it has been produced?
The point that I wish to make this afternoon is this. Once a programme has been made it is extremely difficult to stop its transmission without an uproar about censorship and interference with broadcasting freedom. This is what makes the IBA's position difficult. But this difficulty applies to no other body. Consideration of all the issues and implications should take place before a sensitive project goes into production. Once that has happened one is on a slippery slope.
The directors and producers may not like the idea of previous scrutiny because they have been allowed, and have come to expect, so much rope over more than 30 years. But in the press no reporter or journalist is allowed to publish without the knowledge of the editor or someone else in the hierarchy. Sections of the press may be offensive at times, as we all know, but then one knows that the proprietor or editor intends it. It is not just the whim or custom of a reporter or sub-editor. In some quarters television has permitted the wholly erroneous notion to grow up that an individual producer has freedom to inject personal dispositions on the screen and this is contrary to the edicts of parliament.
Broadcasting organisations, before or after an uproar, usually rely on a reference to lawyers. All that the lawyers can do is to tell one whether one is likely to suffer financial damages or to go to prison. What use are lawyers to an intelligent board on judgments affecting the public interest or national security? The lawyer's involvement is irrelevant.

931
Bias is nothing new. Something has not suddenly happened which has brought about the debate which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has so helpfully introduced. I much regret the establishment of the Broadcasting Standards Council, but it is something that could be said to have been brewing from the outset. There has always been a tendency to produce controversial programmes, and as the years go by people have become bolder and bolder. What has happened in my view is that boards have become more remote and had less control.
I remember that possibly some 20 years ago my company, Anglia Television, produced two programmes of a highly controversial nature, one introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, and another by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. One was called "Red Under The Bed", about the creeping nature of communist activity in the trade unions, and the other, so far as I can remember, was called "Who Said It Can't Happen Here?" which showed how a bloodless communist takeover was conceivable overnight in any country. Those programmes were totally impartial, very well balanced and highly thought of. They received considerable acclaim, but were described in industry documents as Right-wing programmes. To my knowledge, there has never been something described as a balanced programme. The whole of broadcasting, especially in my industry, was so used to Left-wing programmes that the moment they saw one that was not Left-wing they immediately called it Right-wing.
I suggest therefore that we are not in a new situation. It is unfortunate that we have at last reached the point where a Broadcasting Standards Council is said to be necessary. I believe it is unnecessary and wholly illogical in view of the statutory responsibilities of the existing authorities.
Here again, I have to explain a difference. I am not seeking to impose any additional restraints on the BBC, but the BBC in structure is more like a large ITV company. It has a board of governors which is equivalent to the board of a large network company. That is where it stands. All ITV companies already have a supervising authority in the form of the IBA. Therefore if a broadcasting standards council were imposed on the BBC—I am not recommending it—it would merely be coming into line with the rest of ITV. We should then have the two public services balanced, each independent in a sense, but with a supervisory body to take account of what it does. If the Broadcasting Standards Council were also to be imposed upon ITV, that is a slightly hysterical situation. I venture to suggest to my noble friend Lord Ferrers that the Government have lost their way on that because there would be two supervisory bodies on one service and one on the other. Of the two options I would recommend that they do not go ahead with the Broadcasting Standards Council and that we are just left with one body, the IBA.
Finally, I should like to add that it is quite absurd for anyone to object to the Prime Minister, or any Minister or the Opposition criticising programmes, if they wish. But I should like to take up a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, in that I think the Prime Minister was absolutely correct and quite
932
proper because the Prime Minister is head of all the security services and is responsible for the security of the nation. She was intruding in a matter that directly concerned that role. But why on earth should the Prime Minister not criticise programmes if she wishes? I venture to suggest that there would be no harm in a few biblical quotations in certain cases. It is ridiculous to equate criticism with interference.
One hears the producers proclaim so frequently that the public must be given the truth. I believe that on matters of public and national security the real truth is that the vast majority of the public would prefer not to know when national security is at stake. Because of the wisdom and instinct of the British public, these subversive programmes fortunately have little impact at home. But they do immense damage abroad and give comfort to our enemies.
I was in the United States during the course of the Gibraltar affair. It received the most appalling coverage in every publication one could imagine, from the New York Times right across the nation. I felt acutely embarrassed and uncomfortable and thought, "My God, what on earth are we trying to do?"
The boards of broadcasting organisations have a personal responsibility, each one of them. If they are unaware of programmes until after the event, it is no use getting paranoid about interference with independence. Freedom will already have been abused, and that is what we must stop.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, we seem to be divided between those who think that the programmes are generally Right-Wing with the occasional Left-Wing relief and those who think that programmes are generally Left-Wing with occasional Right-Wing relief. As we cannot agree about what the situation is, I wonder how likely we are to be able to come to a conclusion about what ought to be done in the future. However, we must ventilate the subject, and I believe we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for giving us the opportunity this afternoon.
Of course it is proper for government to seek to get their way, but it is in the nature of bad government to resent opposition. Such a bad government will endeavour to constitute themselves as the sole maker of decisions; hence, for example, the abolition of the GLC. But our elected dictatorship not only cannot stomach competing sources of power but finds criticism intolerable.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has done us a service in pointing out that broadcasting is in danger. Even now the changes in the BBC governors mean that dissent at the highest level is thought to have been taken care of. That is why they believed in the corporation. Safe choices are beginning to occupy the main seats of authority at lower levels. The corporation grapevine carries the message that the Government do not like being contradicted and do not like being exposed, charged with error, with concealment and still less with lying, expecially when the charges are well founded.

933
The secret service, as has been said, is secret. Its mistakes are particularly secret. It follows, as is thought in the corporation, that if one wishes to prosper in that service investigative exposure of the harmful consequences of government policies is hardly the way forward. When yesterday Nick Ross invited listeners to contribute to one of his programmes on Radio 4 he seemed to suggest that the questioners should be those who thought that Thatcherism had gone far enough and those who wanted it to go still further. Some of us believe that the acquisitive society is a form of sickness, and further that Thatcherism is a particularly virulent form of the disease. It still does not seem to have occurred to Mr. Ross that the Government are still not satisfied. Broadcasting as a whole must be brought to heel. Once that is done any remaining elements of dissent in the tame press can be eliminated at leisure.
We shall then have the ideal. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, will be entirely satisfied. All power will rest in 10 Downing Street. Dissent will of course be permitted under licence, which Sir William Rees-Mogg and Mr. Bernard Ingham will have the power to withdraw or suspend at any time. Perhaps a satirical journalist—Mr. Andrew Rawnsley of the Guardian is a possibility—will be appointed as Cabinet jester and allowed to gesture rudely in the direction of the lady protector, perhaps once a week, so as to make it clear that journalists never, never, never shall be slaves.
Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Renton—I am sorry he is not here—I think did Mr. Duncan Campbell an injustice. I shall check on the point, but I do not think it is correct to say that Mr. Duncan Campbell has been twice convicted. Certainly he has been prosecuted—some think persecuted—but I think not convicted. However, I shall check the point, and I do not have the slightest doubt that if I find I am in the right the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will apologise as easily as I shall if I find that I am in the wrong.
Even more serious, the Government's direction seems to be alarmingly wrong. While Mr. Gorbachev struggles towards the Right, Mrs. Thatcher seeks the shade of conformity and begins to snuff out the candles of pluralism. If the object of setting up the proposed Broadcasting Standards Council was not to bring existing broadcasters under still closer control the council would have been given responsibility for the new sources alone—for cable, for satellite and perhaps even for video; and that, I think, no one could have argued with. It would not have been set up in competition with the judiciary and above the BBC governors, the Independent Television Authority and the D-notice Committee. The new council is to be the watchdog of the watchdogs, answerable through the Home Office, which also handles secret service matters (so far as anyone handles them), to the Big Sister herself.
"There is no need to worry", says the noble Lord, Lord Renton, "my friend the Home Secretary is a 'Right' honourable man and he has said that Sir William will be confined to sex and violence—well, for the moment." But, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, says, the council's powers might be
934
diminished, "or", he adds, "they may be added to, of course". Once the council is established, it will want to be influential. In the nature of things the direction of change, even now, will not be to muzzle the new dog; it will be to unchain the beast.
Even with the present intention, the idea that sex and violence have nothing to do with politics is naive or disingenuous. Let us consider how long the BBC itself suppressed the brilliant documentary "The War Game" because it showed, with an attempt at realism, something of the horrors which may accompany a nuclear war. Was there nothing political in that? Of course there was. Those separations cannot easily be made. In fact, gratuitous, unnecessary, immoral violence is allowed. It is shown all the time. It is precisely violence shown as a warning of the consequences of the policies they are following which upsets governments. That is the violence which the Government do not want to see. In other words, the council will be likely to stop what should be allowed and to allow what should be stopped.
I should like to add something about sound radio—the wireless as it was called when, as a boy, I struggled with the many wires that made up a crystal set. I retain that early interest in this unique and pioneer medium—the daddy of them all. I must also declare the additional interest that in recent years I have been writing, and am still writing, radio plays for BBC Radio 4.
It seems that the Government are to set up yet another body, the Radio Authority. Their passion for the creation of expensive quangos knows no bounds. It will be a regulatory body, but surely in granting or refusing licences the new body must take into consideration factors which will also concern Sir William Rees-Mogg's council. What with those two bodies, plus the Independent Broadcasting Authority, plus the BBC governors, plus the D-notice Committee and the law itself, there will be a fine old mess! Will anyone dare to broadcast anything to which Mrs. Thatcher might conceivably object—except, perhaps, satire so coarse as to create sympathy rather than scorn for its target? There is some of that already.
There can be no doubt that when it comes to creating confusion the Government are in a class by themselves. Of course, confusion damages not the confuser, the Government, but the confused, the broadcasting media, writers, producers and, most of all, the wretched public, who are the helpless source of money to pay for bureaucracies galore. They are bureaucracies which the Government spawn as the direct consequence of trusting no one but themselves and in striving to create enough strings, appointments and channels of control so that everyone and everything is ultimately answerable to one person. Guess who?
Some Conservatives are aware of these dangers. The Home Affairs Committee of the other place, chaired by Mr. John Wheeler, MP, and of course with a substantial Conservative majority, reporting last month finished up with this recommendation:
"We consider that the secure future of public service radio should be a priority in any Government legislation. To this end, the Government should ensure that the BBC, as the sole provider of

935
public service radio, is not under financial or other pressures to reduce its standards in this field in the face of competition from commercially financed competitors".
I hope that we shall hear, perhaps from the noble Earl when he replies, that the Government accept that recommendation, which I believe will be widely supported throughout the whole House.
However, the reduction of standards is not the only problem. There are others, as that excellent body Voice of the Listener makes clear in its evidence to the Home Office committee. On this issue it calls for the establishment of a consultative consumer body to ensure proper public debate before any major change is implemented; that is, such a change as the establishment of a broadcasting council. I think that that is a sensible proposal.
The most alarming development—this brings me to my final point—is the loss of freedom, the introduction of fear, of caution and of anxiety in case the highest authority should be offended. The noble Lord, Lord Renton—again, I am sorry that he is not here—was, I think, wrong about the BBC Radio 4 documentary about the secret services called "My Country Right or Wrong". It was stopped by legal action last December despite the fact that the Secretary of the D-notice Committee had not only raised no objection but had agreed to be interviewed in the programme. The BBC sin was that it refused to hand over the scripts to the Treasury Solicitor before the programmes were broadcast. It rightly said that that would be State censorship and would provoke uproar.
The injunction remains in force. The programmes have not been broadcast. The Government have established a legal right to see the script of the first programme and have said that they have no objections to it. However, they insist upon seeing the second and third programmes. That point is still subject to legal argument. The programmes have still not been broadcast. If that can be done now, what on earth do we need all this apparatus for?
If Sir William Rees-Mogg's committee were in existence it would have a right to vet the scripts—a right which even the governors of the BBC have correctly in my view, traditionally not used; this series, which attempts to put together information on the secret services all of which has already been made public in one form or another would never even have been attempted; there would not have been a legal battle and the public would have been denied access to information which they are entitled to have simply because it served the convenience of the Government that they should remain ignorant. The Government want the people to know as little as possible about what they have been up to over the past few years because if they did know perhaps the Government's days would be shorter than they may be otherwise. Hence the burgeoning of concealment. It is for Parliament to see that the light of knowledge is not switched off.
5.41 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, like many noble Lords who have spoken this evening I warmly
936
welcome the announcement of the Broadcasting Standards Council and I am confident that the chairman, Sir William Rees-Mogg, will perform his task admirably. The size of the reaction against this appointment indicates surely that those committed to the breakdown of traditional morality are gravely perturbed. Unlike many noble Lords, I believe in the type of constraints on our broadcasting which this council envisages. In this respect it is the interests of the children that I have principally at heart. There is abundant evidence, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has told us, that sex and violence can, and do, harm young minds.
One asks for the evidence of this. Mrs. Whitehouse of the National Viewers and Listeners Association tells me that no fewer than 850 pieces of research into this problem have been carried out over the years in Britain, America and other English speaking countries. Nearly all have come to the conclusion that such influences are harmful. I think here of programmes such as "EastEnders", "Dallas", "Dynasty" and so on.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the problem is that there has been no definitive finding. Quite recently the Wyatt Committee, which was set up by the BBC to look into violence, commissioned a piece of research from Dr. Cumberbatch of Aston University. The results, which came out fairly recently, showed that no link could be found. One cannot find any scientific or properly approved research.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. We would all agree that it is a difficult and complex problem. However, those people who have studied the problem in depth—perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who is to speak later will confirm this point—would agree that there is a good deal of information based on sound research to indicate the harm that these programmes do. One has only to look at the correspondence of Mary Whitehouse and several organisations with which I am connected to see that that is the case. However, I do not think it is profitable to pursue this point in any detail at this stage.
As we have heard less recently about the extent of this pollution, as I would call it, it may well be argued that the tide is diminishing; but, sadly, it is not. Perhaps I may liken what is happening to a sewage outflow. I should like your Lordships to imagine a cesspit in the garden of a large old-fashioned country house. I am thinking of my grandmother's house. I can well remember how this cesspit adjoined a tennis court. As it overflowed, so the court gradually became unplayable. However, after a while, players grew accustomed to the sewage and play was resumed, although somewhat cautiously. So it is with the evil influence of the broadcasting media—pornography and violence. We are gradually accustoming ourselves to them and so are our children. Nevertheless, the stench remains as powerful as ever, and so does the potential harm they do.
As vice-president of the Christian Broadcasting Council it gives me the greatest pleasure to welcome

937
the new council. It is also welcomed by at least two bodies with which I am connected, which seek to promote family values. I am thinking here of the National Family Campaign and the Conservative Family Campaign, and certain smaller groups. These groups have been nibbling away at this problem for some while. It may interest your Lordships to know that Mrs. Whitehouse's NVALA has been campaigning for no less than 20 years for the formation of such a council. Another campaign has been going on for 17 years. These bodies and others, and many individuals too, have been nibbling away at the problem. Although they may have the teeth of mice, they have the hearts of lions and the pertinacity of beavers.
I want to make three points about the new council and I should be interested in the Minister's reaction to them. First, it must have strong teeth and it must be able to make positive recommendations. Secondly, it should be able to receive and deal with complaints. I am told by several people that, hitherto, when someone has written to the BBC to complain about a certain programme, he or she has been told, "We are sorry to hear this, but you are the only person who has complained". That is rather surprising. Thirdly—and perhaps this is the most important point of all—the proposals for this new council cover only the BBC and IBA. Surely they should also cover cable and satellite broadcasting as well.
I have two general points to make. First, broadcasting should be placed under the umbrella of the Obscene Publications Act. This is quite possible because legally the word "publications" can include broadcasts. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there is a need for international action. The dual problem of violence and pornography—the two go hand in hand to a large extent—has become a truly global one and we need the fullest possible co-operation with our European partners and also with other countries. Here I should like to pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for her courageous stance in regard to broadcasting standards. As the House will know, the noble Baroness is a member of the European Parliament.
My next point concerns broadcasting advertising. We hear from the Prime Minister, Ministers and others that this country needs to return to Christian standards on morality, but the broadcasting authorities are to some extent handicapped in this respect by the prohibition under the Broadcasting Act 1981 of broadcasting advertising. Schedule 2(8) to the Act reads:
"No advertisement shall be permitted which is inserted by or on behalf of anybody whose objects are wholly or mainly of a religious or political nature".
I have heard the argument expressed several times, and there is much in it, that if one were to lift the restriction it would open the way to proselytisation by a whole mass of phony religious creeds. I suggest to the House that the best way round that would be for material to be submitted through the Churches and passed by the Broadcasting Standards Council. I believe that that would overcome the difficulty. I shall be pleased to hear the views of the Minister on that point.
5.50 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I have not taken part in a debate on the BBC for a long time. During the 1950s I moved several debates on the question of our overseas information services, which received hardly any money in those days. I believe they received only £2 million or £3 million, but that was raised to £13 million within about two years. I have always considered that to be the most important function of the BBC and it carried it out very well.
I am sorry to say that the BBC has declined a little since those days in some of the programmes it broadcasts. There are cultural programmes on houses, pictures, wildlife and the environment that one cannot better; they are excellent. However, I believe that it falls down when an element of politics creeps in, as the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has said.
As regards children's television, "Children's Hour" is harmless. However, during the holidays and when the children come home from school, the custom in many of the 23 million homes appears to be that they turn the television on, leave it on and the children have completely free access to pornographic filth or violence. I believe that that is deplorable. I do not know how one can stop that, but it should be stopped.
As other noble Lords have said, the sex, pornography and violence must be toned down. One sometimes hears that in courts young offenders make the excuse that they saw such things on television. I believe that that is a pointer that such programmes must be toned down. Indeed, unless the programmes are shown very late at night, at midnight or afterwards, they must not be shown.
Independence more or less is the same as freedom. The BBC has always treated me very well. I have been on the screen a few times. One has to be a little careful of recorded programmes but one often forgets that. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is asking for complete independence for the BBC. We certainly do not want a state-run BBC, which would be disastrous. However, it cannot be completely independent—nothing can be. If one wants complete freedom one must go and live in the jungle and not in a civilised country and an organised society. To a certain extent the same applies to independence; one must abide by the law.
I know that the BBC has a charter, but my experience has been that when in the old days I asked questions of the Government the answer was always, "We cannot interfere with the BBC. It has its charter and it has complete freedom". One always receives the same answer from the Government and there have been occasions when one hoped for a better answer.
I must not be too long and I am not going to be too long. I remember the occasion on which I made my maiden speech in this House and was afterwards interviewed by BBC television. The first question I was asked was, "How do you like all the privileges of being a Peer of the Realm?" I said, "There are no privileges; there are only duties and responsibilities. After all I am not a member of a trade union". They

939
were very shocked to hear that. Afterwards one of the camera men said to me, "Sir, you should never have said that. They will never forgive you." However, I said it and I think that they have forgiven me. It was a long time ago.
As has been mentioned by another noble Lord, I am extremely worried about terrorism. The BBC seems to exploit terrorism on the screen. I do not mean that it throws bombs, but it exploits terrorism on the screen. There is no doubt that it often builds up a small incident into a large incident by renting a mob and causing a crowd. It should try to stop doing that. Terrorism is one of the most appalling problems of our age and anything that is done to encourage it is deplorable.
In the days of the Rhodesian crisis plenty of Africans were seen on television. They were the terrorist Africans, the hotheaded nationalists. However, there are plenty of moderate Africans but none of them could get on television. I tabled a Question about that and received the usual stock government Answer, which was, "We cannot interfere with the BBC. It is impartial. One cannot interfere". That is not good enough. The BBC interferes too much in politics and takes sides, but it is supposed to be an impartial body. I believe that I received an answer from my noble friend Lord Ferrers, but probably he will not remember because it is some time go. However, that is not good enough. As regards these plays which my noble friend Lord Renton mentioned, as well as the programmes, I agree with every word he has said on them.
We live in an age of debunking. This is a great country, a very tolerant country. I wonder why we should have people trying to debunk our traditions the whole time on the television screen, as they do. If people are rogues then by all means debunk them, but if they have been very good men and done their duty and nothing wrong why should programmes go in for this debunking? It can only help eventually to destroy the democratic state. Those are strong words, but that is what it means. I was impressed by the brilliant speech of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who is not here now. He was correct in almost everything he said, as was my noble friend Lord Renton.
I shall not say much more, but the other matter which infuriated me—although I never show my infuriation—was the Falklands. As we all know, here we had a small island which had been British for donkeys' years, 99 per cent. of the inhabitants being of pure British blood. Here they were threatened; invaded by Argentina which had no legal claim to the island. If it had a legal claim then it was only necessary for it to go to the court at The Hague. The BBC did not back up this country over the Falklands and I think that was bad.
I think I have said enough. I have spoken for 11 minutes but it does not seem like that to me and I shall shortly sit down. I have great admiration for the BBC, apart from its certain lapses; it has always treated me well. However I have this view of broadcasting organisations: they do very well but they cannot expect to be completely above the law. The BBC is the only organisation in the country that
940
is above the law and I would say that it is the most powerful organisation in this country. There used to be an old saying that the pen is mightier than the sword, and of course it is. If you want to start a revolution, you write a book. Today you would go perhaps not to the pen but to television.
6.3 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that there are no privileges here. If he had not ruled out the idea of privileges I should have said that it was a privilege to follow such a charming speaker. However, he will forgive me if I do not follow his apparent line of argument too closely. I came here prepared with a suitable compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, but as he is not here I think I shall have to administer it on another occasion, rather than allow the noble Lords on the Liberal Benches to transmit it.
I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made a very effective speech, but no more effective than the speeches of my colleagues, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I go a long way with all three of them, but as will be apparent before I finish, not the whole way. I entirely agree that this Government have shown themselves ludicrously sensitive to criticism, anxious to bring pressure to bear on all those who seem to disagree with them—almost frenetically so. I do not know what the trouble is. If I were a psychiatrist—which heaven forbid!—I should explain it as being due to insecurity; but the Government have been there for some time and one would think that they would have settled down by now.
The fact is that at the slightest sign of anyone causing trouble, whether it be the Churches, the universities, the BBC or anybody else, they come tearing along and do all they can to suppress it, without actually breaking the law. Therefore I go along with all that has been said to that effect by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and by my acting leader, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I am sure that much the same will be said very effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, when the time comes.
I must, however, make plain that I am one of those who, like the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, consider that there is altogether too much sex and violence in broadcasting today. I speak, as he does, from a Christian point of view. That has become a rather dangerous phrase these days. As soon as somebody says that they are Christian, someone else begins quoting Pontius Pilate or Timothy or Paul. The argument becomes rather remote and far removed from the subject under discussion, so we shall leave out the theology for the moment.
I was explaining that I was about to pay a compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Rather than lose it altogether and forget to pay it the next time I see him, I must say that in the short time he has been here he has established himself as one of our most effective speakers.
As I was saying, I am afraid that I am one of those who feel that there is altogether too much sex and violence. I realise that we are dealing today with

941
broadcasting and not with the press, but it has come home to me rather more forcibly than previously that there is a very close connection between the values established by the tabloid press and what the broadcasters consider they must put on because of its news value. A few days ago—last Friday—I made one of my rare appearances on television. I was asked to appear in a programme which I understood was going to deal with sex and marriage. I was going to offer a few homely thoughts, as one who had been happily married for 57 years or thereabouts. When I got there the first person I met was a lady famous—as she herself said a little later in the programme—for keeping a brothel. We were being made up together, so that while they dabbed powder on my forehead they did whatever was necessary to effect her beauty.
We settled down and the discussion took place, but I realised that it would be a completely different programme from the one I had expected. It was going to deal with massage parlours and we were going to have a number of performers in these parlours, masseurs and masseuses. (I do not know how one writes that, from the point of view of Hansard.) They were male and female massage practitioners. They were going to explain that they were pursuing a legitimate trade which was being ruined by the wrong sort of publicity. However, there would also be other practitioners who were prostitutes, and they had prostitutes on the programme.
I do not know whether noble Lords think that that is a good idea. It takes all sorts to make the world and we want to hear the other person's point of view. We arc broadminded these days. However, the whole treatment of the subject, including the statement by the lady—"I keep a brothel"—brought resounding cheers and laughter. Should that be shown? Your Lordships may say that it should not be stopped, that we could not pass a law to make that programme illegal. But that is symptomatic of a tendency which is altogether deplorable.
When I asked afterwards why they had gone to these lengths, a very charming person in charge—I had better not specify more closely—explained that they sympathised with my point of view, because at one point I had refused to take part in the programme. Then they had agreed to allow me to say my little piece about marriage, which hardly fitted in with the rest of it. But I had insisted on that, so I got it off my chest. They explained that they understood my point of view, but that the News of the World and other tabloids had created so much interest in the antics of a certain gentleman indirectly connected with the Royal Family that it was impossible for television to ignore it. I am making these points seriously—more seriously than I should have done a little while ago. In other words, the values of the tabloids are establishing themselves as creating the news values of television.
At this point I cannot help mentioning the fact that there may be other old hands who were here in 1954—the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, for example. In those days the champions of the BBC fought like tigers to prevent the coming of commercial television. In fact, they divided the House on the Second Reading of the Bill in order to
942
prevent the arrival of commercial television because it was thought that it would corrupt broadcasting by the BBC.
It is not for me to say whether the champions of the BBC think that that has happened, but they are, I gather, standing together to resist the idea of a council to advise on programmes containing sex and violence. They are particularly resistant to the appointment of Sir William Rees-Mogg as chairman of the council. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to him as his old friend, but I am not sure whether or not that was meant to be ironic. I do not imagine that he welcomes that appointment any more than, apparently, Sir William Rees-Mogg, when he was editor of The Times, welcomed the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, as chairman of an important body.
As I said, the House was divided by the champions of the BBC to prevent its corruption by the arrival of commercial television. We have now had 30 years of commercial television and I must leave the House to say whether or not those who divided the House on that occasion were right or wrong. However, today we have all this sex and violence on broadcasting.
I am no stranger to the subject, as some older Members will be aware. In the spring of 1971 I moved a Motion in this House arguing that pornography had increased, that it was increasing and that it should be diminished. The report that followed my speech was published in the autumn of 1972 and the House again debated the subject. On each occasion the majority of speakers in this House supported my general position. That is not to say that there were not some weighty speeches made from the other point of view. I said all that in 1971 and 1972, and so did our far-reaching committee. I argued that there ought to be a voluntary council—not necessarily of the kind set up by the Government, but some sort of advisory body. I am much more likely to say that now. Can anyone say that there is less pornography now than there was in 1971 or 1972?
That can perhaps be argued about sex because people will tell me that there is much less sex visible in Soho. There may be some improvements there, but no one can doubt that there has been a great increase in violence since then, not only in the tabloids but in broadcasting. In that long report we devoted only one chapter to violence. It seemed to be altogether a subsidiary issue. However, no one doing a report today on pornography would devote only one chapter to violence—at least half the report would be devoted to violence. There has been a great expansion of violence in broadcasting since that time. Therefore we have this grave situation confronting us.
In the speech I made before the report was published I said what may be obvious, but it cannot be said too often—that most of us dislike pornography and that most of us dislike censorship. That sets the problem. How do you cope with pornography without something that is called censorship? The word "censorship" is vague and ambiguous. Very few people believe in total freedom of speech. Few people would say that there should not be any obscenity laws. The great liberals—using the word in its most honourable sense and not only in the party sense—would be the first to applaud the

943
fact that we have laws against racism. Some advanced thinking people among my friends are now saying that we ought to have laws against sexism. Hardly anyone seriously suggests that we should have no laws which interfere with human freedoms. There must be some kind of balance.
Something must be done. The Government have made a certain move by setting up a council. I do not suggest that there is any perfection in the way that the council is being set up or in its precise terms of reference, about which I am not clear at the moment. However, I will say that I have the highest admiration—I do not say this in the conventional sense but in a genuine way—for Sir William Rees-Mogg. He is a gentleman who has been belaboured a great deal in recent weeks. If anyone should wonder what that gentleman is like they can of course refer to his record. It is quite remarkable. He has been editor of The Times, deputy chairman of the BBC and chairman of the Arts Council. However, if people really want to know the value of the man they should read his book of religious reflections. If they can find a better book of religious reflections written in the past 20 years I hope they will let me know. He is a very fine man and I am glad that he has been given the job.
Certainly I would not suggest Sir William if there were any political censorship involved. He is a Tory. Tories of course can be fine men, although that may be a bit harder.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that is being a bit strong.
The Earl of Longford: Yes, my Lords, but it is possible. He is a Tory and would be most unsuitable if politics were involved; but so would anybody with a political persuasion. We do not want political censorship of any kind.
I end where I began, with strong support for the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and my noble friends on this side of the House.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Swann: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter initiated this debate, even if I am sad that it should have needed to be initiated. There is a need for such a debate. We have heard a wide exchange of views and a great deal of wisdom, and I particularly congratulate my noble friend Lord Annan who knows much about broadcasting. If I do not agree with everything that he said, I certainly agree with a great deal of it. I agree or disagree variously with what other speakers have said. Because my noble friend Lord Annan, and others, have expressed their views so well, many of the points I had intended to make have already been put forward. Therefore, I have reached the conclusion that, although there are a few points I shall make later, I should perhaps speak about a few recollections of my time at the BBC which are relevant to the subject of our debate.
The first thing that one learns is that there have been rows and rumpuses and attempts at government
944
interference from the very first Reithian days of the BBC. Sir Alexander Cadogan, chairman in the 1950s, had more than his fair share of troubles; as did the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. Both stood up stoutly for independence. I, too, had my share of troubles. I received threats from the Foreign Office and threats, veiled or otherwise, from almost every other corner of government; though never, I am glad to say, from the Home Office. I received threats—as I said, veiled or overt—about many matters including, from time to time, threats not to raise the licence fee.
One such threat caused me a great deal of embarrassment because it came from a senior politician. The member of staff to whom he spoke on the telephone taped the conversation, against all the orders, rules and regulations. It floated, to my astonishment and relief, silently round Broadcasting House for some weeks. Should I ever write my memoirs I shall have to expand on that and other matters.
I must say that Tory governments have no monopoly on wanting to interfere with the BBC. More worrying in my time was the attempt by the Labour Government in 1978 to impose a complicated new devolved structure of government appointees on to what were to be called service management boards: one for television, one for radio and one for the external services.
The BBC protested vigorously, as did the noble Lord, Lord Annan, whose famous report had recently been completed. The press protested, the public protested and so, most notably, did the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, who was at that time shadow Home Secretary. In the other place he said that he feared that the independence of the BBC and its whole character would be threatened. Whether the then government would actually have persevered in the light of so much opposition, I rather doubt; but a general election put a premature end to speculation.
We have heard quite a bit about what has happened since my time. I will not go over it because I believe it was fully aired in the previous debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Chalfont. I wish to remind your Lordships of something that I said in that debate, because I believe it profoundly. I said given that there are 15,000 hours a year of television put out by the BBC and 200,000 hours of domestic radio per annum put out by the BBC, the staff would have to be archangels if they were never to make silly mistakes or errors of judgment. Given that about 50 million people watch with some regularity, it seemed to me inevitable that quite a lot of people will be annoyed for a few hours per annum and a few people including—dare I say it—the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will be annoyed for quite a lot of hours per annum. I continued by saying that I thought this was a small price to pay for preserving the essential element in a free society; namely, the freedom of the media and preserving the internationally visible integrity of the BBC's External Services, uniquely influential as you know they are.
I might have added that the periodic rows between the government of the day and the BBC are an essential prerequisite if the External Services are to be seen to be independent and trustworthy and not, like

945
most if not all other nations' external services, just a propaganda weapon. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in winding up the debate, said something that I warmly welcome and I wish to remind your Lordships and the noble Earl of what he said,
"it cannot be for the Government to dictate or to determine the quality of programmes. That is, and must be, the … responsibility of the chairman and the governors of the BBC. If we were to accept the principle of government interference or the right to censure the BBC on the contents of any, some, or all of its programmes, then we would be embarking … on a very slippery slope of broadcasting … by government consent. That I think few people wish to see."—[Official Report, 27/4/88; col. 277.]
The idea of a body on the lines of the Broadcasting Standards Council is not new. In fact, it is old and distinctly worn. It was seriously mooted by governments in 1962, 1966, 1972 and 1977, but in every case it was ultimately rejected on the grounds that it would be likely to confuse the lines of authority of the board of governors. It is not yet clear what sort of creature the new Broadcasting Standards Council will be. The idea of drawing up guidelines and acceptable standards is attractive, but it has been done often enough before by both the BBC and the IBA. I cannot speak with quite the same authority over the IBA's efforts in that sphere, but I know all too well the BBC's various publications about it and I believe they cannot be faulted.
The problems really begin when staff have to make judgments in the real world, and members of the new council would do well to read the proceedings, for instance, of a fascinating conference called by the BBC to discuss those real difficulties. There is also a short book written by Dr. Colin Morris on broadly the same topic. He used to be the BBC's head of religious broadcasting and now—heaven help him—he is the BBC's controller in Northern Ireland.
Anyone who doubts the difficulties and the broadcasters' efforts to get things right, should read those documents before beginning to apportion blame. I will not try to give all the kinds of examples, but there is a graphic description of the news people trying to decide what to do with some horrifying tape of one of the riots in South Africa where blacks were killing blacks. The broadcasters decided that they must chop it off at the point at which blood started to flow. However, they got into trouble by being accused of wanting to make light of what blacks did to blacks.
The root of the problem is that the views of the public are infinitely variable. If and when the new council starts pontificating, I guess that it, like the BBC and the IBA, will start getting the flak. Indeed, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said it has started getting it because letters are already appearing in the press protesting that the programmes that Sir William Rees-Mogg says he approves of are in fact most disagreeable and, conversely, the ones that he dislikes are innocent to a degree. That cannot come as a surprise to anyone who has worked in broadcasting. In fact, in my more sombre moments as chairman, I used to reflect that there was scarcely a programme that the BBC ever put out that did not upset someone, if not quite a number of people.
I recall now, eight years after having left the BBC, with something approaching affection the letters I used to receive from a category of people known
946
within the BBC as "Disgusted, Bournemouth". They used to say some quite bizarre things. There were a number of letters and they came at intervals. One I particularly liked was an earnest complaint about that infinitely innocent and enjoyable comedy series called "Dad's Army" which, it was held, was subversive. I finally discovered, having received a number of these letters, that the reason was that it mocked the pompous Captain Mainwaring who, you may recall, was the commanding officer of the Warmington-on-Sea Home Guard platoon in World War II. I also cherish letters, some of which I have kept, where a particular programme was ferociously attacked for Left-wing bias and simultaneously, by other people, for Right-wing bias.
The longer I continued with the BBC the more I came to revise my views about bias. When I joined I thought, "Yes, on the whole I think the BBC is a bit Left-wing". After a while I came to the conclusion that it was not quite as simple as that, despite my efforts to try to do something about bias. My eyes were opened when I said to a senior member of staff, after I had been there for a while, "You know, I think I am making a bit of progress here, don't you?" He said, "Oh well, with the greatest respect, chairman, it is not you, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer". I said, "What on earth do you mean?" He said, "Don't you recall?"—this will enable noble Lords to identify who he was—"he said that he was going to squeeze the rich until the pips squeaked". Of course, all these young men thought that was a super idea. After a while, they realised that they were rather well paid and came into the category of being rich. They changed their views somewhat to the Right. Whether the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to reverse that process has not yet been revealed to me.
There were other aspects of bias, because not long after I became chairman there was a change of government from Conservative to Labour, and almost overnight the complaints we received—the chairman received about 100 letters a week—changed from alleging a Left-Wing bias to alleging a Right-Wing bias. You make of that what you will.
Turning from those random thoughts to the new council, whether it would do much good I rather doubt. The BBC and the IBA are well aware of what the great British public thinks of their successes and mistakes from an elaborate procedure known as audience research. They also receive vast numbers of letters, though I hope that the council will bear in mind that letters are rather a poor indicator. They in no way match the populations of different parts of the country from which they come, largely because they are related to socio-economic status. One of the simplest guides to this status is whether a letter has a printed address on it. Whether other socio-economic groups think the same as the middle to upper-middle class is far from sure, and it is difficult to find out what means what in this rather murky area of social science.
I do not believe that the new council can do much harm unless it starts wanting to preview programmes and veto those of which it disapproves. Other noble Lords have referred to this. Then it will certainly do a great deal of harm because, as the noble Lord, Lord

947
Aylestone, and others have pointed out, that is precisely the job of the board of the IBA and the rather different authority structure of the BBC.
I do not know what the Government and Sir William have in mind on this score, but it has been reported that the latter wishes to preview programmes, and one does not want to preview programmes if one does not wish to influence the broadcasters, or possibly veto their programmes. I must say that I do not like the sound of that; neither, it is clear to me, did the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, nor Mr. Hussey.
There seems to have been some sort of compromise on the issue in that previewing will extend only to imported fiction. Well, that may be so, but the Broadcasting Standards Council has no authority, under the Act which governs the IBA or the BBC's charter, to make such a requirement. I profoundly hope that both bodies will answer with a resounding "no" and put the onus for such a move where it rightly belongs—with the Government. If there is to be a new broadcasting Bill and the Government want to erode the authority of the BBC governors and the IBA, then let them put a clause into such a Bill.
I could continue, but there is not a great deal more that I wish to say. However, in conclusion, I should mention that there are about 150 countries in the United Nations, but no more than a couple of dozen of them are what one would call true democracies. Indeed, many of them make no pretence at being democracies. Only a couple of dozen of those countries have any significant degree of freedom from government control over their broadcasting, or indeed over many other aspects of their lives. Among those 24 countries, British broadcasting, both by the BBC and the IBA, is the most admired, the most emulated and the most envied in the world. Therefore, in my view, it would be a national tragedy if we were to move even a single step in the wrong direction, because freedom is very hard to win and rather easy to lose.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, I should point out to the House that although my name was originally on the speakers list it has since been withdrawn at my request. I decided not to speak because everything that I wished to say had, in fact, already been said. I can only apologise for any misunderstanding that may have arisen as a result of my withdrawal.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Plunket: My Lords, I put my name down to speak in this debate—although I see it is not on the list—for one reason only. I shall therefore confine my remarks to that one aspect and my intervention will be but a brief one.
I have spent most of the past 30 years or more in Zimbabwe, although I am a frequent visitor to this country. I am an avid listener to the BBC World Service, and it is solely about that branch of broadcasting that I wish to speak. So far as I know, the noble Lord, Lord Swann, is the only speaker to have touched upon the external services of the BBC.
948
A case could be made out for the importance of the world service exceeding that of BBC television, ITV, Channel 4 and the four sound-broadcasting programmes on the grounds that that service has a wider listening public than the 23 million households—I think that was the figure quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Renton—which listen in this country. Its audience amounts to more than that for all the domestic services put together. However, whether that is so, it must be said that the real importance of the world service lies in the image it projects of the United Kingdom to its foreign and overseas listeners. That is where the world service differs from broadcasting to UK viewers and listeners. It justifies, I believe, a different approach.
In the sphere of party politics I support the purpose of the Motion which is to call attention to the importance of maintaining the independence of British broadcasting. If independence of the broadcasting media is to be allowed, it must be reciprocated with even-handedness and fairness. However, where the BBC is broadcasting to the rest of the world—whether it likes it or not—it is taken to be the voice of Britain. On the hour, almost every hour throughout the day and night—sometimes for nearly half an hour on end, and more—news and views are beamed all over the world. Some noble Lord may well say, "Perish the thought!" However, it is quite a thought.
News is also being broadcast from other countries—some friendly, but others not. Many are totalitarian and communist countries reflecting their political or ideological beliefs and aspirations. It is unrealistic to ignore that fact and not to recognise that the BBC is competing with such broadcasting. And it competes very well. Its impartiality, despite the strictures we have heard today, is a byword. However, when reporting on political events in this country, I believe it has a duty to support the general policies of the Government presently in power. To put it another way, the reporting of opposition views, without a balancing viewpoint—which would be perfecty acceptable to viewers and listeners in this country—could be completely misunderstood abroad.
Acting independently, in a responsible manner, and maintaining impartiality are always fine balancing acts. It is easy to spot the obvious breaches. Your Lordships may recall the broadcasts beamed from Francistown in Botswana after the disastrous declaration of UDI in Rhodesia, as it was then called. At the time I welcomed such broadcasts, countering as they did the propaganda of the Rhodesia Front and Mr. Smith's government.
However, very shortly the outpourings from Francistown were taken for what they also were: blatant propaganda. Broadcasts became counterproductive. Worse, the BBC's reputation suffered. Mercifully, however, Mr. Smith jammed the broadcasts and that was the end of the matter. It was nevertheless an instance where the BBC was led astray and its independence leaned upon.
More recently I listened to an account on the BBC World Service news of a lively—some may have thought slightly undignified—protest by a Member

949
of another place dealing with apartheid in South Africa and the non-imposition of sanctions. It was broadcast on the ordinary world service news network. However, shortly afterwards, in a daily feature called 'News of the African World", which confines itself to events in that continent, the same news item was again broadcast. I think that the political feelings of a member of the news staff must have got the better of him. It was not in keeping with the bias shaded towards official government policy that I believe should be adopted. That is just one example. If asked, I could give many others.
I shall try to tread carefully on more delicate ground when I refer to the voices themselves. When one is unable to see their owners, they bear added significance. In the old days, when a radio was a wireless, BBC pronunciation of English was a cult. Wilfred Pickles was a fine broadcasting personality. He was put on to reading the news, but not for long. The public was outraged by his accent—I am not sure whether it was a Yorkshire or a Lancashire accent—and he was banished from the newsroom. I am glad to say he carried on making a successful career in other departments.
However, although audibility is still the major criterion, it would seem that in selecting newsreaders and news presenters less attention is now paid to accents. This is as may be to the various home services; but the BBC voices for presenting news programmes should surely be recognisable as BBC voices. Switching to one of the wavelengths recommended for southern Africa—for technical and atmospheric reasons which I am not competent to understand—one finds, tuning in at a particular time, Radio Moscow, broadcasting in English. Using a member of BBC staff with a perfectly acceptable accent otherwise but sufficiently foreign to confuse listeners as to where the broadcast is coming from is just not sensible. Some people might consider it deliberate and sinister. I do not, in fact; but the BBC should not give grounds for anybody to think that.
The BBC World Service broadcast on short wave and it is only too easy to find oneself tuned into a wrong station. This is yet another example of applying different criteria. What is right and good for broadcasting to home listeners—and this really has been the main thrust of the debate today—is not necessarily right and good for the world service. In occasional correspondence with Bush House, I have invariably received very courteous replies and I have a very high regard for its staff. However, I should like to stress that the freedom and impartiality which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, wishes to be allowed free rein should be tempered to ensure that the BBC World Service, with its wider public, and also within these shores, presents the image of Great Britain as a united and democratic country.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in rising to wind up this debate from these Benches I should like to say at once that I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, paid tribute to the BBC's World Service. I think we all believe that that service exemplifies all that is best in the BBC and seldom shows any of the things which are perhaps less good. Perhaps I could
950
also say to the noble Lord that his speech indicated that there are perhaps more ways than one of threatening the freedom of an institution. Your Lordships may remember that the independence and indeed the very existence of the World Service was briefly threatened by a lack of funds. I think I am right in saying that your Lordships' House did a great deal to ensure that the required funds were forthcoming for the BBC's external services.
I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, when he stated that the fact that everybody has already said the things he would have liked to have said is a good reason for not speaking at all. I should also like to say that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, was extremely wise and perceptive, and I personally should like to echo, but not repeat, every single word that he said to your Lordships.
However, there are still some things that I should like to add. Had the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, been in his place I would have said to him that at no time did my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter suggest that he wished to see total independence for broadcasters, with no control at all. He did not say that for one moment. My noble friend said that he wished to see the present degree of independence maintained under the controls which now exist, and in fact he spelt out those controls to your Lordships. None of us on these Benches wishes to see all controls entirely removed from broadcasting. However, as your Lordships know, the Motion stresses the importance of maintaining the independence of broadcasting, and that immediately poses the question: independence from whom? From the debate, clearly it means independence from politicians and from government. It is on those matters that this debate has largely concentrated. But I am a little afraid of that independence being threatened from other sources—and there are two of them.
However, the present position, as I see it, is that over the years since broadcasting was first regulated—the noble Lord, Lord Renton, reminded us that that was in 1926—we have taken the greatest possible care to distance the control of broadcasting from government and indeed from local government as well. I think I am right in saying that in general we all agree that broadcasting should be able to be the critic of government and of local government and should not be its mouthpiece. That position has been broadly maintained over the years. There was a brief period when perhaps it was threatened. That was at the time when independent local radio was first introduced. There were then suggestions that independent local radio should be put in the hands of local government. I think the Government of that day should be congratulated on having resisted those requests to give local authorities a stake in independent local radio. I think that would have been the reversal of a principle to which we have all adhered over many years.
As has been said by many of your Lordships in great detail, we have over the years developed a system under which the BBC operates under its charter and the independent broadcasters operate under the independent broadcasting Act. Both require impartiality, balance and a proper

951
representation of minority opinion. With regard to balance, what is balance? Here I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that I do not regard "balance" as producing a programme in which a prostitute and a brothel keeper appear, and the producer then thinks that the programme is balanced if he arranges for the noble Earl to be present as well. That is not the kind of balance about which we are thinking.
Perhaps, since the noble Lord, Lord Renton, talked a little about balance, I might just remind him of the words of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who at that time was Minister of State at the Home Office, when he replied to a debate on 21st July 1987, at col. 1370. He said:
"I remind the House that the Broadcasting Act 1981 states that impartiality may be judged over a series of programmes, taken as a whole".
I think that is very important. To insist upon balance within a single programme, as happened in the very early days of the independent sector, is very damaging indeed.
I think I have mentioned to your Lordships in the past an experience of mine when I was about to present a programme on the need for smokeless zones in a somewhat smoky area of Manchester. The representative of the local independent broadcasting authority in the North said that I could not do that programme unless I could also drag along a reluctant representative of a backward local authority which did not believe in smokeless zones. Fortunately we have moved away from that. I think in the main it was the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, who saw to it that the interpretation of balance and impartiality was balance overall and not within an individual programme.
I quoted the words of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I should like to move to other comments that he made in that same debate. The noble Lord, Lord Swann, quoted the words spoken by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, concerning the present position. I am merely quoting those of his predecessor as Minister of State at the Home Office, when he said at col. 1371 of the Official Report for 21st July 1987:
"it is not the job of the Government to second guess the individual decisions or broad policies of the BBC or the IBA. That would be to fly in the face of Parliament's wishes and would be tantamount to saying that the Government knew better than the broadcasting authorities how they should fulfil the role which Parliament has laid upon them …
We would not presume to tell the broadcasting authorities how to do their job, just as we would not tell the newspaper publishers, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or the Director of Fair Trading how to do theirs.".
In that statement and in the statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, we clearly have set out the present Government's position. I very much hope that later today we shall not hear that that position has varied in any way at all.
If that is the position, I see two possible threats to it. First, there has always been the threat of the present method of financing of broadcasting which seemed to me, in the past anyway, to put the BBC in a position where every so many years it was forced to go cap in hand to the government of the day for an
952
increase in the licence fee. That to my mind made the BBC at that time unnecessarily subservient to the government of the day. Now it is possible that we are slowly moving away from that, because I believe that there is general acceptance of the fact that that position was not a satisfactory one.
The second possible threat to that freedom is the fact that the people responsible for first, the charter and, secondly, the independent broadcasting Act—the governors of the BBC and the members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority—are appointed by the government of the day. When a government remain in power for a long period—the present Government have been in power for a very long period indeed—and they have to fill the vacancies that arise either among the governors of the BBC or the members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, there comes a time when inevitably the views of the governors of the BBC or those of the IBA begin to appear to reflect more and more the views of the government of the day. That is a possible danger and one of which the Government should be aware.
Whenever it is mentioned, the Government spokesman usually rises up and quotes the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, as an example of the Government's total impartiality. I have the greatest possible affection and regard for the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, but I would not say that one swallow makes a summer. I merely point out that that is a danger and that appointments to those important offices have to be considered with very great care.
My view has always been that the best way of fulfilling those obligations with regard to impartiality is by representing minority opinion properly and ensuring balance. That is done by having a maximum number of individual programme makers operating with a maximum degree of autonomy and freedom. Here I clearly differ from the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, who made a most interesting speech, most of which I wholeheartedly agree with. But I think that he questioned the autonomy as operated by certain programme makers. But I tend to believe that if one has enough different people holding different views, and preferably originating from different parts of the United Kingdom and not all from London, one will tend to have a wider range of opinions, properly expressed, and one will best tend to fulfil the objectives both of the charter and of the Act in that particular way.
I say that people with a wide variety of political opinions are needed. I do not mean people with no opinions. To put on current affairs programmes people with opinions are needed. It is no good having people with no opinions at all. But we must make sure that we have enough different people with different kinds of opinion, and that in their programme making they have a proper opportunity to express those opinions with a considerable degree of autonomy.
Having mentioned that there should be people from different parts of the United Kingdom, I must mention the other threats to the freedom of broadcasting apart from the Government. One of these is the tendency of the overmetropolitanisation

953
of institutions in Britain—the concentration of power in London. My experience of the BBC goes back many years, to the days when I did sports commentaries for it before the war. That is a long time ago. It seemed to me to be the most desperately overmetropolitanised institution that I had ever encountered. I know that the BBC regions have now been abolished, but it had regions up to 1970. The only badge of success in the regions was a single ticket to London. That was unfortunate.
I know that there are exceptions such as Bristol, which has been left with considerable freedom to present some remarkably good environmental and ecological programmes. I also know that other regional stations of the BBC have been able to do that, too. But I have always found the overconcentration on London and the metropolis rather damaging to the freedom of the BBC.
An example of this occurred years ago when there was a threat to the development of the new studios in Manchester—the headquarters of the North region. As a Member of another place I objected to the delay in that development, and so did Mr. Alfred Morris who was then, and still is, the Member for Wythenshawe. The then Postmaster General who dealt with the matter, who was in fact the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, said that this was nothing to do with Government and that it was a matter for the BBC. He said that he would arrange for us to discuss our anxieties with the BBC. He made arrangements for Mr. Morris and I to have a meeting with the then North regional controller of the BBC. That office no longer exists because there is no longer a North region. The controller was Mr. Bob Stead who was an old friend of mine.
Accordingly a meeting was set up for Mr. Morris and I, both Members of Parliament for North-Western constituencies, to meet with the BBC's North regional controller. That meeting took place at Broadcasting House in Portland Place. Mr. Morris and I travelled on the same train with the BBC's North regional controller from Manchester to London in order to have a meeting with him about broadcasting in Manchester before we all went back to Manchester. That illustrates the fact that the BBC did not appear to realise that the people who were concerned about the regions actually lived in them. I merely make that point because I think that there is possibly a threat to broadcasting freedom by the overcentralisation of many things. In that respect I look at the new Broadcasting Standards Council. If that will be anything it could well be a centralising body. It could, as the Independent stated in a leading article, develop into the supreme regulatory body in television, its rulings enforceable even in defiance of the BBC governors or the IBA.
I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, on his point that that would put the independent sector in a position of double jeopardy because it would add an additional tier to control in that sector, whereas if it applied merely to the BBC, that in a sense would be equal. However, I am a little worried because I believe that the council will inevitably become a centralising body.
The other threat to the freedom of broadcasting that I see is the general question which everybody
954
talks about now of deregulation. What is deregulation? I tend to think that when the term "deregulation" is used—it is used with increasing freedom by an increasing number of people—it means different things to different people. But very often deregulation conceals a creeping kind of centralisation. That applies whether we are talking about local government or even about broadcasting, as we are now.
If we are to move to a deregulating system in the independent sector and if the franchises are merely to go to the highest bidders, what on earth is the point of the IBA? Its principal power is to award a franchise or to take away a franchise, should that be necessary. But if the franchises merely go to the highest bidder, what price the independence of broadcasting? In that case we find that the independence of broadcasting is threatened by individuals, possibly by Mr. Murdoch or even by Mr. Maxwell. There the threat is not so much to the independence of broadcasting but to the standards of broadcasting.
What I personally am most concerned about is standards. I hope that all noble Lords will accept that I agree with what is being said about the offensiveness and the distastefulness of the amount of violence on television. I personally think that that is damaging to society. I cannot back that statement up with any scientific evidence but I nevertheless believe that to be true. I should like to see the amount of violence on television substantially reduced, but not by political controls.
The noble Lord, Lord Swann, was right to mention the number of hours of broadcasting which are produced by the BBC and by the independent sector in pointing out the relatively small number of complaints. It is easy to pick out bad or offensive programmes, many of which have been mentioned in the course of this debate. However, we ought to balance that by occasionally commenting on programmes such as "Barchester Chronicles", "The Jewel in the Crown" or "Boys from the Black Stuff". There have been a number of series which have been of very high quality.
I am sure that I do not need to remind noble Lords that the first thing that the Nazis did when they took power in Germany was to control broadcasting. The second was to introduce and enforce a national curriculum in the schools. Perhaps we are doing those things in reverse order. However, I very much hope that we are doing them with different objectives.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, debates on the media are becoming as common as debates on unemployment and the National Health Service. Like the firemen's ball, it is always the same people who dance. However, we have not said exactly the same things today. This has been a deeper debate than those which we have had recently.
We are concerned today only with the electronic media with their mass audiences and their multifarious programmes. Television and radio are now national theatres, national opera houses, cinemas, music halls, cabarets and purveyors of

955
novels and short stories. They are also national newspapers, local newspapers, magazines and political meetings. They bring the great into our living-rooms in close up—for example, Sir William Rees-Mogg—warts and all. They are also a school and a university. They are the voice of Britain throughout the wide world.
No wonder we are concerned about the quality of their work and the fairness of their political reporting and comment. No wonder we are concerned about the effect of all that entertainment on our sexual values and experience and on our propensity for violent acts; nor can we escape questions of taste and embarrassment in the family circle. Those problems are the direct responsibility of the governors of the BBC and the IBA.
As several speakers have said this afternoon, until now governments, though often troubled, have coped with those problems with a certain amount of private diplomacy but with an arm's length strategy. It is the right of the Government to appoint the chairman of the Board of Governors of the BBC, for example. The governors are the protectors of the public against the lowering of standards and quality. They are also the protectors of the BBC against governmental interference. It is to the credit of British governments that they have never invoked their reserve powers of interference with broadcasting output. The relationship of the Government to the IBA is not dissimilar.
However, all is not well. We are living in the midst of a revolution in sexual mores. Britain today is nothing like it was in 1954, which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, mentioned. For the generation which has grown up with the revolution in sexual mores—the 40 year-olds and under—it presents no anguished moral problems. For older people, there are real difficulties. It has all happened so fast.
I go back to the days in newspapers before sexual intercourse was invented. When it was necessary to do so, we coyly wrote that intimacy had taken place and as a consequence a lady found herself in a certain condition. Those of us who are no longer young but who accept the revolution intellectually and find virtue in it are still affronted emotionally by some of the things which appear on our screens. A lady watching alone and captivated by "The Singing Detective" told me that she thought it fit to walk out of the room at a certain embarrassing moment in order not to intrude on private joy.
What is even more disturbing is the cult of pictorial violence, which seems—there is no hard evidence—to be played out in real life. However, that revolution has not been inspired by the BBC or the ITV. It is not confined to Britain. It is worldwide and it goes across the range of what we still call Christian countries. In such a changing world with such a massive output, particularly from television, it is inevitable that broadcasters have sometimes gone too far and will, though perhaps more rarely, do so again.
Most people of an older generation have been vociferously, although marginally, outraged and they forget their general satisfaction with the remarkable provision that is made for them. I believe that one or
956
two speakers this afternoon have recognised that television has enriched our lives tremendously. However, we tend to think of the marginal items which we have not liked rather than the vast bulk of pleasure that has been given to us.
Recently there have been some important changes in the direction at the BBC and a new and vigorous regime is now effecting some stern reforms. Whether they are wise, I do not know. However, they are certainly reforms. Now, before the new men can complete their task, the Government have decided to go ahead with the rather vague idea of a broadcasting council that will weaken, supplement and perhaps finally usurp the authority of the governors of the BBC and members of the IBA. They have done that, they say with false naiveté, because it was in their election manifesto. The noble Lord, Lord Swann, seems less outraged by the idea than he was in a previous debate when he described it as a very silly idea or a dangerous one. I still believe that it is very silly or very dangerous.
In another place, Mr. Hurd said that in the beginning the council will be a non-statutory body and its first task will be to draw up, in conjunction with all the bodies which show things on the small screen, standards of taste and decency. They will include cable, video and satellite. There is a case for a code to provide guidance for those bodies. However, I understand that a code is already in the process of being framed. For the profoundly experienced and responsible BBC and IBA, surely that is not necessary. It is possible to indicate the limits that must not be exceeded. Indeed, the BBC and the IBA have developed their own codes, which have become stricter over the years. However, the creation of general standards will be much more difficult.
All I can say is that they have some hope as far as concerns getting a general consensus on sexual values and sexual presentation. There are the young, for whom there is no limit, with a burning conviction that nobody is going to tell them what they ought to see. There is the older generation, who sigh and suffer even over minor improprieties and wince at the utterance of words whose coarseness has burned out. Thirty years ago when they were making "My Fair Lady" they had to change the word in Shaw's "Pygmalion" because "bloody" could no longer shock even a parson.
Where I wonder is the consensus on moral values and sexual content or on offensive language? It is a question which has plagued us very often in the newspaper industry. Where do we draw the line? The other day a serious newspaper decided after quite a strong internal debate in the office to give the words with which a cricketer had offended an umpire. A tabloid thought that it would be good fun to report that serious newspaper to the Press Council. After grave deliberation the Press Council decided that there was a case for the presentation of the actual words, and the offending newspaper was let off. That is the kind of darkness that I fear will threaten to overwhelm the council when it becomes known that it will consider complaints from individuals on matters within its competence and publicise its findings. If it is not careful its reports could be juicier than the matters complained of.

957
The choice of Sir William Rees-Mogg as chairman has been strongly criticised. I can take no part. He has been for long not a close friend of mine but a professional friend whose company I seek when there is a vacant place beside him at the Garrick. As the Guardian said, the problem is not the man; it is the job that has been created.
The choice of Sir William has also been challenged because he is a Conservative. The fear in the opposition parties is that one day the council's brief will be quietly extended to broadcasts which have some political content. Indeed the whole tenor of this debate has been of political doubts, doubts about the impartiality and the fairness of the broadcasting companies. There is a very strong head of steam behind those doubts. I think that it is justified. It exists.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in opening the debate talked about the fear that arises out of the political pressures which the Government have been putting on broadcasters and the public rebukes that have been issued, namely over the Gibraltar affair and other programmes. The chaps who run those bodies are robust and they can stand up to criticism. But it affects morale lower down the line and junior people start to fear that they will get into trouble unless they trim a little.
It is a very remarkable Government as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, who find themselves in conflict with the most cherished of Establishment institutions—the universities, the medical profession, the Civil Service. Now this council threatens to take the heart out of broadcasters and their self-confidence. That is always a consequence of censorship. We want broadcasters who have some life in them, some guts in them and some aggression. Otherwise broadcasting will be like the Open University, which is all right at six o'clock in the morning for people who are studiously inclined but the mass of people want something a little brighter.
Newspapers are also intimidated by the proposal to set up the council. They fear that the council could so easily be extended to cover the press as well as the broadcasting media. Indeed my noble friend Lord Longford put up what I thought was a monstrous proposal, that a Press Standards Council should be set up alongside the Broadcasting Standards Council. I am very glad to say that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, gave a most robust refusal.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord has stiffened a good deal since January. In the debate in January he was very polite about the whole thing. I had better not quote him any further because it would embarrass him if I did.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, it would not embarrass me at all. I was polite about the whole thing. I said that, although it would be possible to justify some kind of body exercising supervision over taste and so forth, for a medium that comes into the home and is seen by all the family that was entirely different from a free and independent newspaper press. That was the point I made. It was in order to stress the necessary freedom of the press that I gave a little ground with respect to the council.
958
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, assured us that the broadcasting council was not to be extended to the press. But he added some frightening words which I hope have been heeded:
"We cannot and never will eliminate the possibility of statutory controls if serious public concern over conduct by members of the Press is not met by present arrangements … Never should the proprietors of national newspapers look upon themselves as being inviolate or at all times able to hang a 'hands off' sign outside their gates. That would constitute the gravest folly.".
One hopes that under its new director announced today, Mr. Blom-Cooper, the Press Council will heed that warning and will be more effective in the future than it has been in the recent past.
To come back to broadcasting, its independence is almost our dearest national possession. We have a system of adversarial politics and a system of election which can give one party such power that it is almost impossible to challenge it. We have too a newspaper press which is strongly partisan, with its most popular sections giving scant attention to serious politics. The great point about broadcasting is that it is free to do all that it can within the law or within its charter to inform and to please the people on condition that it does not take sides. I think that it is in the interests of government and opposition, and above all of the people, that broadcasting should retain its full freedom and its full independence.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would say who is to decide whether broadcasters are acting within the law and within their charters.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, obviously in the first instance that is a matter for the governors. If they are not doing so there is a serious dispute between the Government and the governors, between the Home Secretary possibly and the governors. I understand that there is a complicated procedure involving the Privy Council which can be used if it were considered necessary to remove the governors. I think that it would have to be a very serious offence—perhaps in the form of the broadcasters coming down heavily on the side of one party in a general election—before that kind of sanction would be invoked.
7.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate this afternoon which seems to have covered almost every aspect of televising and broadcasting. I should like to say that it is a privilege for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, who speaks from such enormous experience. All his life he has been immersed in the media, and when he makes a speech of such quality one can sense the media all around him. His knowledge of the practicalities of broadcasting comes, of course, from his direct personal experience.
The House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for the opportunity to discuss this subject today. I thought that I was going to be able to agree with much of what I anticipated that he would say, but of course he could not resist the temptation to go on a debating hunt to try to discover what the Government were doing wrong. He seemed

959
to have it in a bit for the Government. I do not blame him for that; he likes doing it. However, he said that the authorities must resist government pressure. I am sure that the noble Lord will remember that during our last debate on this topic I explained that it was totally against the Government's intention to have control over the content of programmes. The noble Lord forgot that. He also referred to freedom of expression, as did the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Everyone agrees that there should be freedom of expression, but, of course, freedom does not mean licence.
It was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Swann, with all his enormous experience of the BBC, told us how people complain. At one moment the complaints came from the Left and the next moment from the Right. Of course people complain, and they will always complain. They do it for one very good reason: because broadcasting has a very high profile. It affects people directly. It enters everyone's house. And because it affects them, what the broadcasting authorities do and are have become part of a national concern. Therefore, there will not be unanimity about what is produced. That is why today's debate has been so important.
I was glad that my noble friend Lord Plunket referred to the delicate balance in freedom of speech, which we all wish to see held; and he attached much importance to the World Service.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that controls were necessary. I was glad that he did so. Sometimes one tends to forget it. He said that controls were necessary and that broadcasting should be the critic of the Government and not their mouthpiece. I do not think that there is anything between us on that point. Of course no broadcasting authority should be the mouthpiece of government—certainly not in this country. It is right for broadcasters, when they think fit and on appropriate occasions—and I shall have something to say on that point later—to be critics. The noble Lord referred to appointments and to the swallow of summer represented by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I take his point on that. However, he was a little naughty when he said that the first thing that the Nazis did was to control broadcasting, following which they controlled education by a national curriculum. He drew a tenuous similarity by arguing that the Government were doing things the other way round. I shall not rise unduly to that remark—and I can see that he wishes now that he had not made it, which tempts me perhaps to rise a little more. He knows perfectly well that there is no similarity whatsoever and that the Governent have no intention of controlling broadcasting.
The need to maintain the constitutional independence of the broadcastng authorities is of fundamental importance to the future of broadcasting. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. Throughout the whole of the debate there has been a certain feeling that the independence of broadcasting is being interfered with; but this Government are no less committed than any of their predecessors to preserving that degree of independence. In shaping broadcasting it has always
960
been recognised that the Government need to have an enabling role rather than a prescriptive one. That is the format which has existed since broadcasting was first introduced in this country. It has stood the test of time; and, incidentally, as many noble Lords have said, it is the envy of many other countries.
I do not believe that there has been any change to these arrangements as a result of the issues which have recently become prominent in public discussion. And there have been many issues recently—not only the debate which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, but others which have, as it were, hit the public fan lately.
One of those issues has been the Government's approach to the recent programmes concerning the Gibraltar shootings, and several noble Lords have referred to it. There were important points of principle at the heart of that approach. The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, referred to this matter and said that he thought those programmes should be shown. The Government did not want to see any improper influence being brought to bear on the forthcoming inquest in Gibraltar as a result of the broadcasting of those programmes.
Gibraltar is a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, for whose administration the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is responsible. It would therefore have been wrong for the Government to have ignored the problems which were presented by those programmes, including the prejudicial effect which can so easily take place as a result of the partial presentation of so-called "evidence" on television.
The Government did complain, and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, agreed that the Government were right to complain. He said so in what I thought was a speech of great breadth and comprehension in all the spheres of broadcasting, of which he has a natural command. I merely say that I was hoping this evening to have heard a second rendition of Troilus and Cressida which was broadcast the other day, but the noble Lord denied me that particular privilege.
Deciding what can and cannot be broadcast is a difficult tightrope on which to walk. It is a matter of great sensitivity. The dangers which result from falling on the wrong side of the wire are clear. So is the resulting responsibility which is laid upon the media. The dangers are the more real in the case of the television medium, because the interviewing of witnesses is allowed to be presented in a much more direct way than in the written press.
But there is no question of the Government seeking to challenge the constitutional independence of the broadcasting authorities. It is a matter of self-discipline by the broadcasters and responsible judgment by the broadcasting authorities. There is no doubt that those programmes were highly relevant to the inquest which is to be held in Gibraltar. It was our view that, in the interests of justice, they should not have been broadcast at the present time.
When the Government make their view clear—as they did and as they were justified in so doing, even though account of their view was not taken—the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, says that that is

961
"putting the frighteners on", to use that rather glorious phrase of his. But that is the Government giving their view in the way that the noble Lord gave his view this afternoon.
I was glad when my noble friend Lord Renton said that responsibility went with independence. That is so. Responsibility is a very important part of independence, and one cannot have the one without the other.
Perhaps I may refer to a more general aspect of the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that one must allow some risk with programme content. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, made the same comment. He said that broadcasters need life and guts and "go". No one can dispute that at all because, as he said, otherwise broadcasting is dull. That is part of freedom. However, that does not mean that that is a licence to do what one likes. The noble Lord, Lord Swann, said that it would be surprising if no programme was below standard, because if one has a standard for anything something will be above it and something below.
Periodically everyone boxes. If your Lordships are critical enough you might say that noble Lords sometimes make very bad speeches. If I had been in the seat of the noble Baroness I should have quoted F.E. Smith, who once made a very bad speech. When someone said to him, "My goodness! You did talk a lot of rubbish this evening", he said, "When you talk as much as I do you are bound sometimes to talk a lot of rubbish". However, that does not mean that nobody has responsibility. If a producer makes a bad programme that is his responsibility. If the broadcasting authorities broadcast it, that is their responsibility.
I was interested in the speech of my noble friend Lord Buxton, with all his experience with Anglia Television, when he said that once one has a programme that has already been made it is very difficult not to have it shown because somebody else says that that is censorship. Inevitably, someone has to be responsible.
The Broadcasting Standards Council—which has been the subject of concern of several noble Lords this evening was recently announced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. It has received much attention, not only in your Lordships' House but elsewhere. I thought it might be helpful if I were to give your Lordships the background to it. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, welcomed the council. Our general approach on broadcasting has been to provide a framework which enables programmes of a wide range and of good quality to be made and then shown; but a framework which also weeds out those programmes which fall short of acceptable standards of taste and decency or which are excessively or gratuitously violent.
Most people, including most of the young, who see programmes which show violence as entertainment are able to keep what they see separate from their own lives. They recognise the frontier which marks the distinction between fiction and reality. But there is an important question about how real the frontier becomes when it is crossed and re-crossed too often
962
and too willingly. The frontier then becomes less of an obstacle, less of a deterrent, and its image becomes blurred.
However, there are a minority of viewers for whom such a frontier does not exist. What they view, what they think and what they do form a confused yet significant force at the centre of their lives. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred to that factor when he said that violence damages society.
We have to be alert to the possible insidious effect of too heavy a general level of sex and violence on television. Not only can it give a false idea of its prevalence in our society, but it makes it more difficult for some viewers to reject the idea of using violence in order to achieve their individual aim.
There must be a line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. I think there would be few who would advocate no line, that "anything goes", except possibly the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, who I see is no longer here. The dispute is not about whether there should be a line but where it should be drawn or even who should draw it. Those who do not like where it is proposed to draw the line or who is to draw it immediately cry "censorship".
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, embellished that—to use his word again—by putting the "frighteners" on us by calling it creeping censorship. Part of the educational effect at school is directed at giving youth the opportunity of coming into contact with good books on the very simple principle that good books edify and bad books sully the mind. The same is true with broadcasting. Good broadcasting edifies the mind; bad broadcasting can sully the mind. If we are truly concerned about programme standards, we need to have the right mechanism in place to respond to public concern about the display of violence and sex on our screens.
There is, and has been from time to time, quite a public outcry—and with some reason—about the portrayal of sex and violence. "This should not be tolerated. Nor should it be portrayed. The Government must do something", people say. I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that she did not think there was enough sex on television.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I said that people had said that they did not think there was enough, and they were sorry that sex was always linked with violence. While they thought that there was too much violence, when there was talk of too much sex, they asked "Where is it all? We never see it".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is also an interesting concept. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that the Government were ludicrously sensitive to criticism. He then went on to say that there was far too much sex and violence on television. Of course all we have done is to try to introduce a Broadcasting Standards Council in order to respond to the very criticism that the noble Earl made.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, that is quite unworthy of the noble Earl. I was talking of two totally different matters. I was referring to reaction to

963
political opposition, and I then went on to deal with a different matter. I was agreeing with the Government. To have muddled the two issues is not what I expect of the noble Earl.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry if I have misdirected my mind. Perhaps the noble Earl will forgive me because he gave us a riveting account of his television experience of brothel creepers, prostitutes, masseuses and massage parlours, and I am afraid that my imagination went into overdrive at that moment. I was glad that he brought in his points about marriage, because I too had forgotten that while he was reciting his experience.
The Government undertook in the election manifesto to bring forward some proposals for stronger and more effective arrangements to ensure the independent oversight of programme standards in regard to violence and sex. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said he thought that was a naive reason; I thought it was rather a good reason to introduce it. The noble Lord said he feared that this would weaken, supplement and finally usurp the authority of the broadcasting authorities. We made it clear that we did not intend to undermine the primary responsibilities of the broadcasting authorities.
We discussed these matters with the broadcasting authorities in October last year when my right honourable friend the Home Secretary set out the broad outline of the Broadcasting Standards Council. Some critical, and perhaps I may say some pretty unkind, remarks have been made about the choice of Sir William Rees-Mogg as chairman of the council.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, was pleased about his appointment. He was also kind, and generous, considering the rough ride that he apparently was given some years before in a previous incarnation. I was glad that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, also approved of the choice of Sir William Rees-Mogg. I have no doubt, having spent much of his life in the media, that his back is broad enough to stand the criticism which is made of him and that his experience is wide enough for him to expect it. However, in our view he is an admirable choice of chairman and he will bring relevant and very wise experience to the council.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that one of the points which has been debated in connection with the council is the opportunity which it might have to preview certain programmes. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, suggested that this arrangement would undermine the broadcasting authorities' responsibilities. I do not share that view for this reason. The broadcasting authorities will continue to have the responsibilities for programme standards. They will have to exercise their judgment over them. But they may find it helpful to have the views of the Broadcasting Standards Council in advance of transmission about programmes which cause them some doubt.
In the debate on 27th April about the responsibilities of the BBC, I went to some lengths to explain that the Government were not persuaded that
964
it was proper for them to intervene in relation to programme standards. I make no apology for repeating that again today. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was anxious about that specific point.
These are important matters and confirm that the broadcasting authorities must and do operate at arm's length from the Government. What we have decided is to institute a Broadcasting Standards Council. It will have the opportunity to view programmes, to comment on them and to warn the public. It is not a censor. Your Lordships will be only too familiar with the dichotomy of saying, on the one hand, "Broadcast anything" and, on the other, "That particular programme is offensive". We have sought to set up a council whose duty it is to advise the broadcasting authorities and to say what in its opinion is undesirable. That is not even creeping censorship. What is broadcast is still the responsibility of the broadcasting authorities. It is not the same as giving everyone carte blanche to publish and broadcast anything. I do not believe that your Lordships would wish for that. Authorities can have the advice. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said, the Prime Minister dictating to the broadcasting authorities. That view is completely wrong.
Responsibility implies the right and the duty to accept or to reject on grounds of interest other than one's own. That responsibility remains with the broadcasting authorities. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, asked whether the Broadcasting Standards Council would have teeth. Yes, it will, when there is legislation. He asked whether it would be able to make recommendations. It will. He asked whether it will be able to receive complaints from the public. Yes, it will. The noble Viscount was concerned that the council would only cover the BBC and the independent television companies. In fact it will cover all forms of broadcasting. Arrangements are already in place through the IBA and the Cable Authority to prevent offensive material being transmitted by satellite.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, my question arises from what the noble Earl has just been saying. He answered in the affirmative to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, that the council would have teeth. Can he give any indication of what sort of teeth and how they would work?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness will have to be a little patient to know the type of dentures, if I may so put it, that will be accorded to the Broadcasting Standards Council. It has been set up only recently. It is a question of getting it going before it is given a statutory responsibility; at present it has a non-statutory responsibility.
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, was also concerned that broadcasting should be included under the Obscene Publications Act. It is the intention of the Government, as undertaken in the election manifesto, that that should be so.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, were concerned about the fact that there were to be two Bills but that now there will be one Bill

965
in two years' time. I cannot anticipate the content of the Queen's Speech, but the Government are committed to the introduction of major broadcasting legislation in the lifetime of this Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to a Cabinet sub-committee on broadcasting. The Government are considering the future development of broadcasting in general and we have in mind the possibility of publishing a White Paper on this subject within a few months. He referred to the discussions that various people have had. Many people are interested in discussing a wide range of issues which currently face broadcasting. It is helpful to have open minds and an open debate on these matters.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell me what is the precise position of Professor Griffiths and Sir Jeffrey Sterling in connection with the Cabinet committee or sub-committee which is considering this matter and why the Home Office appears to be playing such a small part in the preliminary discussions?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe there is anything particularly curious about that. The Cabinet has its various sub-committees and they consider matters of interest. Periodically people are spoken to and other people give their views. There is nothing odd about that. The noble Lord will have to be a trifle more patient. I have told him that a White Paper will emerge: when it does I believe that many of his concerns will be ironed out.
The noble Lord, Lord Swann, was kind enough to quote something I said in our last debate. I pointed out that if requirements about programme standards were enforceable under the charter it would place the Home Secretary of the day in an intolerable position. He would be obliged to be the arbiter in all or any representations made to him about programme content. He or his officials on his behalf would have to consider the representations, see the programmes and make a judgment. The Secretary of State would then be obliged to take action where appropriate. That would be censorship. It would be broadcasting by government consent and quite unacceptable as a method of televising and broadcasting. I repeat that again, because of the concern that has been expressed. Some noble Lords have indicated that they were doubtful as to the Government's views.
I hope that this expression of the Government's position makes clear to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that the Government have no intention of disturbing the constitutional relationship between the Government and the broadcasters. I hope that that clarifies the situation for the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, as well.
However, accepting the constitutional position of the broadcasting authorities should not itself prohibit the Government or anyone else from criticising those authorities when it is thought that they were wrong. The Government have the same right to do that in just the same way as anyone else can and does. We all criticise the authorities when we feel that they are wrong. I agreed with my noble
966
friend, Lord Buxton, when he said that the Prime Minister was right to criticise, particularly when he said that criticism is not interference. That was a useful encapulation of the problem.
The media are not above criticism any more than they are above the law. They accept that. Occasional mutual criticism is a natural part of the relationship between governments, broadcasters and journalists. It is also a very healthy manifestation of the freedom of speech and of the independence of opinion which we all want. Sometimes that freedom of view and of expression can be irritating. Sometimes people can be infuriated by it, but that is the price we have to pay for an open-minded society. The noble Lord, Lord Swann, said that freedom was difficult to obtain and very easy to lose. I believe that that is something we should remember.
It is not our intention, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, feared, to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We have no intention of destroying the system of public service broadcasting with its balances of privileges and responsibilities which have served us so well. We have good reason to be proud of our broadcasting organisations and the programmes of genuine quality and originality which they produce.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for too long, after the lengthy debate we have had. However, I should like to take the opportunity to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his answer and the words he has spoken, and also to thank all other noble Lords who have participated. The debate has been both useful and timely. I am absolutely convinced of the sincerity of the defence of the present arrangements as described by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, but I am sure that he will welcome constant vigilance on the part of your Lordships' House to maintain the position which he has expressed.
I must admit that I was a trifle worried by his answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, when he talked about the teeth which were to be inserted in the mouth of the Broadcasting Standards Council. I can only hope that they are false! I do not propose to try to survey the debate in any full sense, but I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, to whose speech I listened with great interest, that one formulation which he made can be reversed. He said something to the effect that broadcasters were so used to Left-wing programmes that they found anything balanced to be Right-wing. I sometimes feel that members of the Conservative Party are so used to a massively conservative press, which is politically fairly servile, that they find any balanced coverage of events to be Left-wing.
Like other noble Lords, I greatly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, especially his literary excursions to which we all look forward. I have been listening to his speeches in the House for two years now, and I always think that he is rather like a good wood which is well bowled. It goes straight towards the jack and then, just at the end, turns to the right. However, it is always a pleasure to

967
see that manoeuvre performed, as it is always also a pleasure to listen to the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I was glad to be here in time to receive his kind words. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I once more thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Housing Defects (Reinstatement Grant) (Amendment of Conditions for Assistance) (Scotland) Order 1988
7.51 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd May be approved. [25th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps it will be helpful if I say a few words about the background to the order.
Under the housing defects legislation eligible owners of designated properties are entitled to a local authority grant to reinstate their property or, if repair is not feasible, to repurchase by the authority at 95 per cent. of the defect-free value. The legislation sets out certain conditions on which the authority has to be satisfied before it can offer assistance by way of grant for reinstatement. One of these tests, Test D, requires an authority to repurchase if the direct cost of repurchase is any less than the cost of grant.
We consider this test to be too restrictive, particularly where the difference in cost is small, since, as matters stand, owners have to have their houses repurchased even where they and the local authority would prefer reinstatement. We have therefore decided that this test, which imposes a strict comparison between repurchase and grant costs, should be removed from the conditions for reinstatement grant. This change will not, however, affect the other value-for-money condition—Test C—which will continue to require an authority to have regard to the amount of reinstatement grant that would be payable compared with the likely value of the house, with vacant possession, after repair.
I must tell your Lordships that few, if any, Scottish local authorities have reached the stage where they require to balance the cost of reinstatement grant against repurchase. We have a situation in Scotland where a relatively small number of houses—just over 600—are eligible for assistance. According to local authority estimates, 137 of those houses had been repurchased by 31st March 1988. Current information also suggests that by this date only one house has been repaired (by a non-precast reinforced concrete homes licensed scheme). The balance of about 480 houses have little or no prospect of being reinstated in the foreseeable future.
The lack of interest on the part of repairers or designers in developing repair systems for any of the 12 designated house types in Scotland is certainly a matter for concern. But a market of fewer than 500 eligible houses and 12 different house types is understandably not likely to be considered an economic proposition by any repairer or designer.
The order is thus unlikely to be of immediate benefit in Scotland but it is only right that if and when Scottish local authorities find themselves in the position of weighing the economics of reinstatement against repurchase they should have the benefit of the more flexible arrangements which this order gives to them. I therefore commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 3rd May be approved. [25th Report from the Joint Committee]—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we are all grateful to the Minister for explaining the order. He will be aware that orders always contain a great many cross-references and it is difficult to follow them all through. Therefore I must thank him for helping us to understand it. I was going to ask him how many houses were involved, but he told me that early in his remarks. There are obviously 600 households involved. It is also interesting to note that the local authorities have repurchased 137 houses. I wonder whether they form part of the 600 or are additional; in other words, did 730 houses become 600 when some were sold?
I am concerned about one point on which the Minister may be able to help me. It relates to the last paragraph in the explanatory note, which states:
"This Order provides for that particular condition to be omitted. Under Section 266(4) of the Act, the Order does not affect an application for assistance made before the date on which it comes into force".
That provision may not be fair. There may have been families which have complained for a long time and as a result the Government recognised that the order was necessary. Therefore those people who complained and triggered off the process by writing to their local authorities, offering their houses to the local authorities and trying to obtain help with the repairs, are the very people who, if they fall within the last paragraph of the explanatory note, would not be able to apply for the grant. I am thinking of houses in the Ayrshire area where for a long time people have been trying to get repairs done. There have been deputations to Parliament and they have plagued their local MPs, but such people may not be favourably caught by the order.
The Minister also said that there were fewer than 500 houses of 12 different types involved. That is an average of almost 40 houses per type, although there may be a wide variation. I should have thought that would allow a decent builder scope to spend some time and money and perhaps even go to the Glasgow School of Building, or Strathclyde University, which specialise in finding answers for the small man to some of these difficult problems. The Wimpeys and the big people have their own resources for solving problems but the smaller builder does not.
There are ways of finding solutions to the problem. If some of the types of houses are represented by only two or three houses it may not be possible to provide the necessary repairs on anything like an economic basis. I should have thought that some of the 500 houses would be repairable and that the research departments of a building association, laboratory or school would find the problem a challenge and would be anxious to find a solution.

969
I do not necessarily expect the Minister to be able to answer now but these questions have been put to me, in particular by some people in the Ayrshire area who approached me on this subject some time ago. I am glad that the Minister has given the explanation and that the order has been put through, although it is not as all-embracing as I or the people affected by defective houses should have liked. Nevertheless it is an important step in the right direction.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for his comments. In regard to the figures, I can reassure him that the 137 which I quoted is part of the 620. The noble Lord referred to the cut-off date and said that this might give rise to some unfairness to people who happen to have come before that date. We are dealing here with a safeguard. We have had only one case of reinstatement and so I would not expect anybody to be disadvantaged.
Perhaps I may explain a point which I may not have brought out sufficiently in my opening remarks. I refer to the effect of this measure in terms of greater flexibility, which we have not had until now. In coming to a decision local authorities will still have to consider Test C. They will have to have regard to the amount of reinstatement grant that would be payable compared with the likely value of the house with vacant possession after repair. But, first, "having regard to" is more flexible than the strict mathematical comparison in Test D; and, secondly, because reinstatement usually gives a degree of betterment, the value with vacant possession after repair will normally be higher than the 95 per cent. of defect free value of Test D.
I hope that those few remarks may be of reassurance to the noble Lord. I thank him again for his positive reception of the measure.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Creative and Performing Arts
8.2 p.m.
Earl Haig Earl Haig rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to promote work of quality in the creative and performing arts.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of my Question is to consider ways of improving the quality of art in this country. This gives the opportunity to find out which areas of the creative and performing arts are threatened by lack of funds and need special help. There is a chance to discuss the extent of the neglect suffered by some works of quality, while more popular and perhaps more conventional works sail on, benefiting from the box office and sponsorship. It is worth considering which areas of the garden are being neglected, in terms of the Arts Council's phrase "The Glory of the Garden", and whether the plants needed for the future are being properly cared for.
The word "art" covers a wide spectrum which embraces music, ballet and drama, as well as painting, films and video, sculpture and the crafts. Because of the limited time available, I should like to
970
concentrate my remarks on my professional field concerning the visual arts in which I must declare an interest. However, before I do so, I must say that one of the results of tabling this Unstarred Question has been that I have received several letters which exhibit the discontent among certain small theatre companies, galleries and kindred associations. In spite of having had their government grants removed, they are doing their best to keep going by fund raising and using voluntary staff. Among them is the British Theatre Association, of which many young actors and dramatists make use through training courses for amateurs and professionals and through competitions to encourage young people to put on productions. With so many people of all ages making use of its resources, its library and its magazine, surely some financial support should be considered.
There is a danger that in a climate where cost is of primary concern standards go down. There is a danger of this happening in the theatre and in broadcasting, and there is a danger of it happening in the world of the galleries and the art schools as well. Although we must accept the economic climate, we need not accept a scale of values which helps to promote work of secondary quality.
In a moving Goodman Lecture delivered last week, Mr. Hussey defined the BBC's aims and responsibilities towards the arts. His talk was headed "Channels of culture". He mentioned the many programmes on art and architecture as well as the concerts and plays, many of them new and many of them giving opportunities for experimental works by young composers and writers. Of all the broadcasting networks in the world the BBC and the IBA are probably the best, and not least because of their identity with the arts.
The numbers of people of all generations who are learning to enjoy their programmes and learning about the arts thereby are on the increase. In Mr. Hussey's words:
"I believe we have introduced a complete generation to a world of culture which was in previous centuries mainly the prerogative of the leisured and middle classes".
Perhaps I may add that watching the television is not the full answer. If everyone was made to discard the television for a while, and go to a desert island with a box of colours, it would be no bad thing.
The Government's aims have been to encourage private support for the arts through the box office and through sponsorship by commercial firms. I feel somewhat pessimistic on the subject of business sponsorship. I know that for the year 1986–87 compared with the grand total of more than £128 million disbursed by the Arts Council, some £26 million—that is, more than one-fifth—was disbursed to the arts as a result of business sponsorship. I wonder how much of that sum found its way to visual arts. Business sponsors prefer well tried and popular themes, and they have failed to help many of the less well established artists and smaller theatre companies. It is not good enough to say that industry and the private sector should do this job. It is to the Arts Council and the local authorities that we must look for support for the lesser candidates.
The bulk of the Arts Council's funds have been allocated to the major candidates—the national companies and orchestras, to which it has preached the gospel of self-sufficiency, the improvement of sales through the box office and the raising of capital through fund raising. Its responsibilities to the visual arts have taken second place. Proper appreciation of the recent generous increases in arts funding made by the Minister for the Arts on behalf of the Government is overdue. An increase of 16 per cent. over the next three years indicates powerful support of the arts and a sizeable contribution to them.
To expect major increases would be unrealistic but I am concerned about areas where government funds percolate but little and which are not fed from the box office or from the cash flows of business sponsors. These problem areas are benefiting very little from the Arts Council and local government. Providing the needs of the various customers in the Arts Council's departments within the budget received from the Government was a problem even in the days of greater plenty when I was a member. As chairman of the arts committee of the Scottish Arts Council I was aware that we had too many talented mouths to feed even in those days.
Those experiences are in the past, so perhaps I should approach the problem from the worm's eye view of the practising artist. Despite the complaint which is sometimes heard that we live in an atmosphere of political dictatorship, I must say that professional artists are able to enjoy an atmosphere of freedom. They have freedom of expression, and for those who are lucky enough to be able to exhibit and sometimes to sell, there is no bar to freedom of technique. However, their work does not always have a high degree of quality. Matisse once said:
"An artist who goes straight to the goal is in danger of going astray. When synthesis is immediate it is schematic.".
Too often young artists produce inferior work which is exhibited with maximum publicity by museums and art dealers as a major work of art. Therefore, my first point is that there must be better selection procedures. One way to achieve that would be to have more broadly-based panels, some of them in local areas, which would make recommendations to local and national galleries as well as to the Arts Council. That would remove some of the closed-shop element where selections are in the hands of distinguished members of an art establishment.
Artists are less indifferent to criticism than the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, made out to your Lordships in the recent debate on architecture. The noble Lord cannot be here this evening but he has indicated that he would be happy for me to remind the House of what he said about the attitude based on the notion unprecedented in history that it is the artist's duty to express himself and the duty of the spectator or audience to be uncritical.
Criticism about modern art in this country has been strong and general, and many artists have had to face it. No serious artist would want to refute good criticism from those competent to judge, but the views of people with hang-ups and prejudices are hard to accept. I believe that more competent
972
criticism is badly needed. As was said several times in the debate on architecture, it is important to give visual art education in the schools in order to help future members of society to use their eyes so that they become visually literate.
The setting up of more visual arts panels, comprising of a cross-section of artists, lecturers, writers and lay people from a variety of backgrounds, would help to build up a body of informed criticism much needed by the artist and the public.
Education is the key to enlightenment— enlightenment needed to create as well as absorb and understand. Time will tell (I am sorry that the glass in front of me does not contain whisky) how much money is available for those who choose an arts subject from among the available foundation subjects listed in the Education Reform Bill.
I hope that more money will be available to increase grants for special art training schemes in schools, including scholarship grants in independent schools. Grants should be available to enable more school visits to galleries and museums to be made. I am always impressed by the number of school boys and girls eagerly studying the work in our London museums. But how does that compare with galleries in other parts of the country, where important work is less available? The establishment of the Tate Gallery in Liverpool must be a step in the right direction.
Moving to the next stage, when a young person takes the step of entering an art school or college of design or craft, much will depend on the quality of teaching that he or she receives. It has been said that the modern movement has turned art schools into playgrounds where there is nothing objective or collective to teach. I would advocate the encouragement of the use of imagery based on nature during the early stages of all artistic training.
It is crucial that young students should be given the best possible education for their artistic development with top-quality tuition designed to suit individual personalities. Tuition should be available in a more tutorial form in the later stages of training. Gradually the individual will have to find his or her own salvation in order to find personal symbols of both the physical and spiritual world. However, ongoing guidance will be required if the young artist is to develop. There is constant need for research and self-discipline in the face of all the currents and influences from the different schools of painting, which can be bewildering to them.
Many of these schools of art and design are being closed, and those which remain are suffering cutbacks. Recent changes in the art school system have ensured that students are given a wider education in the history of art and architecture and in town planning. That is all very necessary to a student planning to participate in this complex age. The artist is particularly vulnerable in that situation because his potential as a financial asset may take some time to prove.
I propose, as an alternative to art school training, an apprenticeship scheme to help young artists through their training period, in which they would be trained under the youth training schemes. That could

973
be done by establishing publicly-funded studios or craft workshops, or by grant-aiding artists or craftsmen ready to give artists long-term training. In those ways young people who have shown aptitude and enthusiasm in art while at school would find further art training available to them after their period of school education is over. I would hope that some special cases where problems arise over exams, or where candidates who come from less-cultured backgrounds and who generate feeling in their work, are given opportunities to train. The primitive artist, Wallis, a Cornish fisherman, who inspired Ben Nicholson and Christopher Wood, was one example of an individual in that category.
There are other difficulties that a young artist faces when he or she completes their training. There should be greater opportunities to exhibit and sell. To ease that situation it is time to lessen the rift between public and commercial galleries, many of which would be happy to show more contemporary artists if they could afford to do so. Due to the financial difficulties one-man shows are expensive to put on and are seldom profitable. Commercial galleries which show the work of struggling artists who are gifted and doing well should be given grant aid.
As regards public taste, I have never found a lack of taste among the discerning public. At my own exhibitions the better pictures have usually been chosen by discriminating buyers. Nevertheless, it is true to say that the number of enlightened people in this country is restricted, and too often enlightened patrons are those without money to spend on works of art. The taste of the representatives of industry and trade is often questionable and lacks the sophistication required to promote work which is truly personal, original and new. The result can be that financial success goes to work which belongs to the well-worn paths of convention.
I should like to see a situation in which good work is available at a price within the pockets of small, knowledgeable collectors. That is only possible under a scheme which will prevent losses to the galleries. My hope is that the Arts Council and the galleries can get down to working out a scheme for publicly-funded artists, and they should consider the financial requirements for backing it. They should then approach the Government to ask for some extra money for a cause which is very much in line with governmental attempts to educate, employ and fulfil the younger generation.
The scheme would enable commercial galleries to stage unprofitable exhibitions by giving them grants to cover costs. They would include the gallery commission of 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. on sales and the cost of publicity and catalogues. All that would be on the understanding that the gallery would make no profit from the exhibition. The artist would have been given the opportunity to exhibit his pictures with greater hopes of sales because the pictures would be offered at a price excluding the gallery commission charge. He or she should also be reimbursed for the cost of materials. If that kind of scheme were to become available—and I hope that my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who, in her inimitable and charming way, will reply to my Question, will give some positive response to the
974
plea—I am sure that there will be no lack of takers among both the artists and the galleries.
Time has prevented my referring to the work of the sculptor, especially to his work for public places. There has been a lack of new sculptural projects in recent times, and there is a need for someone in the Government to generate new opportunities. The impression I have is that some of my aesthetic friends with government responsibilities as Ministers have their inspiration dampened by economic realities. I hope that there may be a chance at last of making regulations whereby part of the spending on new buildings is devoted to embellishments so that sculpture and kindred works of art are conceived as part of, and in harmony with, the buildings of which they form part.
I should like to touch also on design. It is perhaps true to say that despite the efforts of a number of individuals to improve design in the handcrafts—and I include the aims of the Scottish craft centre in that context—the message has not got through to industrial design. I believe that the first subsidy for the arts was introduced in the Victorian age in order to produce better industrial design and so assist British industry in selling overseas. That was the result of a report from a Select Committee on the arts and their connection with manufacturers, dated 16th August 1836, which took the view,
"that from the highest branches of poetical design down to the lowest connection between design and manufacturers, the arts have received little encouragement in this country".
Would the report of a similar body reporting today be much rosier? Perhaps in some respects, yes. But are not the Germans, the French and the Italians ahead of us in matters of design?
When the mass production of utilities came with mechanisation in the 19th century, decadence began and with it nostalgia and escape into the past. Craftsmen working today may well look to the past for inspiration, provided that their work has vitality and form. Living in the modern environment, they can work in terms of the traditional and the modern.
Markets for well made and well designed objects are good; so it is up to designers and craftsmen to exploit those markets. Tastes vary and fashions change. But the real test will always be design. Improvements in design will come from better education in visual matters among employers. It must stem from the classroom and the boardroom. Looking ahead, more financial incentives for quality goods will generate better design, and better design will promote better returns for the businessman.
Finally, I thank all the noble Lords taking part in this debate. I am particularly happy to see the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, here to make his maiden speech. The noble Marquess and I were at Camberwell School of Arts and Crafts together. He is a practising artist; he works and produces some beautiful paintings of flowers which are highly desirable. I know that his contribution will be helpful and informative.
I have tried to set out the guidelines for this debate. I hope that discussion will move beyond my limited perspectives and bring out the importance of creativity. The noble Lords, Lord Donaldson of

975
Kingsbridge, and, I hope, Lord Jenkins of Putney, with all their experience as Ministers for the Arts, will, I trust, widen the debate, along with other noble Lords who have rendered service to the arts in their different ways, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, who for some years was chairman of the Arts Council. It is good that Members of all parties can debate a subject which need not be party political. We shall be particularly interested to hear the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and I hope for a favourable response from the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington.
8.24 p.m.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, we hear too much these days about the price of art and not quite enough about the value of it. It may seem that the price is merely factual, whereas the value is controversial, and that would land me in a spot. But in fact it is the prices that are eccentric, capricious and sometimes idiotic, going up and down like a yo-yo, as they follow the dictates of ephemeral fashion. The value of art, on the other hand, is to do with the eternal verities. A human being is an aesthetic creature before he is an ethical one. The singer Robert Tear said to me recently. "Art and artistic utterance is an imperative of the human condition". He added a note of caution that of course artists need money, but that sponsorship could be both liberator and gaoler.
I shall only speak about the visual arts which I have tried to practice for nearly 50 years, and music, of which I have been an unskilled but passionate amateur for even longer. How best to give support to the arts? The noble Earl, Lord Haig, has said that he and I were students at the same art school just after the war. We may have seemed to be rather elderly art students, but then our art studies had suffered a six-year interruption. By the way, may I offer public congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Haig, on recently being elected an associate of the Royal Scottish Academy; perhaps a fairly young 70 year-old, to be an associate of the RSA.
At this time when we were students, the LCC gave grants to ex-servicemen and women and to thousands who would follow them to study at various art colleges within their domain. Out of this mass of people, the LCC quite rightly expected a few hundred would make a living from art, and out of that few hundred a mere handful would go on to achieve fame.
At the same time, there were in Germany around 300 opera houses. Many of these were no more than training grounds for the singers of quality to go on to the great houses such as Berlin, Hamburg, Munich and Frankfurt. To achieve pinnacles in any medium of art one needs very broad bases. We have those bases now in this country so that our artists have grown from provincial, national styles to planetary fame. We can thank initially the initiative of the British Council's art department that our painters and sculptors are exhibited and bought throughout the world, both by private collectors and by museums. Our musicians, particularly our singers, are acclaimed in every opera house and concert hall throughout the world. All this has been achieved by
976
dedicated teachers working with modest budgets on talent that was already there naturally.
However, home-grown support for British art will come most effectively from the will of the people, if that is what the people want. Dostoevsky said that beauty would save the world. This prophecy and high ideal can only come about if everyone is in tune with the artists who create the beauty. It requires more than discerning collectors of paintings and sculpture, more than intelligent commissioners of architecture, more than commercial and public sponsorship of music.
Comprehending the value of art cannot be bought nor taught. It has to come from that often misused German word "Zeitgeist". I have seen in the National Gallery recently groups of small schoolchildren and the painting which seems to be their favourite is a vast, terrible picture by Giordano of Perseus turning Phineas to stone with the Medusa's head. The children sit there pop-eyed, but they are very young children. One very seldom sees older children doing that, but they should continue looking, not necessarily at that but go on to Rembrandt, Turner and to the moderns of the Tate.
It might be thought that the painters and sculptors of what is called the avant-garde have failed to earn public sympathy. Yet much of the innovatory art of the first half of this century has become the popular imagery of the second half. For example, the station designs, the posters, even the patterned fabrics of the seats on the London Underground, are testimony that the public has, without realising it, accepted a particular aspect of modern art.
Joseph Brodski, who won last year's Nobel prize for literature, said in his address:
"Art is not synonymous with but, at best, parallel to history. That is why it is often found ahead of progress."
Architecture is the art that everyone sees and lives with. It is, or should be, the greatest of the visual arts: consider the Parthenon, Chartres Cathedral, Wren, Robert Adam.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, speaking on a Question on architecture on 30th March, said that governments can create conditions in which good architecture can flourish. He went on:
"The Secretary of State for the Environment therefore has a secondary but crucial role. He is a trustee of the possibilities of civilisation."—[Official Report, 30/3/88; col. 831.]
The noble Earl said that there was need for embellishment of architecture. There is one government which has been doing that for nearly 20 years—that is, the Government of Ontario. Their current programme is for the commissioning, acquiring and funding of works of art for public buildings, and it is the responsiblity of the Ministry for government services. The programme allows for up to 1 per cent. of the cost of a public building to be put aside for the commissioning or acquisition of works of art. Since the introduction of the programme in 1967, Ontario has spent 1·4 million dollars on public art for 20 building projects.
I thank your Lordships for being so patient and kind in listening to me. I hope I have conveyed my belief in the vital need for art in all our lives and that

977
support for the creative and performing arts must be more than money. I reiterate, it must come also from the will of the people.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I regard it as a triumph for the House to have a debate on the arts opened by an hereditary Peer who is a professional artist and replied to by another hereditary Peer, in his maiden speech, who, I understand, has also been a professional artist. I do not think that the Life Peers, of whom there are about 300, can touch that. We therefore congratulate not only the maiden speaker but also ourselves on the occasion.
I should like particularly to congratulate the noble Marquess on his maiden speech. Almost everything that he said was extremely sympathetic to my general approach to the arts. He used one phrase which I thought was very interesting. I believe he said that it was Robert Tear—a very fine singer whom we all know—who said that man is aesthetic before ethical. I may have that slightly wrong, but it was an extremely interesting remark.
The noble Marquess also said that in order to build pinnacles a broad base is needed. That is a very important observation in relation to today's debate to which we all, I am sure, will refer. We hope to hear the noble Marquess again, and often, and we congratulate him fully on his maiden speech.
The noble Earl, Lord Haig, who opened the debate, spoke on the visual arts. I told him that I would speak on the performing arts, which I shall now do. In my opinion the Government have one function and one function only in relation to the performing arts. They must see that enough money is provided over and above box office takings to make work of quality possible. I claim that the Government are beginning to fail to do that. We spend much less per head on the arts than do most other civilised countries. Germany spends three times as much and France spends four times as much. Indeed, this year's arts and libraries budget—excluding the capital sums for the British Library—is one-third of 1 per cent. of the Chancellor's Budget. However, although we certainly want more government support the last thing we want is for any government, least of all perhaps this Government, to have any say in what is quality. We must insist on the arm's length principle. In the present case, I would sometimes prefer a bargepole. Too little money to do the job properly will always be a threat to quality.
The performing arts have two problems of their own. The first is to find something of quality to perform, the second to instill quality into the performance. The only way that government can encourage composers, writers and choreographers to compose and write is by ensuring that the worlds of the theatre, concert, opera and ballet are vigorous, successful and widely spread so that directors and impresarios are always looking for new and original works. One way to do that would be to abolish VAT on entertainments. However, as I failed to persuade my Chancellor, my right honourable friend Mr. Denis Healey, in my time, I cannot blame the present Minister too much for a similar failure.
978
What seems to me fatal is to keep changing the way that assistance is given. The attempt to move over further and further from central to private funding of the performing arts is, in my opinion, misguided. It means a check to steady development and turns a director into a money-raiser rather than an artistic adventurer.
In a debate in 1985 on the abolition of the GLC, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said something which I should like to pin on the breast of the noble Baroness who is to reply. He said:
"I have constantly made it clear to my colleagues how important I think is the maintenance of the central subsidised core of arts funding."
I wish I could be confident that the present Minister for the Arts feels the same. My fear is that he regards private funding and sponsorship not as a welcome addition to "the central subsidised core"—to use the words of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie—but as a gradual substitute for it and an excuse for its reduction.
I give one or two current examples of how cuts and changes can kill quality. A very bad example of quality-knocking was the Arts Council's announcement of ENO's grant, giving an increase of only 2·5 per cent. against the council's own increase of 8·4 per cent. which ENO was confidently hoping to share. That involved the rethinking of its whole programme with the last-minute scrapping of its proposed new production of "Tannhauser". That was to have been the most important new production of the year, produced by Ken Russell and designed by Stefan Lazaridis. The whole company was stimulated and excited by the task before it, but suddenly to be told it was off led to a slump in morale and a loss of quality all round, and left it with an unbalanced and much less interesting programme.
The others of the big four—the Royal Opera House, the National Theatre, and the Royal Shakespeare Company—are in the same boat. All are fearful of having to reduce the number and quality of their new productions. We all know, or should do by now, that new productions are the lifeblood for any repertory company.
The figures are frightening. In real terms the Arts Council grant to the National Theatre is down by 13 per cent. since 1979 and to ENO by 25 per cent.—a really wicked drop. The Royal Opera House and the Royal Shakespeare Company were specially assisted as a result of the Priestley Report which was issued in 1983. That report was intended by the Government to find out what savings could be made in those two companies, but it came down on the other side and reported that neither institution could reasonably be expected to continue on its then funding level. Therefore, their accumulated overdrafts were paid off and they were given a proper increase, though not as much as was recommended. The report urged that more generous funding should be continued year by year. That was too much for the Government, so today Covent Garden is down 7 per cent. in real terms on its 1984 figure and the Royal Shakespeare Company is down 13 per cent. from the same date.
I wish to add to what has been said about the Royal Opera House. It is not always realised that it

979
runs three companies; the Royal Opera Company, the Royal Ballet and the Royal Sadlers Wells Ballet. Last year between them they gave 476 performances compared with 76 at La Scala—which does not tour—and just over 300 at Munich. I shall not bother with the other figures. The box office takings pay for 42 per cent. of its costs compared with 17 per cent. in Paris; 19 per cent. in Berlin; 26 per cent. in Vienna, and 27 per cent. in Munich. The Royal Sadlers Wells Ballet has just returned from a triumphal tour of the Far East (incidentally, sponsored by Glaxo) and some noble Lords may have seen the enthusiastic account in the Financial Times on Monday. The Royal Ballet sets off shortly to take part in the bicentennial celebrations in Australia.
Leaving aside the big four and taking an instance outside London, Mr. Braham Murray, who is the director of the Royal Exchange Theatre in Manchester, one of the best provincial theatres in the British Isles, claims that he will have to raise personally a quarter of a million pounds to maintain quality in his next year's programme.
Perhaps I may turn for a moment to the museums and galleries. In real terms the position is just as bad. The purchase grant of the British Museum is down by 26 per cent. since 1979; the National Gallery by 43 per cent.; the Imperial War Museum by 24 per cent.; the National Maritime Museum by 28 per cent.; the National Portrait Gallery by 31 per cent., the Tate Gallery by 23 per cent. and the V & A by 36 per cent. Let it not be forgotten that purchase grants to museums and galleries are as much their life blood as new productions are for the performing arts.
However, I must give honour where honour is due. The Science Museum has gained an increase of 97 per cent. and the Natural History Museum an increase of 12 per cent. in real terms since 1979. I see a sinister influence behind the Government. One can choose one's own villain saying, "Damn quality in the arts; give the money to something useful".
So much for the big ones. I should like to give a few random instances of smaller concerns. The Almeida theatre in Islington is expecting a cut of £23,500–12 per cent. of its budget—from the Greater London Arts. Most noble Lords will know of the theatre's international reputation for the promotion of worthwhile plays and contemporary music. A cut of this size must sadly affect the quality of its performance. The Academy of Indian Dance is to lose its entire grant from the GLA; it will probably have to close. Even if it does not, it can hardly maintain the very high quality of its present work. The Shaw theatre in Euston Road is to be closed and its grant transferred to the Belsize theatre. This is particularly damaging not only to Islington but also to the National Youth Theatre of which we are all so proud and which has run its summer season there for the past 25 years. The BritishTheatre Association was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Haig, and I shall do no more than agree with every word he said about it.
Perhaps I may look briefly outside London. The Oldham Coliseum is in trouble. It was carefully examined by the Arts Council which agreed that it
980
was seriously under-funded and led it to expect an increase in grant. However, it did not get it and its plans for the coming season have been ruined. The Northern Arts Association supports five theatre companies which are doing fine work in rural and urban areas providing theatre where there is none. It used to perform seven or eight productions a year but now the number is down to two or three.
Art centres are closing in Swansea, Cheltenham and St. Andrews, among other places. I could go on for ages, but I believe I have given enough detail for the moment. Perhaps I may return once more to ENO and speak at the same time for the Festival Ballet. Those two famous and much-loved exponents of the performing arts are both running into further trouble. Each had substantial assistance from the GLC. The Government clobbered that. They promised that any assistance to the arts that was lost would be made up from elsewhere. Both grants, each of about £1·25 million, were taken over by Westminster City Council. Now, as a result of more awkward changes resulting from the Local Government Finance Bill, Westminster will be unable to continue these large subsidies, leaving both companies in despair with all their plans at risk and staff morale crashing.
In order to rub in the direct responsibility of the Government, I quote the actual words of the Minister in the debate on the Local Government Bill of 1985. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said:
"The arts have nothing to fear from the abolition of the upper tier of local government. Certainly, I would not remain Minister if they did so".
He did not remain Minister, though for other reasons, but I fear that the companies are going to lose their money. It is the same old story: first, destroy something, the good with the bad; then promise to make up the loss; then destroy something else so that the loss has to be made up in some other way. Then, usually after agonising delay, make it up, but only partially, with the sponsoring public being expected to pick up the balance. This is not the way to encourage quality in performance.
One cannot blame the Arts Council or the Greater London Arts. They can distribute only what they are given. And if they are given too little they have to make the hard decisions of what good things to cut and damage.
I conclude by quoting again from the debate of 1985. This time perhaps I may quote words of my own. I said:
"Raising money for the arts is the most difficult, uphill job. Many of us in and out of government have worked at it for years and we have now succeeded in raising the total national expenditure on the arts from virtually nothing at all before the war to about half of what it ought to be."
It is still about half of what it should be. The Government should double the present figure of funding to the Office of Arts and Libraries for the performing arts and for museums and galleries within the next four years. In the total budget the cost would be negligible, but the effect would be to transform the problems of the arts in this country. It would give quality a real chance of showing itself more often than it does now.

981
I know that money cannot buy quality, but I also know that cuts and changes can completely inhibit it. If the present decline in government support for our great national institutions is allowed to continue, some of them may even founder. Where there is no art, no performance, there can be no quality. I hope the Government will look very carefully at the need for limited amounts of additional money.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Haig for the opportunity to have a short debate this evening on the creative and performing arts. I add my congratulations to the noble Marquess on his excellent and interesting maiden speech.
It is quite rarely that I am able to move away from health matters, put on my other hat—that of a very average but keen Dixieland trumpet player, band leader and orchestral contractor—and widen the issue by drawing the attention of the Government to the poor state of recognition and remuneration of the country's jazz musicians. It is also a particular pleasure for me to address my remarks once again to my noble friend Lady Trumpington.
As jazz music has such limited representation, it is the poor relation of all art forms. For example, in the visual arts, due to world-famous institutions such as the Royal Academy, there is a hierarchy of excellence. The work of a minor artist might sell for a relatively small sum while that of a top grade painter could command thousands of pounds. That is as it should be. Furthermore, because of these world-famous institutions, the artist of merit can become internationally celebrated.
Classical and pop music have access to their own specialist media through Radio 3 and Radio 1 respectively as well as through many smaller commercial stations all over the country. Popular music can be "plugged" many times a day and a performance of particular merit may lead to the sale of hundreds of thousands of records bringing its performers national and international recognition and the associated financial advantage. Musicians in a minor pop group may earn £100 for an evening's work, whereas performers in internationally-known bands can earn £25,000 for a single performance. Pop celebrities can earn several million pounds each year and classical musicians—whether in orchestras or as solo performers—also have the potential of great success and, indeed, international fame. However, their recordings have a specialist medium by which their talents can be communicated to those likely to appreciate them the most.
As a result of the access to the public that Radio 3 affords, a range of earnings exists so that an unknown and unrecorded soloist can expect some hundreds of pounds per concert and a major British performer can earn at least ten times that sum.
British jazz musicians, among whom are some of the finest performers in the world of this art form, have no such public voice. The corollary of this is that very few jazz records are made, and even those that are, are recorded under the most severe financial constraints, because in the main there is no access to
982
the type of medium necessary to plug them—unlike the pop and classical performers or graphic artists. Therefore there is no hierarchy of excellence. A jazz musician of average talent will receive between £20 and £35 for a night's work. Similarly, a musician of the highest calibre—every bit as brilliant, in his own way, as for example David Hockney in the visual arts, or Yehudi Menuhin in the world of classical music—will be grateful to receive £50 or £60 for an evening's work. Further, he will remain virtually unknown.
The situation contrasts considerably with his American counterpart who can demand around £2,000 per night and achieve international recognition, merely because he has the mass media exposure which is the lifeblood of the performing arts. It is well to remember that if the Beatles' recordings had had no access to the public, via the radio, they would probably have remained an unknown and relatively impoverished pop group. Such is the current predicament of jazz musicians in this country today.
With the creation of jazz radio stations, serving at least the major cities, it would become commercially viable for recording companies to record our best performers, some of whom would undoubtedly go on to receive the international stardom that they deserve. Many would be paying taxes on their considerable earnings rather than drawing unemployment benefit, as many of them are forced to do now. The demand for such stations is beyond dispute. Many major cities in Europe and America provide their jazz-loving citizens with the opportunity to hear the music and musicians of their choice. Therefore, surely it is shameful that the city of London, which is one of the greatest cultural centres in the world, should have this void in its artistic spectrum. I shall be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister can give me any news about the enabling legislation which would permit the setting up of such a jazz radio service. I am aware of plans to introduce such legislation but I am informed that it is subject to continued delay.
I am also aware of one particular company, headed by David Lee, which is ready and willing to invest its own capital to provide such a jazz radio service for the half-million or so jazz fans who live in London. I hope that the Government's philisophy to give our citizens greater freedom of choice will be demonstrated by their finding time to consider such legislation in the future.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, let me begin by adding my congratulations to those already given by other speakers to the noble Marquess on his maiden speech. The fact that it was both assured and genial bodes well for the future. If that was a maiden speech, then I look forward enormously to all his future speeches. I was much struck, as indeed was the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that he should quote Robert Tear, who is not only a much admired and indeed much loved singer, but also a highly intelligent and philosophical being. It is sometimes forgotten that performers are capable of philosophy as well as of performance.

983
I noticed that Bob Tear spoke to the noble Marquess about the combined attractions and dangers of sponsorship. That is something I think that everyone is aware of. Certainly the attractions are there in financial terms, but the dangers are more subtle and much rarer than people make out. Nevertheless, they are there. Indeed, when the noble Earl introduced the debate, he touched upon that issue when he pointed out how most attrative the normal course of sponsorship is to sponsors; but how very unattractive, it seems are the rarer and more rarified aspects of art.
Speaking for myself, I see an enormous amount of sponsorship every year, because for some time now I have been privileged to be the judge—or, at least, the chairman of the panel of judges—for the annual awards of ABSA (the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts). Therefore I see the entire spectrum of sponsorship in every year; it is fascinating and it is growing. However, one sees the shape in which it is growing and there are certain areas within our arts which it does not touch. For example, as with certain beers, there are bits that are never touched by sponsorship. However, the situation is scarcely the fault of the sponsors. I suppose in the long run it might be construed as being a fault of imagination, but you cannot blame sponsors for not immediately allying themselves to the totally unknown. I suspect that that remains a problem area of our multiple funded future.
The noble Earl, in introducing the debate, also mentioned the British Theatre Association and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was happy to support him in that matter, as indeed am I. The British Theatre Association recently suffered a tremendous shock by having its grant from the Greater London Arts Association entirely removed. However, I am happy to say that it appealed against that decision—a totally mistaken one in my view—and its grant has been restored, albeit with a little bit knocked off; but, then, everyone gets a little bit knocked off these days.
I do not think it was a punitive "knocking off', regretful though the British Theatre Association no doubt is about it. Indeed, it is nice to think that organisations like the Greater London Arts Association can make a mistake and acknowledge it. It is something which is not totally frequent in artistic, let alone political, life. I am most pleased to see that grant restored, because the British Theatre Association respresents a special part of the performing arts; it represents a great network of background, what is nowadays called infrastructure. I suppose its most famous asset is the library. The library is used throughout the land. Everyone in the theatre world needs it. Even in international terms it is renowned.
However, it is not only the library that the British Theatre Association organises. It is involved in countless areas of activity for the unseen bits of the theatre; for training and for the amateur world of the theatre. I should declare an interest here as I am chairman of the Theatres Advisory Council. I see that aspect of the theatre—indeed of all the performing arts—most clearly, because that organisation, which is the principal umbrella organisation of the theatre,
984
encompasses countless organisations which are almost unknown to the public at large. They deal with the training of the theatre world; they deal with the technicians—the back-room girls and boys of the theatre world—who are absolutely essential for the flourishing theatre of which we are so proud. However, such organisations receive little acknowledgment and need funding.
Funnily enough, the British Theatre Association has made great inroads into sponsorship. It is amazing that it should have done so because sponsors are not usually attracted to the back room; they rather like the front room, or preferably the portico with their name over it. Therefore it is most admirable that the BTA has gone as far as it has in regard to sponsorship. However, it needs a considerable amount of central support. Therefore I urge the Arts Council, the Greater London Arts Association and all other bodies coming within the Government's purview to consider carefully whether the British Theatre Association is in fact seriously underfunded.
It is very nice to be able to speak immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. Not only are some of us in this House able to speak and indeed to eat better because of his good dental attentions, but it is very nice that he should be able to speak about jazz as a practising musician. I echo in every way what he said about the neglect of jazz in this country. I think perhaps it is a phase through which we are going: there was a time when it was more famous. The pop world is so glamorous and the classical music world so refined and so exquisite nowadays: in between there seems to be a great hole where the jazz musician is being neglected.
Happily, I was conferring only the other day with colleagues on the South Bank about the place that jazz should have in the musical life of the South Bank. I am happy to say that they are very conscious of that place. It is not simply the neglect of the media and the funding authorities that is a problem; it is the fact that there is no visible centre for jazz. A few years ago there was a project to have a national jazz centre in Covent Garden and it was to be perhaps the start of a new era for jazz—somewhere where the enthusiast could meet the jazz musician and the jazz musician could meet the public, and from where the recordings of which the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, spoke, might come.
That, alas! foundered as part of the general miasma which followed the abolition of the GLC. The site still exists; the property is in the hands of the London Residuary Body, as it should be; but somehow the steam has gone out of the enterprise. I wish it could be put back in. A centre for jazz is needed. Whether it should be there or somewhere else, I know not. However, I should love to see that enterprise revivified so that something could be done to allay the fears and the dismay that the noble Lord has uttered about jazz.
That brings me to the principal thing I should like to say this evening. It stems from the lack of capital funding, because, frankly, it was such a lack that did for the national jazz centre. It is the lack of capital funding that may do for a number of famous organisations, and indeed do for the hopes of a

985
number of yet unexisting organisations. Without capital funding the background of the arts cannot possibly flourish. It is not merely a question of putting the slates back on the roof but of asking what shall be done to create the dance centre for London, for example. We ought not always to talk of London, but in this case John Drummond produced a very well received and brilliantly argued report on a dance centre for London, and if we are to have one it will cost a great deal of money. Whether it is an existing building converted, or a new one, it will cost many millions of pounds. And it is needed, because there is no really good dance house at all in London.
Where does one look for capital funds? The answer is, nowhere. The Arts Council used to have a Housing the Arts Fund. It was always too small, and eventually they despaired of it and gave it up altogether. At the same moment the GLC and the metropolitan county councils went out of existence, and they were bodies which, for good or ill, had a broad enough budget base to be able to sustain big capital funding when it was required. Nowadays there is nowhere to look. We have no capital funds left.
Where are we to find the funds to build a home for the Welsh National Opera, for example, or, as I have said, a dance house for London? How is the Round House to be helped on its way to becoming a great centre for the black communities? How are countless enterprises simply to keep themselves alive? Every householder knows that when the bad news about the roof strikes, the bill is always ten times bigger than you thought it would be; and in capital terms many of the arts face a very alarming future simply because there is nowhere they can look for capital funding.
If we are talking in terms of hundreds of millions of pounds over the years, it is no good looking to the Government and saying, "It is time you put your minds to this and put a fund together", because I doubt that they will. Therefore there has to be some major stroke we can achieve to produce this money. There is one; and quite simply it is that long-debated but still entirely plausible notion: a national lottery.
It is a pure accident that this morning the national health lottery, or whatever it was supposed to be called, bit the dust because it had been pointed out that its operations would be illegal. The Director of Public Prosecutions had made that plain. This is not a matter of gloating on my part because the arts have had notions about lotteries for as long as the medical world and medical charities have had them. I suspect that the only reason that enterprise foundered was because it did not think it needed to alter the law. The truth is that it did.
I am well aware that to introduce a national lottery would require major legislation, simply because the prizes allowed by present gaming legislation are not big enough. There is no point whatever in having a national lottery if you cannot offer a prize big enough to attract people. When I say "big enough" I do not just mean the very big No. 1 sum—the one that brings out the programme that says "spend, spend, spend" at the end—but enough money for enough people to win so that the public does not despair of winning. There must be a good enough chance of winning the
986
lottery to attract people to it. If there is, the instance of West Germany shows that very large sums of money can be achieved—almost painlessly, I suspect. We are talking of sums of over £100 million a year— sums that match exactly the current grant-in-aid to the Arts Council—so that the dream of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, of doubling that sum is possible with a lottery.
I am well aware of many factors about a lottery, and I will not detain your Lordships for long this evening because this is a subject that would take your Lordships a number of days to debate in its full complexity. I introduce it because I know that it is a sensible proposition for the future of the arts and indeed for other charities. I am very well aware that the arts are not alone in thinking that a lottery would be a clever idea. Already the medical world and medical charities have thought so; sport has long thought so; and it may well be that no lottery Bill could be devoted exclusively to the arts.
I am also aware that there is vast opposition to the nature of a lottery all around the country. I say "vast" simply because the number of reasons for that opposition is large. I do not believe that the opposition itself is very strong or very widespread; but I recognise, for example, that there are many people who hold the religious conviction that a lottery is simply flying in the face either of biblical commandment or of good moral sense. I do not hold that view myself, but I recognise that there are those who do. With that unshakeable conviction I cannot argue because one cannot shake an unshakeable conviction.
There are those who believe, more subtly, that lotteries and all gaming bring with them social evils. However, I should point out to your Lordships that lotteries of the kind I am speaking about do not have quite that same quality of dragging one over the cliff as a well lit casino or a sunlit racecourse do. One cannot keep putting money in every time one loses, as in those places. Lotteries occur so regularly that one puts money in once only each time.
I am aware that many people fear that other charities would suffer if a lottery were introduced. I doubt whether the conflict is such that minor betting—say the tombola of the charity fair—would suffer as a result of a major national lottery. I am aware that people think that the pools and other major gaming enterprises would suffer, and even that National Savings would suffer. I doubt that. I do not think that the things are close enough to be compared. Above all, one has to remember that if a national lottery were to be introduced for the benefit of the arts, every time people lost money on it they would not be giving to some egregious character standing round the corner of a racecourse who might run away with the money in any case but to the arts. If people win they will be happy, but if they lose they should also be happy because the money is going to fund something which is of the essence of the quality of life.
I am aware that there are even some who say that there should be no such thing as a lottery because the Government should be funding the arts anyway. I am of the persuasion of those who think that the

987
Government should fund the arts more than they do. I have said so on numerous occasions, and I still think so. But I am realistic enough to realise that the Treasury is not going to double its grant to the arts because my opinion is that it should. The guidelines for this decade are clear enough. It is a multiple funding world we live in. It is a self-help world we live in. This provision seems to me the very essence of self-help, and I cannot believe that it is not a good idea.
The final objection that people raise is that this could be an invitation to fraud. I beg leave to doubt whether in the world of sophisticated computer technology in which we live it is not quite simple to make an absolutely fraud-proof lottery system. Other countries have done it well, and it would earn us the money—perhaps for other things besides the arts—that would give the security for the future that we all want. It would give the plurality of funding that the Government so often urge upon us, and it would give the 21st century a ray of hope for the arts which at the moment I do not think it has.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, I, too, wish to add my congratulations to the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, on his maiden speech. It is a real pleasure to welcome among us a practising artist; there are all too few.
I also wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Haig, for introducing this debate because it gives me an opportunity to talk about my favourite art form, which is opera. In doing so I realise that I shall probably retread some of the ground already covered by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, but reinforcement cannot be bad. I am sure that he will be quite happy to support any remarks that I make on this subject.
Opera has for me two dimensions: one is a personal one and one is a national one. The first is infinitely less important but a good deal more vivid, and I shall start with that. I can remember as a young man in the late '40s and early '50s attending my first operatic performances in the Royal Opera House. The price of the tickets for a quite extraordinarily uncomfortable seat on a bench in a quite remarkably stuffy atmosphere was one shilling and ninepence. My memory is getting a little frail, but I think that that price rose to two shillings and threepence over the course of a few years. For that money one saw in some discomfort great performances.
Taking a friend with one, for four shillings, which is the equivalent now of about 20p, one could have an excellent night out. I normally did so about once a month. When I look at the more melancholy situation today, when my wife and I wish to go to the opera it costs me something between £30 and £40. That is admittedly for somewhat better seats but they are far from the best seats in the house. The result is that I can go only once or twice a year, perhaps.
However, the picture is not quite as black as that because in the past 30 to 40 years there has been a notable development in television and video. It is quite possible to see very competent performances in
988
your own drawing room. However, it is never quite the same and I for one miss greatly my fairly frequent attendances at the Royal Opera House. So much for my problems, though I believe that they are reflected by many of my generation.
The national problem with opera is that it is so desperately expensive. The casts are scores and sometimes hundreds of people. Performances frequently involve international stars, glamorous costumes and the like. The current report from the Royal Opera House lists production costs for some productions in the season ending in 1987. I believe that it is worth commenting on two productions in juxtaposition. One was a production of "Rosenkavalier" which cost £10,000 and the other was a production of "Otello" which cost £325,000.
I did not see either of those performances and I cannot comment on their quality. However, one should not assume for one moment that the more expensive production was not worth the money. It may have been stupendously worth the money and the production for £10,000 may have been rather poor. It is worth dwelling on that matter because it highlights the temptation to management, when financial screws are put on it, to resort to revivals and rehashing of old productions. That involves getting the scenery from the attic or storeroom, cleaning the costumes and perhaps rehiring the principals in the original production.
That course is not unsatisfactory and at a certain level it is possibly the best that a given opera house can do. However, it has its perils. If it continues indefinitely, and if most of the productions are simply refurnished old productions and none of the new and glamorous productions can be put on through shortage of funds, the quality of the house declines.
That is the way in which a decline in quality is most likely to make itself manifest. It means that anyone in government who is interested in the standard of our opera must look beyond the statistics of financing and attendances to the type of production that is being produced. Unless that is done, it is impossible to form an objective assessment of how that opera house is doing.
There are other problems with opera. One that I have always found difficult to grapple with is that there is little doubt that it appeals to what is known, in sociological jargon, as the A and B groups; that is to say, those who have more money and better education. It is a sensitive matter to ask for money from overall taxation to subsidise the entertainment of groups which are, by definition, rather well off.
The third and perhaps least important problem is that of language. Most international opera is in German or Italian. It is questionable what percentage of those attending can make anything of the dialogue. There are ways round that. The ENO performs operas in English. There are also programme notes and even subtitles in some proscenia. However, it is a rarified art form as it is played internationally.
Financially, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has observed, Royal Opera House receipts have averaged about 40 per cent. of costs over the past few years. At the same time, the amount of grant coming directly or indirectly from the Government has gone

989
down from 54 per cent. of total receipts to 46 per cent. I should say that sponsorship has remained fairly steady at about 8 per cent.
That is a picture of declining support for our principal national operatic house. I do not think that we can look at it in any other light. The ENO has managed to get grants, including, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said, a subscription from Westminster City Council, which, taken with other income, makes 56 per cent. of its total income. It then manages to generate 44 per cent. In the end the last annual accounts which I have seen for the year ending 1987 show that the Royal Opera House was £1 million in debt, whereas the ENO had managed to break even, which in the circumstances is a stupendous feat.
Attendances are very good. The Royal Opera House has managed to pack people in to approximately 90 per cent. of capacity, while the Coliseum has reached about 81 per cent. Those are very high figures and a tribute to the attraction of both houses.
Who are the audiences? Students are reasonably well catered for provided they have sufficient time and are sufficiently robust to queue, often for long hours. They can get reasonable seats at very reasonable prices. At the other end of the financial scale there are the wealthy, who have no problem with high seat prices, and business and company entertainment sponsors, who again have no problem with high seat prices. In the middle is a band of not so well off enthusiasts who find it increasingly difficult to meet the prices. I think that over the years they will be squeezed out of the audience, certainly of the Royal Opera House and possibly of the ENO also.
It is only right to mention the considerable efforts that both houses are making to encourage children to get to know opera in their formative years. They contact many schools and local authorities to attract children to performances, often free, dress rehearsals and so forth. I think that both houses are doing all they can to build up a future audience. Whether that will be enough to sustain the present high attendance rates time will show.
I think that opera has a fundamental dilemma. Those of us who love it and want to see it prosper have this great problem: where there is a demand on government funds for urgent projects—if I mention the National Health Service that is just because it is one that happens to be in the spotlight at the present time—how can we justify asking for more funds from the Government to support such a rarified activity as grand opera?
One could phrase that question in another way and say, how can you check that any given government are funding the arts sufficiently, and in particular the operatic art, or are being mean and underfunding? The only way that I can see of setting any kind of standard is to look at what our cultural rivals are doing. Again the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to this and it is a particularly interesting comparison. I know that he will excuse me if I remind the House of some of the figures that he quoted.
990
I am quoting from the Royal Opera House report for 1986–87. It selected some half-dozen of the principal opera houses of Europe—not I hasten to say those in America, Japan or Russia but our direct cultural competitors. If one looks at the percentage of grant given to those six houses by their sponsoring governments or state authorities it averages something like 73 per cent., whereas the Royal Opera House receives 46 per cent.
When one considers our cultural rivals whose standards in the arts we respect, can it be right that we as a nation subsidise the corresponding activity 50 per cent. less than they do? Viewed by that standard, as a nation our contribution to the operatic arts is quite inadequate and I fear, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, that a 2 per cent. or 2.5 per cent. increase in funding will be inadequate to maintain our senior opera houses in the first division of the European Community.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I apologise for inflicting an unscheduled speech on your Lordships. This morning I telephoned the Whips' Office but without the usual and expected result.
I should like to say how much I enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Marquess, which I thought was remarkably refreshing and thoughtful. We are very grateful to him. I am especially grateful also to the noble Earl, Lord Haig, for the way in which he framed his Question. He has tried to focus the debate on quality, which is a matter of the utmost importance and something of which one often loses sight. It is sometimes insufficiently recognised that quality or excellence in any of the arts can only be achieved by rigorous discipline, whether in the theatre, the concert hall or at the easel and whether in creation or interpretation. Whatever the form of the art and the talent of the artist, there is no quality without discipline.
Some of your Lordships may know the story of the little old lady who was stopped on a street of New York by a stranger who asked her, "Can you tell me the way to the Carnegie Hall, madam?" She replied, "Young man, you must practise, practise, practise". She may not have understood the question—she was probably an immigrant from Germany—but she was uttering a very important and basic truth.
Unfortunately the laudable desire to encourage self-expression, promote access to the arts and develop participation in the arts in particular have tended to obscure that basic truth. Much of what is nowadays often referred to as "art" is not art at all but therapy—social therapy. It may be very desirable and important but it has nothing or very little to do with art. I am not at all opposed to the public funding of therapy but I rather doubt that it is appropriate to be undertaken by the national government. Of course it is a field in which real artists, if they are willing, can indeed lend a hand, but it is not art, and funding therapy will of itself seldom if ever lead to excellence, and it is excellence to which the Question of the noble Earl directly addresses itself.
It is particularly in the visual arts that the need for discipline to achieve quality has not infrequently been

991
lost sight of in recent times. There has been a school of thought that has ignored the need to master the art of drawing, for instance. What one might call the splodge-away-and-express-yourself approach has had a powerful and harmful effect where it has predominated in some art schools. It does not produce quality any more than ignorance of grammar is conducive to quality in literature.
What can the Government do about this situation? They have two duties: to legislate and to fund. Outside those areas they cannot have a major role in these matters. It is interesting that in the Education Reform Bill that is now before your Lordships' House the Government, in my opinion quite rightly, attempt to introduce a more rigorous approach through a national curriculum. I do not think that they have the approach quite right since they specify music and art as foundation subjects and by specifying music alongside and distinct from art they naturally infer that art means simply visual art. This would include drama and dance, which are both arts which require a rigorous discipline if they are to be mastered.
I find the Bill's attempt to produce rigour a little clumsy and I hope that it will be remedied on Report. However, I applaud what I believe to be the Government's intention and hope that it will ultimately be realised. So in this sphere of legislation the Government can help indirectly to promote excellence by rejecting the educational approach which has refused so often to distinguish between what is good and what is bad.
I absolutely support the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, on this point. The Government must not get into the business of deciding which arts to fund and which not to. The buffer system between government and the arts, represented by the Arts Council, is a precious asset which we must continue to nurture. It is imperfect. It leads to bêtises, which are easy to scorn—and I admit to some bêtises in my time—but it has brought immense benefits and on the whole has spared us the consequences of political meddling in the arts.
There are two ways in which the Government can and do promote quality. The question is one of degree. The first is by their funding, through the Arts Council, of the national centres of excellence: the great theatre companies, the National and the Royal Shakespeare, the symphony concerts, the opera companies, and the smaller companies, many of which do excellent work and from which the national companies draw much of their talent. Likewise, the Arts Council funds experiment without which there is no future. No doubt the Government could, and in my view should, do more. Indeed, if they recognised the effect of their investment in terms of education, employment and tourism, they would increase what they do.
There has been one real advance lately. Mr. Luce is to be congratulated very genuinely on the three-year commitment which he secured from a Treasury which normally dislikes forward commitment but seems in this case to recognise that forward planning is a basic requirement of any business. It is not
992
enough, but at least it is a commitment. What I would not congratulate Mr. Luce on is his speech at Newcastle, I think last autumn, in which he accused people in the arts world of a welfare state mentality. The role of the state in arts funding is basic. The state ought to be proud to be doing it, as it is in France and Germany. If one does not have enough money for the genuine needs of people who rightly rely on you, it is bad psychology to abuse those needs. I do not wish that factor to detract from my genuine feelings of pleasure that Mr. Luce has secured this three-year commitment.
The second way in which the Government can promote excellence is a direct way. They are the single most important patron of architecture. I shall not repeat the remarks that I made in a recent debate in your Lordships' House on architecture when I indicated how I thought the Government might exercise their responsibility for good architecture. However, departments of state have enormous architectural patronage to dispense and for important sites they should delegate their powers to select architects to small committees of informed persons, as they did when they commissioned this great Palace 150 years ago.
Yesterday, on leaving the Chelsea Flower Show in Chelsea Bridge Road, and facing the drab ugliness of Chelsea Barracks, I suppose put up in the fifties or early sixties, I thought, what an opportunity missed. It is almost unbelievable on that site. On the other hand, as one walks down Whitehall and comes upon William Whitfield's fine new building by Richmond Terrace on your right after leaving Parliament Square, what an opportunity taken! So they can do it. I just wish that the Government would give more thought to the best method of ensuring that the right thing happens more frequently.
Those are some of the ways that I believe the Government can promote excellence. At this time of night it behoves me to be brief. The Government are already doing quite a lot but, as our school reports used to say, they could do better.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, I must apologise for intervening in this debate, because my name is not down on the list. Unlike the noble Lord, I did not ring up the Whips' Office, and, unlike him, I have already spoken once today and therefore this is more of an apology than he has to make. I must also apologise because I was not present at the start of this debate and therefore missed the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Haig, and that of the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair.
I was stimulated to leap to my feet once more by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. In particular, I wish to say a word about sponsorship, to which he referred as a means of funding the arts. To me it is absolutely self-evident that sponsorship should only be regarded as a top-up to arts funding and that it cannot possibly be a substitute for the funding which the Government should and did provide and I hope will continue to provide on a more generous level than at present.

993
I draw noble Lords' attention to a Written Question I put to the noble Lord, Lord Young—I am speaking from memory and I hope I have it right—in which I asked him how much money had been spent on sponsorship for sports and the arts last year and how much taxpayers' money had been forgone thereby. If my memory is correct, the answer was that £75 million had been spent on sponsorship and that £65 million of that was taxpayers' money forgone. So the idea that sponsorship is free in some way is an absolute nonsense. Some £7·5 million or whatever it is— £10 million—is quasi-free. What we are doing is taking the taxpayers' money, handing it over to businessmen who then spend it as they like, not in the public interest but in their own interests. Why otherwise should they do so?
Sponsorship has real limitations. Moreover, a sponsor wants the maximum exposure. Therefore it is inevitable that he will support the conventional and the popular. It is very rare, as other noble Lords have said, for anyone to support the new, the minority and the relatively unknown. What has not been mentioned is the immense amount of time that the administrators in the arts have to spend in raising money.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I did so, my Lords.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, that was before I came in. It is ludicrous that the people who are chosen to run an opera house, a ballet company, the Whitechapel Arts Gallery and so on should be chosen partly with that criterion in view. It is not a question of whether they are good at running a ballet company, whether they are good at running an opera house or an art gallery, but whether they are good at raising money from mega-rich philistines. That is a third reason why I believe that the limitations of sponsorship on which the Government are so keen should be considered in a wary way and should be seen simply as a top-up to existing funding from the Government.
I should like briefly to repeat that the public role in the arts cannot be overestimated. I regret that I have said this before to noble Lords, but in the history of this country one of the most remarkable revolutions in my lifetime has been the efflorescence of music. That was due to the Third Programme, to CEMA and to the Arts Council. Without that infusion of money, capital and support it would never have happened. Both these contributions could not have been made without public funding. Therefore it is ludicrous for any government to suppose that they do not have a real responsibility in this area.
Finally, I take up a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, touched. We cannot forget the straight economic benefit of the arts to this country. London is the biggest tourist capital in Europe. It is so partly because of the airport, partly because of language and partly because of the arts. One can have a conference here and the people who come to the conference can go to high-class opera, high-class ballet, high-class theatre and wonderful exhibitions and galleries. No one has been willing to try to quantify what the economic benefit is from that. I bet your Lordships anything you like that even with the
994
rather miserly funding that the Government offer the arts, the straight economic benefits that this country receives from tourism and conferences to which the arts contribute substantially make them a good economic proposition.
9.40 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Haig, introduced what has been, until now, an interesting discussion between like-minded people. There has not been a word of dissent. The poor Minister is left to block many of the things we have been saying. I agree with what the noble Earl said about quality. Framing his Question as he did has tied us down much better than when we have open-ended arts debates.
I should like to congratulate the noble Marquess on his maiden speech. Unfortunately he is not here to be congratulated. He spoke about spending 1 per cent. of the funds on embellishing architecture, and I should like to point out to him that unless everything has been changed we have that facility when government buildings are being put up. When I was a Minister in the Department of the Environment during the Labour Administration I talked to people from the Arts Council about how we could use that 1 per cent. I tried to obtain agreement that it should be used to embellish architecture, erect a piece of sculpture, exhibit paintings or in some other way bring art into the public domain.
One of the most important things to which the noble Earl drew attention was the importance of education to art. That is our only hope for the future if we are to change attitudes in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, mentioned art being included in the national curriculum under the Bill which is going through the House at the moment. He is right, because he and my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge put their names to an amendment that I tabled designed to include "arts" in the curriculum. It would otherwise have meant spelling out "performing arts", "literary arts" and so on. The Government resisted that amendment. They gave no reason for their resistance, which was incredible.
The Minister then said that it would be better to pick out music and art because they would be pursued more rigorously if they were named. We had to point out that that meant that we were cutting out drama, because to have drama on the back of English and ballet on the back of physical education is not good enough. On different occasions we have been told that unless subjects are mentioned in the curriculum—art is supposed to be a foundation subject—they will not receive much time in the curriculum or much teaching. The problem is a difficult one.
When I was at the Department of the Environment I set up a heritage education committee. Asa Briggs was appointed chairman. I managed to get the Daily Mirror to sponsor what we called "a wideawake trail". There was a competition each year which any school could enter, and they could choose any project. There were judges and the projects were voted on. The Daily Mirror gave a number of awards. I was asked to give the prizes in the first year.

995
A head teacher from a school in a deprived area pointed out that not only had the children had a great deal of fun and been enthusiastic when carrying out the project, they had brought their parents into it as well. This school was collecting old chimney pots and the mothers and fathers were running around helping. In an area where there was nothing beautiful, and nothing visually exciting or comforting, everybody became involved. If the Government mean what they say, they should start straight away by doing something about the curriculum, which is now being discussed on the Education Reform Bill. I know that it is not her responsibility but I hope that the Minister will pass on our remarks to her right honourable friend so that all is not lost at this stage.
Another important factor affecting the arts is the abolition of the Greater London Council, to which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred. Making up that money has been extremely difficult—in fact it has not been done at all. In the first year there was money over because it was paid out by the GLC and the metropolitan counties. As the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said, we must remember that we are talking not only about London but about the whole country. It was thought at the time that the local authorities would take over. However, the local authorities did not have the money. From where were they to get the money? Many of them were rate-capped, so again we have seen a shrinkage in the arts. This year, as a result of rate-capping and because of the different priorities between which it must choose, Camden's funding to Greater London Arts has been cut by 40 per cent. It cannot afford to do it, so once again the arts have suffered.
The arts also suffer through some of the other legislation we have passed. I refer to the very much debated Section 28 of the Local Government Act, which prevents local authorities giving money to promote homosexuality, although it is difficult to know how that will be defined. "Promote" is a very loose phrase. Devon County Council has cut £10,000 from one arts centre for putting on a show emanating from a gay group. A number of other local authorities have made it clear that they will not take a chance. Although something may not fall foul of the authority or the law a council will exercise far greater caution. Together, all these factors affect the money going to the arts all over the country.
This is also a matter of structure and strategy. Certain sums of money are available in other government departments and in areas such as the probation service which, if co-ordinated, could go into schemes to help train young people who would otherwise be unemployed. However, there has to be proper co-ordination. Sponsorship has been mentioned but sponsorship must be the frill on the arts cake, not the other way round. Private sponsorship should not be the main money, with the seedcorn coming from the public purse.
Funding is an appalling problem. A week or so ago we were pleased to hear that the Horniman and Geffrye museums are to be funded once ILEA goes and will be free-standing museums with their own boards of trustees. Although when they were told
996
about this the friends of the Horniman were rather pleased, they were certainly worried as well because they did not know where the money was to come from. We are not sure because what we have been told is rather vague. It adds to the responsibilities, which become more fiscal than artistic, of the curators and directors of the museums. The same comment applies to the large galleries and museums. They are not doing the job for which they have been trained and engaged and it is a continuous fight.
At one time I was a governor of the British Film Institute. The director was an absolute wizard at raising funds and through his work we received an enormous sum from Paul Getty. It was given for new archives and not for moving to another building. However, in the next round of grants we were cut and did not receive a proper increase. No matter what the political views of the governors, everyone felt most angry. It is so frustrating and dispiriting and one wonders what is the point of throwing all one's energy into the institute if the money is merely being spent on projects which the Government should be undertaking and which involve bricks and mortar.
I do not know how we can achieve a change, except through education. I feel that there is a certain attitude in the country. The questions in this connection by the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, were most interesting. It seems to be an attitude which transcends all governments and is not peculiar to one or another. We as a country do not value the arts as we should and I do not know how that can be changed.
Speaking for the arts one feels strongly that the attitude is that you are involved in the frillier side of life and not in the serious, manly side. I know that the noble Baroness does not believe that, but I am speaking of a general attitude which pervades the country. The noble Lord, Lord Elibank, asked why in this country we do not fund the arts in the same way as France or Germany. Maybe it is the way in which people are brought up or perhaps it is built in and has historic origins. However, people in this country view the arts in an entirely different way and it is that kind of barrier that we must break. The Minister having to obtain a little more here and a little more there is ridiculous.
I should like to conclude by quoting what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, at a recent dinner. He said that it now appears that we have a very healthy economy. He continued:
"It is a surprising tragedy that at a time when we appear to be thoroughly prosperous and have large sums of money to disburse there should be this total starvation of the arts".
Every time the Prime Minister or other Ministers boast, as they are entitled to, that they believe the economy is now so much stronger, I wonder why on earth the arts do not get their fair share.
9.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, it is a brave man, or for that matter woman, who would seek to define the word "quality" when promoting art in whatever form. That is one reason why I am grateful to my

997
noble friend Lord Haig, who is an artist of outstanding quality, for raising this specific Question. He has also given me the opportunity to put to the House with pleasure and pride the Government's commitment to the arts.
My noble friend has enticed here another artist of note, namely the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, who made an excellent maiden speech in the debate. Somewhat unusually the noble Marquess lists in Dod's his recreations as "wine, women and song". I am a woman and I love wine, but your Lordships will no doubt be highly relieved to learn at this time of night, and with my kind of voice, I shall not burst into a rendering of "Drink to me Only With Thine Eyes" when I say what pleasure his speech gave me. He actually sent me his special apologies for leaving.
I was absolutely riveted by the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. After all, she did much for the arts for which we are grateful, and I shall see that her words reach the destination she wished for them. But I would say, "Be of good cheer, old girl; all is not as black and gloomy as you made out."
The Government's commitment to the arts to which I referred earlier was endorsed in our manifesto of 1987, when we pledged ourselves to maintain the level of funding in real terms at its 1979 level. We have in fact done much better. The Government's objective is to create the best possible climate in which the arts can flourish, allowing the maximum number of people to have access to a wide variety of arts. What we are trying to do is, first, to keep up the real value of public support for the arts, taken as a whole; and, secondly, to encourage arts bodies to expand their other sources of income at a faster rate so that, thirdly, the total resources available to the arts will grow, and within that total the proportion provided by the private sector will rise.
I was grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, concerning last year's funding announcement, giving the arts a framework for those things which I have just mentioned. It specifies definite figures for each body over not just one year but three years; and it provides in most cases a grant in the first year which is deliberately generous. This gives institutions elbow room, time to draw up plans and make decisions on their future strategy; and it provides various sums to help them strengthen their financial structure and to fund incentive schemes. The use of taxpayers' money in this way—to act as a catalyst for the expansion of total income—we call incentive funding and is an essential element of the plural funding policy.
An extra £5 million has been made available to the Arts Council in the current year; £6 million in 1989–90 and £7 million in 1990–91. Of this it is expected that a total of £12·5 million will be committed to the incentive funding scheme. The purpose of the incentive funding scheme is to improve overall artistic standards by widening the funding base of Arts Council client organisations and by improving their business efficiency.
The remainder of this extra money—upwards of £5 million over the three years—will be committed to the
998
touring of artistic events and exhibitions throughout Britain, bringing the best the arts can offer to a greater number of people. In the current financial year the Arts Council hope to provide extra weeks of theatre, dance and opera. We think this is a considerable step forward—the arts, after all, are the possession of the whole country, not simply of London, even if we do believe that London is the theatrical capital of the world.
Standards in the performing and creative arts are also encouraged by positive collaborations with local authorities. In the visual arts, in particular, the Arts Council continues to enjoy notable success in improving the standards of training and exhibition-making in local authority museums and galleries. Manchester, Bradford and Stoke are noteworthy in this regard. The Arts Council continues to play a leading role in the encouragement of sculpture in public places in our towns and cities. Looking beyond the arts for support of the arts, the council has been active in fostering collaborations with private industry and public bodies, including British Rail. The independent galleries supported by the Arts Council flourish, and this year both the Serpentine Gallery in Kensington Gardens and the Hayward Gallery on the South Bank have become fully-fledged independent bodies after 20 years within the Arts Council itself.
Although the Arts Council has supported, and continues to support, some major exhibitions, aspiring and lesser-known artists are also helped. Both the Arts Council and the regional arts associations help the individual artist by making funds available for bursaries and fellowships and by placing artists in schools, which is a double benefit. It gives secure employment to the artist and enables him to inspire and encourage the young. There is also considerable scope for partnership between independent funded galleries such as the Hayward, the Whitechapel and the Fruitmarket Gallery in Edinburgh and commercial galleries, to promote the work of promising artists.
I turn now to my noble friend Lord Haig's most interesting speech. He made five specific proposals. He asked first that there should be a better selection procedure for artists exhibiting in public galleries. It will never be possible to remove the so-called "art establishment" from the selection procedure. Judgment by the art establishment is another word for judgment by one's peer group—the method practised by the regional arts associations, where most of the direct support given to artists is administered. Artists prefer this method, by and large.
Secondly, my noble friend suggested that commercial galleries should be subsidised when they put on unprofitable exhibitions by struggling but gifted artists. The education of public taste, and the pursuit of profit, do not always go well together. When they do, so much the better, but often an artist's work is exposed to the public not to acquaint that public with a new thing but to develop a market for that work—that is the business of the commercial gallery. The Arts Council believes that the two objectives should be kept separate—that public subsidy should be kept separate from the operation

999
of commercial galleries. However, the council is prepared to support commercial galleries where both objectives can be served—for example, in touring works of art—but in general terms, the council will continue to support art by funding exhibitions in the network of independent, publicly-funded galleries.
My noble friend's third proposal is that good work should be sold at affordable prices. Perhaps this question should be addressed to those dealers who choose such high commissions! But there are already ways of making it easier to buy pictures. For example, the Welsh Arts Council operates a successful interest-free loan scheme. Such inducements, however, are separate from the proposal to subsidise galleries themselves. Surely the answer here is not the creation of an artificial, propped-up market for art but better marketing of exhibitions by the galleries themselves. The Arts Council's new marketing department will be very glad to help.
I should like to add that it is not just in art galleries that artists can display and sell their works. Some hospitals that I visited when attached to the DHSS used their wall space for just that purpose. Theatre foyers have wall space and a captive audience. I remember a charming exhibition of watercolours for sale by Lewis Casson on the walls of, I believe, Glyndebourne some years ago. The red dots told their own story of success in all those venues.
Fourthly, my noble friend proposed that artists should be trained or apprenticed under YTS. My answer to that is no. Our excellent art colleges already provide artists with a broad range of transferable skills and they have shown themselves resourceful enough in getting work in the design, fashion and media industries, as well as in producing their own paintings and sculptures.
I simply do not accept that other nations are better than ours. Here I include our undoubted leading role in jazz. My noble friend Lord Colwyn is a good example, though in his speech he did not blow his own trumpet but spoke movingly of the poor jazz musicians. I fear I cannot go far down the jazz radio service road this evening; but neither, alas, can I walk the lottery lane with the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, through lack of time.
The final point put by my noble friend Lord Haig was that part of the money for new buildings should be spent on art. Here I certainly go along with my noble friend's suggestion. It is one which the Government can encourage without seeking to introduce mandatory legislation.
The Arts Council has recently adopted a percent for art policy, and it is very good to see that a number of local authorities and developers have chosen to spend a proportion of their new buildings budget on arts and crafts. The Arts Council will be pleased to offer general guidance to any body or authority wishing to employ this technique. Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act is a useful tool.
Perhaps I may refer here to two particular examples. The Government themselves provided for the inclusion of a Paolozzi sculpture in the new Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in
1000
Westminster. Birmingham City Council, in its imaginative plans for a new convention centre, has wisely provided that a proportion of the total budget of £90 million should be spent on the creation of works of art as an integral part of the design. Within the overall provision, £250,000 is to be spent on a sculpture by Raymond Mason, a Birmingham-born sculptor of international renown.
In one of today's papers I note that Sheffield is looking to pioneer a percent for art policy and that too is good news. The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, about museum directors becoming fund raisers was, if I may say so, a little naive. It seems that if one looks across the Atlantic in particular, that is one of the reasons they are there. The noble Lord asked about more public money, especially for the Royal Opera House, the English National Opera and the National Theatre. The Arts Council increase in the current year is 84 per cent., with 3·5 per cent. to incentive funding and touring, both of which will help big companies. There will be 2 per cent. towards new developments, which leaves 2·9 per cent. for existing grants to be increased. I say to the noble Lord, with great respect, that one cannot fund innovation and pass on the whole increase to existing bodies.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to raise one point. I shall not argue statistics because it is too dull at this time of night. My statistics are jolly good and I doubt whether those of the noble Baroness are so good. I shall leave that. I cannot understand what she meant about impresarios and directors in America. Have I misunderstood?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, I believe so.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I shall shut up because that is quickest.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that is the quickest thing. I shall read Hansard and I shall write to apologise to the noble Lord if I find that I am wrong.
Encouragement of the arts in whatever form is the classic example of you can only please some of the people some of the time. My noble friend Lord Haig took a somewhat jaundiced view of television. Unfair, I say! I wonder whether he watched the wonderful ballet based on Lowry the other day. The opera recordings are wonderful. It is simply not realistic to expect that if government pay out enough money the arts will ipso facto flourish.
Local councils can do a great deal to help. It is good to know that so many are responding to the public's craving for beauty in their lives. Arts bodies can do yet more to help themselves—to market their excellent product better.
Inevitably, I have not answered all the points made during this fascinating debate. The whole community—government, business, private givers, the consumer at the box office—need to join to make the arts flourish. Even then, as the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, said, one still cannot be sure that "flourish"

1001
equals "excellence". In the end we need to preserve what is best of the past, to encourage the artists and performers of the present and to provide the arts with a healthy future.

University of Wales College of Cardiff Bill [H.L.] formerly University of Wales Cardiff Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Employment Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.

  FERRIES: USE IN EMERGENCY
  FERRIES: USE IN EMERGENCY
  WILD BIRDS: EC DIRECTIVE
  WILD BIRDS: EC DIRECTIVE
  MR. MICHAEL GRAHAM
  MR. MICHAEL GRAHAM
  MR. HECTOR MACFARLAND
  MR. HECTOR MACFARLAND
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CUSTODY: STATISTICS
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CUSTODY: STATISTICS