Sitting of 2 February 1989

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second Time on Monday 6 February at Seven o'clock.
ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (HULL) BILL (By Order)
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 9 February
HYTHE MARINA VILLAGE (SOUTHAMPTON) WAVESCREEN BILL (By Order)
INTERNATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK BILL (By Order)
ISLE OF WIGHT BILL (By Order)
LONDON UNDERGROUND VICTORIA BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 7 February.
WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL (By Order)
BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)
BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL (By Order)
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 9 February
PENZANCE ALBERT PIER EXTENSION BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 7 February.
REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 9 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Shotgun Licences
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many shotgun licences are issued currently to young people below the age of 15 years; and if he will make it his policy to raise the basic age to 16 years.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Information on the number of shotgun certificates held by persons below the age of 15 is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In relation to shotguns, there are no specified age restrictions, but age is one factor which the chief officer of police concerned may take into account in deciding whether to grant a certificate. We have no plans to introduce a statutory age limit.
    Mr. Speller: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful answer, but is he aware that at present it is an offence to sell or hire a shotgun to anyone under 17, or to make a gift of a shotgun to anyone under 15? A youngster under 15 may not purchase a shotgun and may not carry an assembled shotgun in a private place. Is he aware that in the west country a shotgun is a tool of trade for many people in the agricultural profession? I do not suggest any change, but is it not logical to have a base limit so that we can clean up a particularly uncertain part of the law?
    Mr. Hogg: We have no plans to make further changes. As my hon. Friend has already made plain, there are a number of existing safeguards which we think are sufficient.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that as youngsters can fire a shotgun only under the careful supervision of an adult, they should be taught to use guns early, and therefore learn the importance of safety from an early age?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, with which I agree. As he has made plain, persons under the age of 15 can use a shotgun only under the supervision of someone who is 21 or older.

    Private Security Firms
    Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department issues to chief constables about the use of private security firms in roles previously filled by police officers.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): My Department issues no such guidance to chief constables.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Secretary of State worried about creeping privatisation of many traditional police functions? Is he aware that chief constables are deeply worried that there is no proper control on that burgeoning industry and that many cowboy operations have been set

    411
    up? We now have the Guardian Angels. Will he urgently consult the police and provide a properly regulated framework?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would object to the contracting-out of some police services, such as cleaning and catering in suitable cases. I do not know of any forces that contract out or are made to contract out to private security firms. However, the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. The Association of Chief Police Officers has sent us a report on the private security industry. It has expressed some anxiety, but we still believe in the principle of self-regulation by the industry—it would be difficult to proceed in any other way. We are examining with the police the reports that ACPO sent.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the potential use of private security firms to police our streets arises from the fact that the public do not believe that there are enough policement on the streets? My right hon. Friend's announcement of extra officers for most forces in England and Wales was welcome, but it has left many chief constables disappointed. Will he assure the House that he will pursue with vigour further increases in police establishment over the next two or three years?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend will have been pleased about the increases for north Yorkshire, about which he and others made representations to me. My hon. Friend follows these matters and will know that my announcement of an additional 1,100 officers for England and Wales related to this year only. I have announced that there will be substantial increases—further record totals on top of record totals—in future years. The details and amounts of those increases will depend on the discussions that we shall have with police authorities and chief officers.
    Mr. Hattersley: Is the Home Secretary aware, and, if so, will he confirm, that the Police Federation has been officially informed that tenders are being invited from private security firms to provide security at docks and ports? Does he regard private security firms as appropriate for this sensitive task, and are they likely to do it as well as the police?
    Mr. Hurd: That is not a matter for me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No, the policing of docks and ports is not a matter for the Home Secretary, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I was speaking within my competence, as the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) asked me to. I shall look into the accuracy or otherwise of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome the valuable contribution that security firms make, but will my right hon. Friend consider the representations made by a number of people in the industry for a compulsory system of licensing, registration and adequate monitoring and back-up facilities to raise standards where they are too low?
    Mr. Hurd: We believe that self-regulation by the industry, which, as my hon. Friend knows has made significant advances, is right. It would be extremely difficult to define someone who is offering a security service and to put that into law.

    Police Records
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to protect the confidentiality of police records.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is for individual chief officers of police to decide the measures needed to protect the confidentiality of police records.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that private security firms cannot wait to get their hands on the police national computer? Does he agree that it would be dreadful if that happened? Is he aware that the police are worried, because not only criminal convictions but highly sensitive criminal intelligence are held on the computer? Will the Minister stand up and fight privatisation of the computer records and stand for what we want from police services—a mixture of accountability and security?
    Mr. Hogg: We have no plans to privatise the police national computer.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Will my hon. Friend confirm that private agencies are not necessarily less secure than public ones?
    Mr. Hogg: That is true, but the information held by the police is confidential.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm that it is possible for any detective above the rank of detective constable to obtain, within five seconds, from terminals located in every police station, information from the police national computer, including that about unspent convictions, which can be and is passed to security firms and the Economic League? Will he urgently investigate the possibility of introducing a scheme whereby any police officer requesting information from the police national computer is required to record the reason for the inquiry?
    Mr. Hogg: The information held by the police is confidential to the police and is disclosed only in tightly drawn circumstances. An unauthorised disclosure of information by a police officer would certainly give rise to disciplinary procedures in appropriate cases and might constitute a breach of criminal law.

    Broadcasting
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received following the publication last November of his Department's White Paper on broadcasting.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): We have received many representations on our proposals from the broadcasting industry, from hon. Members and from individual viewers and listeners. We should welcome any further comments during the consultation period, which ends on 28 February.
    Mr. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend urge the BBC to take seriously the suggestion that it experiments with subscription rather than the current, rather incongruous and outdated licensing fee which may, in any event, not be payable by those who opt to receive only satellite television?
    Mr. Renton: I note what my hon. Friend has said. The BBC is, of course, already experimenting with subscription

    413
    and is using its night hours to download technical knowledge to doctors, a service for which they are starting to pay. My hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that the licence fee is neither immutable nor immortal and will become increasingly difficult to justify in the 1990s. When there are many more channels available, why should somebody pay a licence fee to receive only two channels? That is a matter which the BBC must take seriously.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Why does the White Paper mention children only in terms of what they must be protected against, rather than what services they might expect or deserve? Surely, when the Government are talking about quality and choice, that must apply equally to children and adults. Why have children been excluded from the White Paper?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Lady is not quite right to say that they have been excluded. She will notice that there is a specific duty on Channel 4 to continue to produce and supply high-quality educational programming. It will be up to the Independent Television Commission, when bringing in bids for the new franchises and setting the quality menus for those franchises, to decide whether there should be a prescription on Channel 3 or Channel 5 also to include educational programming.
    Mr. Hind: What will my hon. Friend's attitude be to Members of Parliament who are involved in consortiums bidding for independent television franchises or the terrestrial channels? Will he give an undertaking to inform the Leader of the Opposition should any of his Front Bench become involved?
    Mr. Renton: That question needs serious consideration. I agree with my hon. Friend. If the Labour party sacks a senior shadow Minister every time a satellite channel is born, its Front Bench will soon look even more threadbare than it does at present.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received from interested parties on ways to amend the Shops Act 1950.
    Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in response to his request for views on the reform of Sunday shopping.
    Mr. Renton: Since I last answered a question on this subject from my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on 21 July 1988, we have received a number of specific proposals for amendment of the present law, which we are now considering, and 87 written representations broadly in favour of Sunday trading and 1,344 against.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware that there is some statutory deregulation in the majority of EEC countries? May I assume that it is the Government's intention to reflect the views of EEC countries or will they diverge from the way that the EEC is proceeding on Sunday trading?
    Mr. Renton: No. The point is that a number of district councils have been told in the courts that their requests for
    414
    injunctions against Sunday trading will not be granted until the European Court has taken a decision on whether our Shops Act 1950 is against EC law in terms of restriction of trade. The issue about the Shops Act is not that it is a general restraint on trade, but that it is anomalous, out of date and full of provisions that are now generally unenforceable. I noted that the hon. Gentleman voted against our Shops Bill last time and I suggest that when he next goes shopping on Sunday, he buys an old-fashioned tin of humbugs. When will the day come when Labour Members who shop on Sundays vote with us to deregulate?
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that most members of the British Retailers Association, which represents the retail industry in this country, do not want deregulation between 12 noon and 6 pm on Sundays and that the employees of the small number of large firms that want deregulation certainly do not want it?
    Mr. Renton: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Two recent polls taken by MORI and Gallup show that approximately two thirds of those polled on the general question whether they would like more shops to open legally on Sundays voted in favour. I appreciate my hon. Friend's strong feelings on this subject, but I suggest that since our 1986 Bill there has been a general move in favour of a compromise that will enable us to modernise the present provisions, while preserving a different rhythm of life on Sunday.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise to the hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts), whose question was linked.
    Mr. Watts: It remains my view that deregulation is the only satisfactory course for us to follow, but does my hon. Friend agree that in the light of the recent public opinion surveys to which he has referred, all of which show a substantial majority in favour of a measure of relaxation, a realistic compromise should be sought as a matter of urgency—perhaps based on limited hours of opening on Sunday afternoons?
    Mr. Renton: In general terms, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Over the past two or three years there has been a general move—even among those who voted against deregulation last time—towards the view that a compromise is needed. It is difficult to find a compromise that will have general backing and achieve consensus among the different parties, but that is precisely what we have been trying to do in all the consultations that we have undertaken in recent months.
    Mr. Duffy: Does the Minister recall his recent correspondence with the Sheffield chamber of trade, which endorses the REST proposals of the National Chamber of Trade—the recreation, emergency provisions, social gatherings and travel proposals? Those proposals are intended to iron out some of the anomalies, but, in the main, to preserve Sunday and keep it special. Can the Minister tell the House of a single chamber of trade that has come out broadly in favour of Sunday trading?
    Mr. Renton: I know that the REST proposals suggest a very careful revision of the exempt list—dividing shops into very tight categories and allowing only those that sell 80 per cent, of their turnover in those categories to open.

    415
    I think that those proposals would be very difficult to enforce. I note the hon. Gentleman's support for them. Last time, he voted against our Shops Bill. I hope that on the next occasion he will abandon his party Whip and vote with us for a compromise on regulation.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that a greater anomaly arises when the courts, which are supposed to uphold the law of the land as made by Parliament, set it aside waiting for an extraterritorial decision?
    Mr. Renton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is simply not the case. The DIY stores in particular have pleaded their case under an article of the treaty of Rome holding that our present Shops Act is a restraint of trade and against imports from the Community. We believe that that is the wrong ground on which to fight, because the argument has nothing to say about the anomalies in our Shops Act. Treasury counsel will be briefed to defend the British position in the European Court and we expect decisions to be reached this year.
    Mr. Anderson: Is it not clear from the events of the past weeks that a co-ordinated campaign is being conducted by well-heeled commercial interests in collusion with the Government for fundamental change and that the Minister's favoured option of a six-hour period on a Sunday is but a tactical staging post on the way to total deregulation.
    Mr. Renton: No, Sir.
    Dame Jill Knight: Will my hon. Friend continue to bear in mind that, as he said in the first part of his answer, many thousands of people outside the House and, indeed, a substantial number inside it, still wish to keep the peace and quiet of Sunday? Will he bear in mind that unless a compromise is very carefully drawn up there will be some fairly solid opposition in the House to the abolition of our Sundays?
    Mr. Renton: My hon. and good Friend reminds me of precisely the point that I was making earlier, against the background of a law that is increasingly seen to be shot with anomalies, about the difficulties of finding a compromise that will bring together all those who recognise the impossibility of the present law. But as I said, this compromise must respect the fact that many want to see a different rhythm of life on Sundays.
    Mr. Corbett: Can the Minister clarify what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien)? Is it now his advice that local authorities should seek to avoid prosecution for alleged breaches of the Sunday trading laws until the issue is settled by the European Court, or will he rather insist that our national laws are enforced, unless or until they are changed?
    Mr. Renton: I have already dealt with that point twice. But can the hon. Gentleman clarify why the new member of the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), who presumably finds it in order to shop in Edinburgh on a Sunday, finds it necessary to vote in Westminster on a Monday against our doing the same?

    Motor Vehicles (Theft)
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the most recent figures for thefts of motor vehicles in England and Wales.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): In the 12 months ending September 1988 the total number of recorded offences of theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicles was 371,800. This represented a fall of 6 per cent, compared to the corresponding period in 1987.
    Mr. Harris: I welcome that fall, but does my right hon. Friend agree that auto crime of this sort still accounts for about 40 per cent, of all recorded crime, and does he think that the British insurance industry could do more to encourage motorists to make their cars safer, for example by giving a reduction on their insurance premium if they fit some anti-theft devices?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a very important point. The British insurance industry and the Association of British Insurers are already doing a lot to encourage motorists to fit better security devices, by giving them better advice. On the other hand, I hope that increased competitive pressure within the British insurance industry will perhaps lead to more opportunities for motorists to shop around to get the sort of insurance premiums that recognise the fact that they take care of their motor cars.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that in Forest Gate, in the London borough of Newham, we have the highest incidence of car theft in, I think, the whole of Europe? In parenthesis, I might tell him that we also have in Newham the highest birth rate in London, so I assume that I know what everyone is doing in the back seats of those cars they have stolen.
    Given the serious problem that we have in Newham, will the Minister give an undertaking that a major campaign will be launched in the borough to prevent car theft?
    Mr. Patten: I shall not comment on one part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The possibility of a campaign is certainly something that the hon. Gentleman would wish to bring to the attention of the Metropolitan police. For example, a recent six-month campaign in the Northumbria constabulary area brought about a substantial reduction in car thefts by targeting. I think that it can be done.
    Mr. Mudd: Is my hon. Friend aware that although his Department wrote to a Manchester firm on 16 December, that firm is still advertising the availability of skeleton keys at £30 a set, capable of opening 95 per cent, of all foreign and British cars, including those with high security locks? Not only does the firm continue to trade, but it is canvassing for trade by picking buyers spasmodically and at random from the Yellow Pages. Will my hon. Friend do something to curb this abuse of security?
    Mr. Patten: The Department is continuing to look into it at the moment.
    Mr. Hattersley: On the subject of figures that are calculated and kept on the police national computer, why did the Under-Secretary of State tell the House a moment

    417
    ago that there were no plans to privatise the national computer when the Home Secretary himself wrote to me on 20 January telling me that there were?
    Mr. Patten: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said. My right hon. Friend will undoubtedly place a copy of the letter in the Library.

    Drugs
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in securing greater international co-operation against the illegal drug trade.
    Mr. Hurd: Effective international action is crucial to our efforts against this trade. In December, with 42 other countries, we signed a new United Nations convention providing a comprehensive framework for international co-operation against illicit trafficking. In the past year we have signed eight important bilateral drug co-operation agreements, and more are under negotiation. I exchanged the negotiated text of an agreement with the Spanish Minister of the Interior on Tuesday, dealing in particular with the confiscation of assets. Under our chairmanship, a ministerial meeting of the Council of Europe's Pompidou drug co-operation group will take place in London in May. I believe it will underline our strong commitment to combat drug misuse throughout western Europe.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that typically helpful and comprehensive reply. Does he feel that the international community could do even more to curb drug abuse? My right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues in the United Kingdom have tackled the problem with substantial vigour. I am thinking particularly of the way in which we can now confiscate the profits that come from drug abuse. Will my right hon. Friend again pursue other countries to try to bring them more on side to adopt some United Kingdom practices?
    Mr. Hurd: We are certainly setting the pace on this with the agreements that I mentioned. Confiscating the assets of convicted drug traffickers, alongside long terms of imprisonment, is just about the most effective means of enforcement. With the Pompidou group, when the European Ministers meet under my chairmanship here in May, we shall ram home that point.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary take the earliest opportunity to discuss this matter with the Administration of President Bush and their new appointee in charge of drugs, bearing in mind the necessity to combat drug traffic from Latin America, in particular, through the United States?
    Mr. Hurd: I have written to Dr. Bennett, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, and I have already had a talk with the new United States Attorney-General. The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct.
    Mr. Soames: Will my right hon. Friend try a scheme that has been effectively used by the Americans? Passengers flying from countries that are designated by Customs as at risk from drug trafficking should be given a piece of paper warning them quite clearly that, upon entry
    418
    into the United Kingdom, they are likely to be searched from top to bottom and that if they are carrying drugs they had better get rid of them at once.
    Mr. Hurd: The phrasing of the notice suggested to my hon. Friend might need a little attention, but I will look at his helpful suggestion.
    Mr. Darling: When does the Home Secretary expect to share with the House the outcome of his ministerial discussions? In particular, he is discussing not only the international drug trade but freedom of entry into this country and freedom of movement in this country and in European Community states. When will he make a statement about his discussions with the Trevi group of Ministers, rather than keeping his thoughts to a cosy little group without answerability to the House?
    Mr. Hurd: The cosy little group includes all readers of Hansard, as the hon. Gentleman would perceive if he looked at the record. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has written to me about the matter. I have no objection to discussing it further. I am pleased with the way co-operation is going both on immigration and on drug matters.
    Mr. Gow: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the number of specialist Customs officers at ports and airports is sufficient to meet the growing drugs menace?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend knows that the number of Customs officers is not a matter for me. I believe that the view of the Customs is that by concentrating their efforts more narrowly on drug trafficking, they can do what is necessary with the resources that they have. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's implication to Ministers in the Treasury.

    Gaelic Broadcasting
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of BBC Scotland and Scottish Television to discuss the future of Gaelic broadcasting.
    Mr. Renton: This is a subject on which I had a number of discussions with interested parties from Scotland during the course of last year. I shall be visiting the independent Scottish television stations within the next few weeks.
    Mrs. Michie: Is the Minister aware that the technology of the multi video distribution system will not cope with the topography of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and that, therefore, new local franchises will not be able to supply additional services to Gaelic speakers? Why does not the White Paper accord equal status to the Scottish and Welsh languages, particularly as many Scottish programmes have better viewing ratings than does the Welsh Sianel 4 channel?
    Mr. Renton: I agree with the hon. Lady that, given the mountainous terrain of much of Scotland, MVDS or microwave television is not likely to be helpful in bringing television to those parts of Scotland not reached by channel 5. As regards her comparison with the Welsh national channel, I must point out to her that about 20 per cent, of the Welsh population speak Welsh and that only about 2 per cent, of the Scottish population speak Gaelic. At the end of the day it is up to the broadcasting

    419
    authorities to decide whether there is sufficient demand for more Gaelic programmes and, if so, how they will cope with it.
    Mr. Stewart: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement of his forthcoming discussions in Scotland. Does he agree that there has been an expansion of Gaelic broadcasting but that it is not of interest solely to people of the Highlands and Islands? Is he aware that an experimental bilingual school south of Glasgow is successful and that many people in the central belt are interested in Gaelic broadcasting?
    Mr. Renton: I understand that. Indeed, it is said that more people south of Glasgow than in the Highlands and Islands are interested in Gaelic broadcasting. At the end of the day it must be for the broadcasting authorities to decide whether there is sufficient demand for there to be more hours of broadcasting in Gaelic. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have tried, not least through educational grants, to encourage the development and teaching of the Gaelic language.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Because of the language and politics of Scotland, would it not be appropriate for more resources to be allocated to Lallans as well as Gaelic, remembering that Lallans is the main language of Scotland? In any case the Scots are the largest ethnic group within the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Renton: I am married to a Scot so over the years I have tried to understand the language and the politics of the Scots. I have also had discussions with the group Communn Na Gaidhlig who have told me much about the need for Gaelic programmes. However, we should not try to push down people's throats programmes in a different language to what they want.

    Metropolitan Police (Racism Claims)
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning allegations of racism in the Metropolitan police; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: No record of the number of such representations is kept. The Government fully support the many initiatives taken by the Metropolitan police to tackle racism. There is no place for racial prejudice in the police service.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that despite his bland assurance and the efforts of the Metropolitan police, allegations of racism in the Metropolitan police reach as far afield as Orkney and Shetland where my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) had a complaint from a constituent whose daughter was working in London? Can the Minister tell us when we can go out about the capital without seeing non-white members of the community being picked on by the police? At present, black people are stopped far more often than white people, particularly for suspected motoring offences.
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman's comments will be deeply resented by ordinary Metropolitan police officers who are working extremely hard to improve community relations.
    Sir George Young: Can my hon. Friend tell the House what increase there has been in the number of London police from the ethnic minorities since 1979?
    Mr. Hogg: Without notice, I cannot tell my hon. Friend the increase, but at present there are 421 officers from the ethnic minorities, including a number of or above the rank of inspector. It is extremely important that we increase the number of recruits from the ethnic minorities, and the Metropolitan police is doing its best to achieve that.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that to treat the question put by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) so casually will help none of us? Has he forgotten that when an essay was set by one of the lecturers at the Hendon police college a few years ago literally every essay written contained evidence of racism? Does he not believe that there is a problem and that we must all come to grips with it?
    Mr. Hogg: The question of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was a gratuitously offensive criticism of the Metropolitan police. I treated it with the respect that it deserved.

    Crime Statistics (Lincolnshire)
    Mr. Leigh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the figures for reported crime in Lincolnshire for 1988.
    Mr. John Patten: From January to September 1988, the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police in Lincolnshire was 25,171, which represents a fall of nearly 5·5 per cent, compared with the same period in 1987, which is 2 per cent, more than the equivalent figures for the whole of England and Wales. That is good news out of Lincolnshire.
    Mr. Leigh: These figures are a most welcome vindication of Government policies and commitment to the police. Will my hon. Friend stress that crime prevention is not simply the responsibility of Government but starts at home, that public involvement is needed and that we need to build on excellent schemes such as the neighbourhood watch schemes?
    Mr. Patten: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What has contributed to the rapid fall of crime in Lincolnshire is the growth during the past 12 months of the number of neighbourhood watch schemes from some 400 to some 700 and, equally, the introduction of six juvenile crime prevention panels made up of active citizens helping the police in its task.

    National Indentity Card
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the reports from the chief constables on the introduction of a national identity card; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hurd: I have now received a report from the Association of Chief Police Officers in response to my request last year. The ACPO paper does not reach conclusions on the general merits or recommend a particular scheme. The view of the police is that there would be some advantages, together with some disadvantages, for the police in a system that required the

    421
    carrying of identity cards and their production on request but that a voluntary scheme would have few advantages for them.
    I shall also take into account, of course, other views which have been expressed, including those of the Select Committee on Home Affairs.]n the past year I have received some 350 letters on the subject from hon. Members and from the general public, most of which have expressed support for some form of national identity card scheme.
    Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for such a comprehensive reply. Can he tell the House when he will be bringing forward the Government's proposals for a national identity card, as the idea is clearly popular with our constituents and with many organisations, including many of the registrars general of births, deaths and marriages?
    Mr. Hurd: There has been widespread discussion on this matter. My hon. Friend is right. The House will have an opportunity to discuss the matter at greater depth when it considers the private Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell). I would need some persuading that a compulsory system, with all the bureaucracy and police time involved, would be worth while. Indeed, as I have just reported, the police have said that they see few advantages for them in a voluntary scheme, although I do not rule out at this stage that there might be other advantages worth exploring down that road.
    Mr. Rees: ACPO cannot speak for Northern Ireland and nor, for that matter, can the Home Secretary. Have there been any consultations on this matter with the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Hurd: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has the matter under review.

    Boundary Commission
    Mr. Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many counties in England have been looked at by the parliamentary boundary commission since June 1987 with a view to altering parliamentary constituency boundaries; how many preliminary reports have now been published by the commission following its visit to those counties; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hogg: Since June 1987 the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England has completed a supplementary review of European parliamentary constituencies and an interim review of two United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies in Suffolk. The commission has also published draft proposals in a review of the constituencies of Buckingham and Milton Keynes.
    Mr. Madel: Can my hon. Friend assure me that as the boundary commission continues its work it will pay particular attention to projected rises in population due to new house building? Can we have an assurance that when parliamentary constituencies in England are next changed all major changes will come into effect at the same time?
    Mr. Hogg: It is desirable that the latter should happen, if possible. With regard to the figures, the commission has to operate within the existing statute law which requires the commission to have regard to existing electorates.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagemens for Thursday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Martin: Looking forward to the visit of Mr. Gorbachev to this country, will my right hon. Friend confirm that she will not be begging his consent to the wise defence policies pursued by her Government, unlike the mendicants seeking consent to their policies in Russia?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his own point very effectively. It seems as though the Opposition want a defence policy labelled "made in Moscow". We shall insist on keeping our own independent nuclear deterrent. May I remind the House that Trident will be a smaller proportion of the Soviet strategic weapons than Polaris was when it was instituted many years ago. That is so even after the proposed 50 per cent, reduction in overall strategic weapons.
    Mr. Kinnock: Do the changes that the Prime Minister proposes for the National Health Service mean that she will use the service herself?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman always mystifies me because he is quite prepared to purchase a private house, but not prepared to purchase private health care. I should have thought that he would realise that those people who pay for the National Health Service and then pay again for private health care are helping the National Health Service.
    Mr. Kinnock: If the Prime Minister is telling us that there are people who can afford private care, can she tell us why such people should get a tax subsidy to do so?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to tax relief for the elderly. There must be many older than I in this House—there are a number of them on the Opposition Benches—some of whom are quite well enough off to pay for their own health care. With regard to tax relief for the elderly, there are now 5 million people who have private health insurance. All of them may be despised by the Labour party, but they are making their own provision. As they come up to retirement they may well find two things—first, that their company made the provision under a general company scheme, which was therefore cheaper and, secondly, that as they reach the age of 60 the premiums go up because the need to use the service is greater. We therefore thought it right to give tax relief at that stage so that people can continue to use the scheme privately and by so doing bring more benefit to the National Health Service.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the provision of new consultant posts as outlined in the health White Paper will contribute in great measure to the reduction of the excessive workload undertaken by junior hospital doctors?
    The Prime Minister: The consultant posts envisaged in the White Paper will, I hope, help to reduce the waiting lists where they are longest and most difficult. They will also give more hope to a number of junior doctors who are very anxious to have a clear career structure and need more possibilities of promotion. We are very anxious that junior doctors should not have to work too long hours, and we have a working party on that. My hon. Friend will know, however, that on average junior doctors are already working fewer hours than they were 10 years ago.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does not the Prime Minister accept that the independence of public bodies and the use or abuse of a Prime Minister's privilege of patronage are matters of major public concern? Will she tell the House why she refused to answer the question I posed last week, asking her to list the appointments and salaries in her gift? Is it because there are too many or because she is afraid of revealing too much?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are a considerable number of appointments. To list all of them would cost far too much—[Interruption.] Of course it would. The hon. Gentleman knows full well, as does the Labour party, that each and every Department has a list of members. He also knows that quite a number of such positions are filled by ex-Labour Ministers.
    Mr. Sumberg: In the light of the Second Reading of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill and the need to promote a genuine free labour market, will my right hon. Friend enact similar legislation to protect those contemplating employment in satellite television?
    The Prime Minister: I am only too anxious that as many hon. Members as possible—particularly Conservatives—get on satellite and other television. We have such a good story to tell that I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will go out and proclaim it. I can understand why the Labour party is fearful of some of its Members doing that.

    Mr. Charles Powell
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister when she expects Mr. Charles Powell to end his term of service in her office.
    The Prime Minister: In due course.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the Prime Minister recall that a Select Committee, chaired by a distinguished Conservative Privy Councillor, asserted that Mr. Powell was in a position to tell her about Sir Leon Brittan's role in the Westland affair on 7 January 1986? Did Mr. Powell really fail to tell her before the inquiry report was issued?
    The Prime Minister: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has nothing to add to his questions and speeches. I have nothing to add to my answers

    Engagements
    Mr. Marland: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Labour leaders in Manchester have confessed that during the past two and a half years £14,000 of public money has been given to Mr. Viraj Mendis and his supporters? Does she agree that that highlights the disgraceful way in which many Labour-controlled local authorities are run?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, the people in Manchester will now be able to see clearly how their money is being spent. I understand the viewpoint of many people who complain about our procedures because it took so long to refer the gentleman back to his country of birth.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Prime Minister accept that we in Northern Ireland would welcome the introduction of a national identity card? Does she agree that any responsible citizen in the United Kingdom would have no objection to carrying such a card, but would be proud to co-operate with those interested in looking at it?
    The Prime Minister: Many people might like a national identity card, but that is different from compelling all people to have one. That would be a significant step and we should have to consider the matter carefully before embarking on such a course of action.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of State, Department of Health, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department have stated that a human foetus can now be assumed to be viable at 24 weeks rather than at 28 weeks as laid down in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929? If they are right, should not that Act, which is a Government measure, be amended to make abortions after 24 weeks illegal?
    The Prime Minister: I think that what my hon. Friend has described is the generally held medical view. I believe that I am right in saying that the practice in most hospitals is to adhere to the 24-week figure. I share the view of a number of Members that if a Bill which was introduced last Session had contained the 24-week figure right from the beginning it might have got through.
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fatchett: I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree with me that the arrangements for kidney sales at the Humana Hospital Wellington are an absolute scandal. Will she tell the House why, when her Government were asked four years ago by the Labour party to introduce legislation to prevent that vile trade, her Minister said no and her Government have subsequently taken no action?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the sale of kidneys or any organs of the body is utterly repugnant and that most people would take that view. We are considering the position to see whether legislation will be necessary.
    Mr. John Browne: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the apparent lack of enthusiasm by the Soviets for bilateral nuclear arms control completely vindicates the Government's policy of adopting a unified NATO response to arms control?
    The Prime Minister: On arms control, we should negotiate at the appropriate negotiating table. With regard to intercontinental ballistic missiles, that is sometimes between the Soviet Union and the United States, but we have rightly kept the independent nuclear deterrent out of negotiations because it is a matter for us and for France. I should point out that, as my hon. Friend knows, France is far more robust about an independent nuclear deterrent for France than British Socialists are about such a deterrent for Britain.
    Ms. Ruddock: Will the Prime Minister tell the House why the arguments that have led her Government to support a total ban on chemical weapons do not apply to nuclear weapons?
    The Prime Minister: Because nuclear weapons have kept the peace for the last 40 years. I should have thought that even the hon. Lady would know that. It is clear from history—from world war 1 and world war 2—that neither conventional nor chemical weapons were enough to prevent the start of a war. If we ever went back to a position where we had only conventional weapons, a war could start and the race would be on as to who could produce a nuclear weapon first.
    Mr. Allason: Is my right hon. Friend aware that two weeks ago the Association of Chief Police Officers conducted an exercise with a view to the introduction of a national emergency centre with a free 0800 telephone number and that the exercise was considered a success? Will she now give her support to the introduction of that system on a national scale?
    The Prime Minister: We first have to see precisely what lessons we can learn from that exercise. That is one of the matters that will be considered.
    Ms. Short: Is the Prime Minister aware that elderly people throughout the country who cannot afford to
    426
    benefit from tax relief for private medical care are frightened that they will receive second-rate care under her new proposals? Given that there would be no point in buying private medical care unless it were better, are they not right and what can she say to reassure them?
    The Prime Minister: The elderly people in this country, the overwhelming majority of whom use the National Health Service, have profited enormously from the Conservative Government by the vast increase in resources devoted to health—from £8 billion a year to £24 billion a year—by the increase in the numbers of doctors and nurses and by the fact that both those groups of people are properly paid under Conservative Governments whereas they were not under Labour.
    Mr. Burt: Bearing in mind that in recent years a growing number of trade unionists have helped the nation by taking advantage of having private health care, may I ask my right hon. Friend to agree that the likely effect of the proposed reforms, with tax relief for the elderly, will be to make more former trade unionists follow their example?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the number of people who think it right and proper, when they can afford to do so, to join a BUPA scheme will increase because a number of people will negotiate with companies for their own employees and work forces to be covered either by BUPA or by Hospital Plan.
    Mr. Alton: Arising out of the reply that the right hon. Lady gave to her hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), is she aware of the case of the Carlisle baby who was aborted last year at 21 weeks' gestation and struggled for three hours before being placed in a black sack and incinerated? Does she not agree that that child and the 174,000 children aborted in this country last year deserved the most basic right of all—the right to life?
    The Prime Minister: The facts and views given by the hon. Gentleman are not always agreed with by the medical profession. Some of them are sharply contested. The figure of 24 weeks mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) is, as far as I am aware, agreed by almost all people as being a more proper figure to be included in legislation than the previous figure of 28 weeks, and I regret that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) did not include it in his Bill

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Timetable motion on the Water Bill.
Motions on the Adoption Allowance Schemes and Adoption Allowance Schemes (Scotland) Orders.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock
TUESDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (4th Allotted Day). Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Congestion and safety in transport". Afterwards, there will be a debate entitled "The Government's failure properly to support science and scientific research". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motions on the Local Authority Social Services (Designation of Functions) Order and the Access to Personal Files (Social Services) Regulations and the Access to Personal Files (Housing) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Debate on a motion to take note of the White Paper "Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality" (Cm. 517). Details of the relevant Home Affairs Committee reports will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Inner London Education Authority) Order.
THURSDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Debate on a motion to take note of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1989–90 to 1991–92" (Cm. 601).
Motion to take note of EC documents on credit institutions. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Until 7 o'clock, private Members' motions.
There will be a debate on a Government motion on agriculture.
[Debate on Wednesday 8 February: Relevant Home Affairs Committee reports. 3rd report, Session 1987–88 on the future of broadcasting (HC 262); 2nd special report, Session 1987–88 the Government's reply (HC 737)
Thursday 9 February 1989
Relevant European Community documents:

(a) 4794/88

Credit institutions: regulatory framework

(b) 9224/86

Credit institutions: "Own Funds"

(c) 4339/88

Credit institutions: "Own Funds"

(d) 6033/88

Solvency ratio for credit institutions

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 15-iii (1988–89), para 3

(b) HC 21-xxix (1985–86) para 11

(c) HC 43-xix (1987–88) para 10,

HC 43-xxxv (1987–88) para 8,

HC 43-xxxviii (1987–88) para 4 and

HC 15-ii (1988–89) para 2

(d) HC 43-xxxviii (1987–88) para 5.]

Mr. Dobson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. When shall we have a debate on the Fennell report into the King's Cross fire, as it is almost three months since the report was published? When can we expect a debate on the proposals to phase out student grants and replace them with loans to students? When can we expect the Government to respond to the report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts on child care, a subject of particular importance to children and of almost equal importance to mothers in this country? Will he report on any progress that has been made in talks about establishing a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?
When can we expect the Government to present a Bill to prevent the buying and selling of human organs? The Government promised in 1985 to consider special legislation to outlaw this repulsive trade, which was brought into this country by American private hospitals. So far, the Government have only issued letters and given the occasional slap on the wrist. If it will encourage the Government to introduce a Bill, I promise that the Opposition would facilitate the passage of any measure which effectively outlawed this filthy trade.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has asked me five questions about next week's business, one or two of which I think he has asked before. I am not sure that I can be much more helpful, but I know that it is a busy day for the hon. Gentleman. He will be appearing on television tonight, and I hope that his career will not be in jeopardy as a result.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Fennell report, as he has done before. I recognise that he wants a debate on it. I cannot promise him a debate, but I should have thought that some of the points he might want to make would be relevant to the debate on Tuesday. I realise, however, that that is not a substitute.
The period of consultation on student grants is not yet over, and again I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future. The Government will be responding in due course to the Select Committee report on child care, but I have no news of when that response will be available.
On the question of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, as I said last week, I am due to see two of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends to discuss the way forward, and I do not believe that it would be wise for me to make any more statements until I have had a chance to hear their views.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that the Opposition would facilitate any additional legislation that might be necessary to deal with the totally abhorrent business of buying and selling kidneys and other human organs. The Department of Health is looking at this matter urgently, and will no doubt make a report in due course.
Sir William Clark: Would my right hon. Friend give thought to the possibility of a debate on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Does he not agree that there must be something wrong with the law whereby, if the MMC gives approval to a bid, the bid must go through and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no power whatsoever to stop it—despite the fact that the DTI inspectors looked at share dealings in Consolidated Goldfields and it has now been agreed that the Minorco bid should go forward? If, indeed, the investigation into share dealings reveals that there has

429
been insider dealing, presumably the bid will have to be unscrambled. Surely there is something wrong with the law if we allow it to go forward, then find that there is something wrong with it and have to unscramble it.
Mr. Wakeham: As my hon. Friend knows, the purpose of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission legislation is to deal with matters other than the questions that are the subject of the DTI investigation. It just happens that both are there at the same time. As a result of the MMC determination my right hon. Friend has no powers under the Fair Trading Act. With regard to the inspectors' investigation, I do not believe we should judge anything until we have the inspectors' report.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Would the Leader of the House be a little more specific about the unnamed debate on agriculture on 13 February? Is he aware that since most of the matters relating to agriculture come from Brussels, the Select Committee on European Legislation at this time of the year normally looks at the price proposals, takes evidence from the Minister, and reports to the House, and there is then a debate? In view of his oft-repeated wish, and the wish of the House, that there should he more effective scrutiny of EEC matters, would he now give an undertaking that the debate on Monday week will not concern the EEC price proposals or matters relating thereto?
Mr. Wakeham: What I will do is tell the hon. Gentleman that I will write to him about the debate. I would not want to go ahead with it if he did not think this was a satisfactory time for it. It is arranged provisionally for a week next Monday, so we have time to consider the points that he wants to make.
Mr. William Cash (Stafford): Does my right hon. Friend recall that late last night an EEC directive, which had reached a common position without debate in the House, was to be considered? My right hon. Friend was good enough to withdraw the motion on the Order Paper about that directive because there had been no debate before the position was adopted, and it appeared that we would have no debate last night. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is increasing concern in this House about debates before common positions or directives are adopted? Will he take appropriate steps to ensure that that does not happen in future?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that the recent history as my hon. Friend recalls it is quite accurate. I believe that the matter was put down for debate. Unfortunately, the Opposition Member who was due to take part in it did not turn up. Therefore, there was not a very prolonged debate. The matter came before the House and there was some dissatisfaction about the situation. I agreed not to move the motion on the Order Paper, so that discussions could take place. It was no fault of the Government that the debate did not take place.
Mr. David Winnick: May I first of all sympathise with the Leader of the House on the widespread media reports that he is due to be dismissed —[Interruption.] Well, representations can no doubt be made to the Prime Minister on his behalf. When is the Companies Bill due to come to this House? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the amendment carried in the Lords against the Government, which in
430
effect will mean that no donation could be made to a political party without the shareholders' approval, should not be changed in any way? Does not the Leader of the House recognise that the way in which the Tory party is run, internaly and financially, is so murky and disturbing that reform is absolutely essential?
Mr. Wakeham: On the first of the hon. Gentleman's comments, it is an interesting subject for speculation whether there is any conceivable circumstance in which he might have a job from which he might be dismissed. That circumstance is very unlikely. On the second question, the Companies Bill is before the other place, which has its procedures and will deal with the Bill. It will then come before this House and we will have plenty of opportunities to discuss it.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in the middle east believe that this country has a special and historic responsibility to take initiatives to find peace in that region? Following the recent visit of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the region, and bearing in mind the forthcoming visit of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commomwealth Office, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House give careful consideration to an early debate which would be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House to allow us an opportunity to comment on the fast-moving and critical situation in that area?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the efforts of my colleagues in the middle east, an area where traditionally we have has considerable influence. I recognise the need for a debate in the not-too-distant future. I cannot promise a debate at the moment, but I will bear it in mind.
Mr. Greville Janner: Can the right hon. Gentleman promise the House a debate on the Government's apparent continued determination that Britain will be represented at the funeral of Emperor Hirohito by the Duke of Edinburgh—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."]. It is not a matter for groaning. The mail that I have received about that is greater than about any other topic since I have been a Member of this House. The country is outraged about what is happening, as more and more revelations emerge about the way in which our troops were treated during the last war. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Prime Minister's reply to me in essence was that we trade with that country? As it is to be a working funeral, perhaps a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry can make a statement to the House.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems, in his concern about this issue, to be distorting the position, which has been set out clearly by my right hon and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. It would not be right for me to add to anything that he has said.
Mr. David Nicholson: In view of the front-page story in today's Daily Telegraph about a possible Government package on Sunday trading, will the House have a chance to debate that subject before the

431
Government reach firmer conclusions? Will the House have an opportunity to debate the recent White Paper on the future of development plans?
Mr. Wakeham: With regard to a debate on Sunday trading, there are more ways of initiating debate in the House than through me. I have no plans for a debate on that subject at present, but I shall listen to any suggestions from my hon. Friend. Nor have I any immediate plans for a debate on the development plan issue that he raised.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House organise a debate about the PCW fraud, involving Peter Cameron-Webb and Peter Dixon, who conveniently have been in the United States for more than five years, which is beyond the extradition period? In that time the Government have done nothing whatsoever about the affair. Was that cover-up primarily to provide protection for those in the Lloyd's insurance market and those in high places at the Bank of England, who have managed to protect those two people? Will the Leader of the House tell us the views of the Government and the Attorney-General now that that £40 million has been taken? Can we have an assurance that the Government will take some steps to make sure that action is taken on that matter?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's twisted mind sometimes allows him to ramble a little. The position is very simple. If there is evidence that can be brought before a court of law, the authorities responsible for prosecution in this country will bring that evidence and will dispose of it. It is not a matter for the Government to bring prosecutions.
Mr. Michael Latham: Since on at least one morning next week it is likely to be snowing, raining or freezing, how is my right hon. Friend getting on with providing some protection for our constituents who wish to visit this place and who are likely to have to stand in the rain, the snow or the frost?
Mr. Wakeham: I guess that my hon. Friend is referring to the matter that he has raised with me before. As I said then, it is being considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee. When it has deliberated, we will be able to take the matter further.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: In view of the long time since the report came out, and the importance of the issue, is it not time that the House debated the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure?
Mr. Wakeham: Yes, I have promised a debate on that, and I hope to arrange it in the not-too-distant future. However, I think it is important that the many interests involved have a chance to study what the hon. Gentleman will recognise is a complex and difficult subject. Many Government Departments are involved in those matters, and at the moment I am seeking their views on the report. It is an important report and I should like us to have an informed debate after proper consideration.
Sir Anthony Grant: Has my right hon. Friend noted early-day motion No. 250, which refers to the recommendations of the Trade and
432
Industry Select Committee, and urges that petrol prices continue to be displayed in gallons rather than only in litres?
[That this House notes the recommendation of the Trade and Industry Committee that petrol prices should continue to be displayed in gallon as well as litre term on boards visible from the roadside; notes that the Price Marking ( Petrol) (Amendment) Order 1988 will remove this requirement with effect from 23rd January; and calls for a debate on the Order.]
As it has been signed by no fewer than 202 hon. Members on both sides of the House, will he arrange an early debate on the subject?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that a number of my hon. Friends have asked for a debate on that subject. Since last week, I have had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In the light of those discussions, my right hon. Friend has today written to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) in his capacity as Chairman of the Trade and Industry Select Committee and suggested discussions on how best to proceed.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I take the Leader of the House back to the matter of private Bill procedure? What is the delay in our having a "take note" debate on the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure? It would be only a "take note" debate and would not require any Executive decision. The Leader of the House knows there is a great deal of feeling on both sides of the House about the way in which the private Bill procedure is used—for example, in the most recent cases on the siting of the second London terminal for the Channel tunnel and the building problem that the Government will have to face concerning the fast route through Kent. There is no reason at all for extending consultation; the right hon. Gentleman should let us have that "take note" debate now. If he will not let us have a debate on a report that has already been produced, when will we receive the report on televising Parliament? It is not fair that the Leader of the House should treat us like this.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is pushing at an open door. I am trying not to delay a debate on the private Bill procedure report but am doing much by collecting the views of Departments so that I can make an informed speech to the House. The hon. Gentleman may like to have debates in which knowledge and information are not purveyed; I prefer debates in which some information is given. I am with the hon. Gentleman in wanting that debate as soon as it can practicably be arranged. [Interruption.] There is no need for him to get excited about it—I am on his side. I will be happy when the report of the Select Committee on televising the House is written and it reports to the House. We are proceeding as fast as we can.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: When may we expect a debate on the National Health Service White Paper? Given the interest in Health Service debates, and the fact that many hon. Members are unable to speak in them, will my right hon. Friend allocate two days for it?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is pushing his luck a bit; he has not got one day out of me yet. I recognise the need for a debate, but hon. Members would do better to study carefully what my right hon. and learned Friend the

433
Secretary of State for Health proposes in the White Paper. It is an important and comprehensive review, and I should wish us to debate it when that period of study has elapsed.
Mr. Keith Vaz: The Leader of the House was not present during Home Office questions, so he would not have heard the Home Secretary's statement that he knew of no police authority that had contracted out services. Leicestershire education authority employs private contractors—private police officers—to patrol its schools. Bearing in mind the fact that, on Monday, the Home Secretary announced the allocation of additional police officers, and the grave concern in Leicestershire that only 27 of the 89 officers requested have been approved, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this important subject? Will he have a word with the Home Secretary and tell him that it is not on to release important material by press release? The best way for him to announce allocations is to make a statement to the House so that he can be questioned on it.
Mr. Wakeham: Even though I was not here, somehow I seem to know what my right hon. Friend said. He was talking about police forces, and what he said was correct. The hon. Gentleman is raising a matter that he should take up with the local education authority.
Mr. David Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that today is the first anniversary of the P and 0 dispute at Dover? Might it not be an appropriate subject for debate, given that pickets and demonstrators have abused their position over the past year and, as part of that abuse, have thrown beer at an eight-year-old child, reducing her to tears, and have been involved in furthering the dispute?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that residents around the port of Dover are still suffering and that employees are still being intimidated on their way to work? In the debate, would it not be appropriate to state that the police have been exceedingly reasonable—some would say overly reasonable—to pickets and demonstrators? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be appropriate to include in the debate the fact that, over the past year, Labour Members of Parliament have been on the picket lines encouraging disgraceful acts of intimidation?
Mr. Wakeham: Subject to you, Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the subject raised by my hon. Friend would be appropriate to Tuesday's debate on transport.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Given the undoubted and welcome increase in charitable giving over the past few years, does the Leader of the House think that it would be a good idea to have a debate on charitable giving so that we can deploy our case and listen to the arguments and excuses of Conservative Members, who try to defend the unlawful channelling of charitable funds to the Conservative party?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman makes statements that cannot be backed up and that are wholly unjustified. He is perfectly right to draw the House's attention to the substantial increase in charitable giving. A great deal of it is due partly to the increased prosperity under this Government and to the better fiscal climate created by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend will recall that, last week, I asked him a question about the way in which the Manx Government and island were run
434
and he agreed to write to me. I want to thank him for his courteous and kind letter about the swindles of people in this country that have been carried out in the name of the Manx Government—perhaps even by the Manx Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be some concern about the legalised swindle of the charges made by the official receivers and liquidators in a £42 million case? Of that, £12 million has been found, of which the liquidators have paid themselves £6 million.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend did not say whether that was an extension of his Isle of Man question or another question, but he raises an important point. I cannot find time for a debate on it immediately, but it may be a subject on which my hon. Friend can try for an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Now that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has concluded its investigations into the sleazy business of telephone chat lines, which has been speculated on widely over the past few days, will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on the topic?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to see what his views are, and I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since Labour took control of Ealing council fewer than three years ago, there has been a plague of rats in the borough, which is a serious matter? It is not helped by the fact that the roads were not swept for three weeks over Christmas and that some have not been swept for two years. The refuse was not collected for a few weeks either. Residents in the borough are having to pay an extra 35 per cent. in rates for reduced services and a plague of rats, so could we have an early debate on seeking means to force Ealing council to improve its services to the people —and at a reasonable price?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his own point. I wish that I could offer him an early debate on the subject. However, I know his ingenuity, and I have no doubt that he will find a way to make his point effectively.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: When we have a debate on agriculture on 13 February, will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement on the allegation on Scottish television last week and in the press this week that there has been a cover-up by the Ministry on radiation levels in two parts of Scotland, one of which—Tinto hill and Carstairs—is in my constituency? Will the Minister answer those allegations and give an explanation on 13 February?
Mr. Wakeham: I suspect that that matter falls within the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there has not been a cover-up, and I shall see that someone writes to him with the information he seeks.
Mr. John Marshall: Can my right hon. Friend promise the House an early debate on the future of the national dock labour scheme, which has

435
effectively destroyed jobs and killed the competitiveness of scheme ports and runs counter to the principle of economic deregulation of which he and I are proud?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend and others feel strongly on the matter. It featured quite extensively in the debate on the Employment Bill, which will be returning to the Floor of the House. I cannot promise my hon. Friend additional time to discuss the matter, but I recognise its importance.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Leader of the House accept that there is growing public disquiet over the apparent link between aluminium in water and Alzheimer's disease, which is also commonly referred to as senile dementia? That concern was made far worse by the disaster at Camelford in Cornwall, the ill health that people are still suffering and the fact that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has admitted that there are dangerous levels of aluminium, exceeding EEC drinking water regulations, in many parts of the country, including the north Yorkshire villages of Boltby and Sutton under Whitestonecliffe? Will the right hon. Gentleman allow time for the House to debate that important matter of public disquiet?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise time now, although, if there is a statement or announcement to be made by my right hon. Friend, I shall certainly find time for that, and I shall refer the matter to him.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an amendment to the Employment Bill currently before the House might be the way to bring about the abolition of the national dock labour scheme? Is he aware that the number of registered dockers has dropped from 78,000 to fewer than 9,500, and that those of us who represent portside constituencies are concerned that, with the species of registered dockers, are dying our ports in our areas, and that action is long overdue?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern. I do not know that I should speculate about the effectiveness of amendments that he may or may not table, but I note his point.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Would the Leader of the House care to consider the insulting and ignorant reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Is he really unaware that it is the Attorney-General who has masterminded the abysmal attempts over the past five years to extradite Peter Cameron-Webb and Peter Dixon in connection with the Lloyd's fraud in which £40 million was stolen? The Attorney-General keeps telling me that he cannot get the co-operation of the Swiss authorities. Does the Leader of the House believe that he has the right to be complacent when two people who have stolen £40 million are rubbing lotion into their private parts on sun-kissed beaches in the southern hemisphere?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not being complacent about anything. The Attorney-General has his responsibilities as a Law Officer of the Crown and they are different from his responsibilities—and mine—as a member of the Government. I am sure that my right hon. and learned
436 Friend has discharged his obligations to the best of his ability and that, if it were possible and right to bring charges in court, he would have done so; but it is not for me to comment on that.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, while the Government's statistics published under the Animals (Scientific) Procedures Act 1986 are most welcome, they do not cover certain very important areas, such as the severity of the pain caused to animals under live experiments over a length of time? Does my right hon. Friend accept that these gaps exist, that corrections have already been made in the published statistics and that it is an issue that is not only important to many people but causes great anxiety to people in this country? Therefore, please may we have a debate early on in the Session so that these statistics—the first set of statistics—can be discussed, and suggestions put forward for their improvement?
Mr. Wakeham: Of course it is an important subject, and I recognise my hon. Friend's concern about it but it is also important that we should not exaggerate the position. Unfortunately, there was a small error in two of the tables in respect of safety studies. The total number of procedures under the heading "safety studies" should have been around 244,000 instead of 247,000. The figures were correctly given in subsequent tables. This is an extremely complex analysis. Corrected figures will be published in the 1988 statistics in the middle of this year and we are grateful to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and, indeed, to my hon. Friend for pointing out the error.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House consider initiating a debate next week on the machinery of government? We could then discuss the need for guidelines for the employment of parliamentary advisers to the Government, who have been something of a heterogeneous collection since 1979. They have included Peter Shipley, a former member of the National Front, who apparently escaped the scrutiny of special branch, Peter Luff, who is employed by a company that is being investigated by the Department of Trade and Industry which he is advising, and Sir Jeffrey Sterling of P and O, who is apparently meddling in the Department of Transport although ostensibly he is at the Department of Trade and Industry.
Why does only the Prime Minister have the guts to reveal the staggering amount of money paid to these people, while every other Department which employs Tory advisers at a cost to the taxpayer of millions of pounds refuses to reveal the exact amounts? The Prime Minister alone is prepared to accept that she is paying her Tory chums hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman pursues his own course. Special advisers—not unknown under the Government of which he was a member—are appointed under well laid down procedures properly controlled under the arrangements for the Civil Service, and I do not believe that there is call for a debate on the subject.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why is the Leader of the House positively and vigorously obstructing a debate on the Procedure Committee's recommendations? Who is winding him up? Why is he doing it?
Mr. Wakeham: As I am not, the second part of the question does not arise.

Point of Order
4.6 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last weekend, I sent you a request, saying that I hoped to catch your eye during yesterday's debate on low pay. I had not asked to speak for some months, other than on behalf of the New Building Sub-Committee whose report I presented some weeks ago. I asked permission to speak yesterday as the senior Member sponsored by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which has 400,000 members, quite a number of whom are on low pay, and because I am also connected directly with the wages councils. When I approached you—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I regret that I am not prepared to debate with any hon. Member why he has not been called.
Mr. Powell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Looking for the pecking order, you told me that it might not be possible for me, as an Opposition Whip, to be called—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it would be very unwise for the hon. Gentleman to pursue private conversations that he has had with me. If he has a complaint, I suggest that he comes to see me about it. 1 shall gladly deal with it, but not on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: But not on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Powell: It is a genuine point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take issue with me, I shall certainly take issue with him publicly.
Mr. Powell: All right, Mr. Speaker, that may be so, but it is an important point of order. We accept responsibility in the Whips Office, but we do not want to be denied the opportunity to speak because we are in the Whips Office. You, Mr. Speaker, should be well aware of that, having been an Opposition Whip in the past. We do not expect to be denied the right to be called. I seek your ruling on whether Opposition Members who are Whips will be called on issues directly affecting them and on which they wish to make representations. The Liberal Chief Whip was called yesterday, yet Opposition Whips were refused.
Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to debate that matter with the hon. Gentleman. Every hon. Member is dealt with fairly, but Opposition Front Bench spokesmen should not expect to have the same precedence in debate as Back Benchers, who have a pretty rough life.

Orders of the Day

  Official Secrets Bill
  Committee [Progress, 25 January]
  [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]
  4.8 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I am sure that you will agree that this is wholly appropriate to the Committee consideration of a Bill. When we came to the end of our deliberations last week, the Minister of State was pressed from both sides of the House to state the position of solicitors who might be consulted by men and women who believed—or, more important, had been told—that they were the victims of improper actions by the Security Service. The Minister of State gave what we believed to be a considered reply, which appeared in column 1109 of Hansard for 25 January. He said that the passing of such information to solicitors would be covered by what he described as "legal professional privilege." I have now received a letter from the president of the Law Society saying that that statement is simply untrue. [Interruption.] I revise my judgment: the letter says that it is inaccurate.
  With your permission, Mr. Walker, I shall read what the president of the Law Society says about the position of men and women who seek advice from a solicitor having been told that they are the subject of improper activity on the part of the Security Service:
  "It is not only members of the security services who would have difficulty in seeking legal advice: the difficulty appears to apply to any person who can commit the various offences under the Bill relating to unauthorised disclosure."
  According to the president of the Law Society, men and women who may regard themselves as illegally treated by the security services are prohibited by the Bill from taking legal advice.
  I do not wish to pursue the matter at any length today, as we have a fundamentally important debate ahead of us. I simply ask the Minister of State to assure us that, having given advice which appears in Hansard but which is categorically wrong, he will take the first chance he gets to correct that advice.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) raises an issue of which I am not aware. He has not given me prior notice of the letter, nor have I had a copy of the letter from the president of the Law Society. If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to let me have a copy, I shall consider in detail what the letter says.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): The Committee will recognise that these are not matters for the Chair, but for debate.

  Official Secrets Bill
    Clause 1

      SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 1, line 9, after 'authority' insert 'or justification'.
      The Chairman: With this, we may discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in page 1, line 10, after 'relating to' insert 'the lawful activities of.
      No. 2, in page 1, line 10, at end insert 'activities'.
      No. 90, in page 1, line 13, at end insert—
      '(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a disclosure is made with justification if the person making the disclosure has reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to make it to indicate the existence of crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect of public duty or a threat to public safety.'
      No. 81, in page 1, line 27, after first 'the' insert 'lawful'.
      No. 19, in page 2, line 24, after 'the' insert 'lawful'.
      No. 94, in page 5, line 23, after 'if', insert
      'other than for the purposes of consulting a solicitor in relation to any unlawful activities of the security or intelligence services'
      New clause 1—Public interest defence (No. 1)
      'It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Act to prove that disclosure or retention of the information or article was in the public interest in that he had reasonable cause to believe that it indicated the existence of crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect in the performance of official duty or other misconduct.'.
      New clause 4—Public interest defence (No. 2)
      '.—(1) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Act to prove that the disclosure or retention of the information, document or other article was in the public interest insofar as he had reasonable cause to believe that it indicated the existence of crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect in the performance of official duty or other misconduct.
      (2) In the case of a Crown servant or government contractor charged with an offence under sections 1, 2, 3. 4, 6 or 8 of this Act subsection (1) above shall only apply if he has taken reasonable steps to comply with any established procedures for drawing such misconduct to the attention of the appropriate authorities without effect.'.
      New clause 5—Public interest defence (No. 3)
      '(1) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Act to prove that the disclosure of information, document or other article for which he has been charged was in the public interest, having regard both to any damage actually caused by the disclosure and any benefit to the public interest from it; or that he had reasonable cause to believe at the time of the disclosure that it was so in the public interest.
      (2) In the case of a Crown servant, government contractor or person notified under section 1, the defence in subsection (1) above shall only be available if he has, without effect taken reasonable steps to comply with any established procedures for making such disclosures to the appropriate authorities.'.
      New clause 8—Disclosures where public safety is threatened
      '( ) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Act to show that the disclosure or retention of the information, document or other article was in the public interest insofar as it revealed the existence of an imminent and serious threat to public health or safety, provided that effective steps to remove that threat had not been taken.'.
      New clause 10—Disclosure of evidence of fraud
      'It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Act to prove that the disclosure indicated the existence of fraud, corruption or the misappropriation of public funds which had been reported to the appropriate authorities without effect.'.
      Mr. Dalyell: As clause 1 stands, the situation could arise in which a person would be automatically guilty of a criminal offence without any possibility of a defence of any kind if it was true that he made a relevant disclosure without lawful authority. The words "without lawful authority" are not defined and are unacceptably imprecise. They would be open to wide or narrow construction by the courts.

      441
      The primary purpose of amendment No. 91 is to avoid the potentially absurd situation in which, for example, a senior official was automatically guilty of a criminal offence because it was held that lie had made a disclosure, that the courts might in future hold to have been done "without lawful authority". Amendment No. 91 seeks simply to introduce the words "or justification" after "lawful authority", so leaving it open for the courts to determine, according to the circumstances of the particular case, whether the disclosure was justified in the absence of lawful authority.
      Justification must, of course, be defined and that is the purpose of amendment No. 90. In substance, it amounts to the same thing as some of the public interest defences proposed by the new clauses. Technically, however, amendments Nos. 90 and 91 are preferable, as they avoid the difficult situation where a judge has to explain to a jury the difference between a primary charge where the onus, as always, is on the prosecution, and a defence where the onus is on the accused. Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 ensure that the absence of authority, or justification, is built into the primary charge, clearly leaving the onus where it should be—always on the prosecution. The content of amendment No. 90 is, of course, open to discussion, but the principle is sound.
      The amendment raises issues of fundamental importance to the House—the duty of Ministers to tell the truth, and the abhorrence felt by hon. Members on all sides, regardless of party if the House is deliberately deceived. We require that the truth he told to us, and not merely as a matter of personal ethics, for to deceive Parliament is a far greater offence than to deceive one's associates. It is an offence against the basis of our system of democracy.
      4.15 pm
      How do we in the House protect ourselves against this injury? We may cross-examine Ministers on the Floor of the House or in Select Committee. But if Ministers wish to choose to remain silent and refuse to justify their statements or to document their assertions, they do so; and if they wish to prevent their officials from replying to questions, the officials do not reply.
      Hon. Members will remember how many vital questions about the conduct of the Westland affair were never answered, either on the Floor of the House or before the Select Committee. I refer, just in passing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to Sir Leon Brittan's appearance before the distinguished Select Committee on Defence. If I may be forgiven for saying so, I refer, also in passing, to the Prime Minister's answer to question No. 2 this afternoon. Do not be under any illusion that parliamentary questions provide any kind of effective scrutiny of legitimate issues.
      This afternoon I had a substantial question on the Order Paper—not one of those open questions—but the Prime Minister was easily able to brush it aside because of the nature of parliamentary questions. I use that as an example of why it is necessary to have this sort of amendment.
      How does the amendment protect us against injury? I believe that anyone reading our proceedings in Hansard of 25 January would be rather shocked that an officer of the security services who informed an hon. Member that his or her phone was being tapped illegally would commit an offence. By illegally, I mean without a warrant or any suggestion that it is required in the interests of national security.
      442
      Where the interception is done for purely a party political reason, how do we treat the officer who reveals such disgraceful behaviour? The Government have put before us a Bill that proposes that he or she be put in prison for as long as two years. The House should not accept that disgraceful proposition.
      How does the Bill protect us from a Minister who tells untruths to the House? It does not protect us; in fact, it protects the Minister. If a lie is exposed by someone who has been privy to the private discussions of those involved, the Bill punishes that person. He or she may be prosecuted, and cannot argue that the disclosure exposed was a deliberate deceit of the House, or that the disclosure protected the rights of the House to be told the truth,
      Ministers know that if they sought to suppress such a disclosure by an injunction, they would have grave difficulty in securing it. They might obtain a temporary injunction, but ultimately there would be a full hearing. If the defendant showed that a disclosure revealed iniquity, the injunction would not be granted. That is how the courts have interpreted the civil law of confidence.
      Hon. Members know that section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 has been used to punish those who have exposed the dishonesty of Ministers, and have been caught acting essentially as deep throats. It has been used by the Government. I will say more about it in relation to the case of Clive Ponting, but not at inordinate length.
      This is a non-party matter The Sunday Telegraph trial of 1970 was brought by a Labour Attorney-General over disclosures showing that Parliament had been deceived by Ministers of that Government. It would be better for the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to deal with that case in greater detail, but 1 recognise that I do not speak on a party basis.
      I deliberately mentioned both cases, because it is not a party political matter. The use of the law in this way and the use to which the new Bill may so easily be put are offences against the House as a whole. I crave the indulgence of my colleagues to say a little about the case of Clive Ponting. In a sense., I have seen the Bill as an anti-Clive Ponting jury Bill. We may not have had this debate had it not been for the Ponting case. Other than when there were heavy three-line Whips, I attended the 11-day hearing at the Old Bailey. I speak against that background because there are lessons to be drawn.
      The Clive Ponting case was unique and it strongly influenced the Government's approach to replacing section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. In the public mind, whatever Governments may say about the unanimous verdict of not guilty, the Ponting trial jury clearly established that the interests of the state are not necessarily the same as the interests of the Government of the day. It also established that Clive Ponting's action of disclosure could be successfully defended in court under section 2(1)(a) of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which states that it is not a misdemeanour to communicate information to
      "a person to whom it is in interest of the State his duty to communicate it"
      In other words, in such circumstances a civil servant can claim a public interest defence.
      As hon. Members know, the Government were extremely displeased with the outcome of the Ponting trial.

      443
      From the Official Secrets Bill it has become clear that the Government are intent on reversing the precedents that were established in the Ponting case.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that the document that he received from the gentleman he mentioned suggested that the Government were economical with the truth in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee? It revealed that any extension of what he called "our joint position"—that is, the Government's position—would reveal what I consider to be at least a disreputable diplomatic manoeuvre. Might it not be an even stronger case to say that if a Labour Government embarked on a questionable and controversial exercise, perhaps controlled by three leading members of the Cabinet, Conservative Members might agree that Mr. Ponting's action was the right thing in the national interest? Is that not the objective test that we should apply, and does it not support the argument?
      Mr. Dalyell: I am careful on this subject. Before giving blank assent to what my hon. Friend has said, it would be more appropriate to read Hansard. I think that I agree with that proposition.
      I think that I know Conservative Members' views on the behaviour of Mr. Ponting, but I say one thing in riposte. Mr. Ponting acted as he did because he was outraged at the treatment of Parliament. I speak for myself, and I believe that that was his motive.
      Mr. Ray Whitney: On the behaviour of Mr. Ponting—I hope not to detain the hon. Gentleman too
      long—does he agree with the assessment in Mr. David Hooper's book? There is no question that Mr. David Hooper supports the Government on these matters. He said that the odds were long against Mr. Ponting being acquitted at the trial. He went on to say:
      "However, Ponting's choice of Dalyell, who was neither his constituency MP nor a Privy Councillor and had form for leaking, his attempt to remove all identifying marks from the documents, his alleged untruthfulness when first asked whether he was the culprit, his failure to exhaust Civil Service remedies for his grievances, and his attempts to blame others were better explanations of the odds."
      Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?
      Mr. Dalyell: I do not know whether it is realistic to expect Mr. Ponting to knock on Sir Robert Armstrong's door and say "Please, sir, I do not think that the Government are behaving very properly."
      Mr. John Patten: Why not?
      Mr. Dalyell: From a sedentary position, the Minister asks "Why not?" Career matters and a human factor are involved. There are real problems in using the usual channels. I think it is slightly egregious to say that the Cabinet Secretary is always available.
      Mr. Norman Buchan: On the specific point about Mr. Ponting speaking to Sir Robert Armstrong, he was a Cabinet Secretary who was quite prepared on a later occasion to accept that he was being "economical with the truth". Was there any reason for Mr. Ponting to think that the truth would necessarily have been delivered had he spoken to Sir Robert?
      Mr. Dalyell: That is a hypothetical or rhetorical question. I should like to reply to my hon. Friend who made a friendly interruption and to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney).
      I read one chapter of Mr. Hooper's book, but not the one which the hon. Gentleman quoted. I did not read the whole book. The hon. Member for Wycombe quoted Mr. Hooper as saying that Dalyell behaved in such a way. Dalyell behaved quite properly on that occasion, because I did not go to the press. I kept it as a proceeding in Parliament. I went frankly to Anthony Kershaw, who was the Chairman of the Select Committee. I was naive enough to imagine that he would be schocked at how his Select Committee had been deceived. It was Kershaw's responsibility. He immediately went to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I did the proper thing, because that kept it as a proceeding in Parliament. I do not know whether it weighed with the Ponting jury, but it certainly was a factor.
      Mr. Chris Smith: As the constituency Member for Clive Ponting, I put two brief propositions to my hon. Friend. First, it was perfectly understandable and justifiable that Mr. Ponting chose my hon. Friend as the person to send the information to. He knew that my hon. Friend had been asking serious questions about the matter germane to the information that he had. It was because of those questions and because of my hon. Friend's known interest in the matter that he chose that route of disclosure. That seems to me to be an entirely justifiable course of action.
      Secondly, it was quite clear that, when called upon to come to a verdict at the Old Bailey, the jury rapidly and unanimously rejected the clear advice that they had been given by the judge that the interests of the state spelt out in the existing law were exactly equal to the decisions of the Government of the day. The jury rightly rejected that advice from the judge. That surely is the nub of the point that my hon. Friend is making.
      Mr. Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend not confine himself solely to the case of Mr. Ponting? I agree that Mr. Ponting was right and that the jury was right. But this is a much wider issue involving the rights of all people, whether they are civil servants or others, who will be affected by the Bill. The nitty-gritty of what happened in relation to Mr. Ponting is agreed. I think most hon. Members with any intelligence accept that the jury was right. I hope that my hon. Friend will come to the wider issue of all who may be affected by the Bill. I accept that Mr. Ponting's case was of great importance, but it is not the only issue involved.
      Mr. Dalyell: I accept that it is not the only case. There are many other hon. Members in the Chamber who are supremely qualified to talk on general issues. I think that I am justified in detaining the Committee a little longer on what happened at the Old Bailey, because there are important lessons to be learnt for the amendment from those proceedings.
      The Government intend to make it impossible for a civil servant ever again to claim a public interest defence should he reveal privately to a Member of Parliament that

      445
      Ministers are intentionally misleading Parliament. This has never been tested in the higher courts or by the Law Lords. I see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), the former Solicitor-General, nodding his head. The Bill raises a crucial question. Is the security of the state enhanced by preventing Parliament from being informed when it has been misled intentionally by Government Ministers? As Mr. Bruce Laughland, QC for Clive Ponting, said:
      "This is not a case about spying. It is a case about lying or misleading Parliament."
      In view of the constitutional importance of the Ponting case, it is worth recalling certain significant aspects of the highly political trial, particularly the extraordinary events of 6 and 7 February 1985 which were not fully publicised and which revealed clearly what the Government were about.
      The Government did everything in their power to secure the conviction of Clive Ponting. In The Guardian of 13 September 1984 there had been a reference to a meeting of Whitehall information officers at which the Prime Minister's press secretary, Mr. Bernard Ingham, was reported to have said that the Government were quite set on prosecution; indeed, it was hoped that an appropriately severe member of the judiciary would be on hand to hear the case. Mr. Ingham was reported to have named a couple of judges whom he thought suitable. It was also said that he regretted that Judge Jeffreys had passed on. Then the Government ensured that the trial jury was vetted, even though, as Mr. Roy Amlot QC, prosecution counsel, said on the first day of the trial:
      "It is not suggested that the disclosure in fact damaged national security."
      I think I have the assent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) on that.
      At lunch time on Wednesday, 6 February 1985—day 8 of the trial—some extraordinary and revealing events started to take place in court No. 2 at the Old Bailey. Just before 1 o'clock, the judge, Mr. Justice McCowan, sent the jury home until 10.30 am the next day as the afternoon was to be taken up with legal submissions relating to legal definitions of the offence and the terms of the judge's pending summing up to the jury. The press and the public were present throughout the afternoon and the judge did not put any reporting restrictions on the events that took place.
      As a consequence The Observer of 10 February 1985 carried an article by David Leigh on the afternoon's proceedings. It was the only newspaper to report those events, although Ivan Rowan in the Sunday Telegraph of the same date wrote:
      "Because the jury was out of court, I cannot tell you what was said. . . . This particular afternoon—it was Wednesday— turned into an absolute thriller, with a double-twist at the very end that even Agatha Christie never equalled."
      Because the public and the press were allowed to remain in court that afternoon, they were given a remarkable insight into the behind-the-scenes working of the supposedly non-political trial.
      The first bombshell was dropped immediately before lunch, just after the jury had left the court. The judge indicated that if he accepted the prosecution's submission, he would have no alternative but to direct the jury to convict. After lunch, detailed discussions took place on the meanings of the two key words in the trial—"duty" and "state". The judge told the prosecution counsel, Mr. Amlot, that if he, the judge, accepted the prosecution's
      446
      definition of the interest of the state, that is, that this was synonymous with the policies of the Government of the day, as he was inclined to do, he would have no alternative but to direct the jury to convict. Mr. Amlot responded:
      "I would be very reluctant to seek to persuade you to a direction to convict".
      The judge repeated his opinion. Mr. Amlot stressed his point by saying, in very positive terms:
      "I am very reluctant in this of all cases that you should finish up directing the jury to convict".
      The Home Secretary shakes his head; he will no doubt make his own speech, but I think that there is an important point here. It reveals that Roy Amlot had very grave doubts about precisely what we are now being expected to do as a House of Commons. We look to the Home Secretary for an explanation of the difficult problem of direction of a jury.
      Mr. Justice McCowan pointed out that it would be very difficult for a judge to invite a jury to convict if the prosecution counsel for the Crown advised otherwise. Mr. Amlot asked if he could reflect on the matter overnight. The judge said that he would prefer a short adjournment that day. That was agreed. Mr. Amlot hurriedly wrote a note to Sir Thomas Hetherington, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who was sitting behind him, as he had been throughout the trial. The DPP quickly left the court, almost certainly to seek guidance; at least, that is what I thought. Meanwhile, Mr. Amlot continued by pointing out that it would be unconstitutional for a judge to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty.
      Mr. Peter Archer: That is the case.
      Mr. Dalyell: He said that a judge might give his opinion as advice, but not direction. I am glad to have the assent of my right hon. and learned Friend, a former Solicitor-General.
      Sir Peter Hetherington returned to the court, and at 4.25 pm the court adjourned for 10 minutes. The judge also left the court. When the judge returned, Mr. Amlot stated:
      "Even if the ruling is in our favour, we do not ask for a direction to convict."
      Mr. Justice McCowan said that after considering certain legal authorities, he had changed his mind. For a trial which purported to be non-political, the events of the afternoon of Wednesday 6 February had been most revealing.
      The next morning, prior to the return of the jury, the legal submissions continued and were mainly concerned with the meaning of the key words "duty" and "state". During those submissions, the judge pointed out that the jury was not the body to decide what the interest of the state should be.
      The jury returned to the court just after 11 am and the final speeches for the prosecution and defence were delivered. Mr. Bruce Laughland, the defence counsel, concluded with these words:
      "We say that he"—
      that is Clive Ponting—
      "was faced in good conscience with an obligation to do his duty, a duty which was in the true interests of the State and that it was one from which he did not shrink. If what he did was a crime for which he renders himself liable for punishment, you know it could be a licence for Ministers to withhold from Parliament information with the tame acquiescence of their Civil Servants and so to infringe our liberties. And, if what he did was a crime in English law, you say so. But if it is, God help us, because no government will."

      447
      It is up to the House to reflect on what a Government would do in such a situation.
      Mr. Archer: So that we can be clear about what my hon. Friend is saying, does he agree that there were two quite separate legal issues? The first was whether the public interest question should be left to the jury and the second was whether it could ever be right for a judge to direct a jury to convict—which, of course, in the end the judge did not. Does my hon. Friend agree that the real indictment of the law was that the jury, in effect, had to fly in the face of the judge's direction on law to arrive at a verdict which they found acceptable? That means that the House should look at the law again.
      Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. and learned Friend is one of my oldest friends in the House, in both senses of the word. He is a distinguished lawyer and I am a layman. I shall not take issue with him, and I shall accept those propositions.
      Mr. Justice McCowan's summing-up appeared to be aimed at dismissing the case for the defence. The jury retired at 11.15 am on the last day of the trial, and returned at 2 pm to deliver a unanimous verdict of not guilty.
      Immediately after the verdict was announced, Mr. Amlot shook hands with Mr. Laughland in a gesture that was not in accordance with normal court procedure—so I am told. They were warm and generous congratulations.
      That was clearly a most important verdict. It was the jury who decided the outcome of the case. Without a jury, the outcome would have been very different. The unsuccessful attempt by the Government to establish that
      "the interest of the state"
      was invariably the same as
      "the interest of the Government of the day"
      has underlined the importance of trial by jury in certain cases.
      Nobody would want to put national security at risk by revealing genuine state secrets, but where national security is not involved, it is a misuse of the law to try to use it to protect the Government from embarrassment by preventing disclosures to Members of Parliament that Ministers are misleading Parliament. It cannot be right that the last resort of a civil servant to inform Parliament of serious wrongdoing by Ministers is to be withdrawn by a new law that will put him in gaol for so doing. That is no way to protect the security of the state; nor is it the way to protect parliamentary democracy.
      It is clear that something extremely serious is about to happen. If a Government can succeed in passing a law that makes it a crime punishable by imprisonment for a civil servant to inform a Member of Parliament of serious malpractices by Ministers, the door will be opened to enable the destruction of the sovereignty of this House and this Parliament. I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) nods his head. I believe that there is a good deal of agreement among serious people about this matter.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Spearing: I want to make one point absolutely clear. It might be interpreted from my hon. Friend's speech that the information Mr. Ponting passed to him was gratuitous, in that it revealed something that otherwise was not known, which it did. Does he not agree, however, that in this case the importance of that document was that
      448
      the Select Committee had specifically asked for certain information, and that the document that my hon. Friend received showed that the draft replies to those questions would be such as could mislead the Committee? In other words, it was revealing not just that Ministers were misleading the House, but that they were intending to mislead in relation to specific questions asked by a Select Committee of the House.
      Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend, along with Ian Mikardo, put in an enormous amount of work on their Foreign Affairs Committee minority report covering the events of 1 and 2 May 1982. My hon. Friend knows a great deal about this matter, and I accept his proposition, which raises an important point. When my hon. Friend makes these interventions, he does so with considerable detailed knowledge.
      The Bill would prevent Parliament from being informed of such malpractices and, therefore, prevent Parliament from exercising its power to investigate and restrain such wrongdoing and would leave the continuation of such malpractices safe in the hands of a rogue Government. There is now a real danger that Parliament will soon be voting to ensure that that happens. That is what we are up against. However, before taking that step, Parliament would do well to consider the situation that would exist if the Government were the party in opposition and not the party in power.
      Mr. John Gorst: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's speech with considerable interest and with a growing belief in its correctness. Is there not, however, another implicit inference to be drawn from his argument? It appears that he has been painting a rather black and white picture. On the one hand, his premise is that there is the law and, on the other, there is illegality—there is nothing else. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there is an unacknowledged twilight situation in which there is wrongdoing, law-breaking or the infringement of liberties, which, if his amendments are not carried, would be sanctioned by the state. Irrespective of whether it is possible to raise them in the House, the law would have that effect unless it is amended in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely perceptive intervention. I may appear to be putting it in black and white terms, but my colleagues would not wish me to go on for much longer. Part of the problem is that this is very much a situation of various shades of grey, and anyone who looks at these matters seriously cannot be too dogmatic. I accept the importance and, indeed, the validity of the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
      Although a number of other changes in the Bill are to be welcomed, because they clarify many of the poorly defined areas in the original Act, undue emphasis on the scope of those changes must not be allowed to obscure the elimination of the all-important safeguard of the public interest defence. If that last ditch defence is lost, we shall have set up the legal framework necessary to enable a Government to establish and maintain a rather toothless Parliament.
      If a new law is passed, which makes the act of passing the information itself a serious crime with no public interest defence available, the only issue for the jury then would be whether the information was passed or not. If the

      449
      defendant admits that it was, or if there is no doubt about it, the jury must find the defendant guilty of the specified crime.
      In view of the now established importance of the jury in such cases, it could be to the defendant's disadvantage if the matter were taken up in the civil courts, should the Bill be passed with a public interest defence provision. A jury in a civil court is now a rarity. The Peter Wright case was heard in the civil courts with no jury and treated as a breach of confidentiality rather than a breach of the Official Secrets Act 1911. That might be one way round the prosecution's jury problem in the criminal courts. Hon. Members will recall Mr. Justice McCowan's remark in the Ponting case. He said:
      "the jury is not the body to decide what the interest of the state should be."
      I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that I have gone into the Ponting case. There are conclusions to be drawn. It is not a matter of black and white and I shall listen with very great care to what my colleagues and other hon. Members of the House have to say.
      Sir Bernard Braine: This is a supremely important debate, and I mean no discourtesy to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whose speech I found of intense interest, or to others if I limit my remarks to an aspect of the public interest involved in the disclosure of confidential or secret information which is concerned not with security or the defence of the realm but with the public's own health and safety. I refer specifically, of course, to new clause 8, which refers to a more limited public interest defence than that advanced by hon. Members in the earlier stages of this debate. But it is still one, I submit, of immense importance to all our people.
      The clause provides a defence where a disclosure is shown to be
      "in the public interest insofar as it revealed the existence of an imminent and serious threat to public health or safety, provided that effective steps to remove that threat had not been taken."
      The Committee will note that the clause is limited in two ways. First, the threat must be shown to be imminent and serious, and, second, although it is imminent and serious, no effective steps have been taken to remove it. In short, we are dealing here with a possible serious threat to the health and safety of our fellow citizens, where I would have thought it proper that any Government should act and inform the public.
      The threat may be posed in information from domestic sources known to the Government but not to Parliament or the public; or it may derive from information provided under confidential cover by another Government or by an international body. It is my contention that in neither case can there be any justification whatsoever for important public information about health and safety to be kept secret. It is surely in the public interest in a mature democracy such as ours to alert the public to threatening danger.
      I am glad to tell the Committee that in tabling this new clause, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) are fully supported by the highly respected British Safety Council and by the Consumers Association, which, I understand, has indicated this to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Indeed, a whole host of other responsible organisations have expressed supporting views.
      450
      As the Bill stands, information about safety problems could be covered by clause 3(1)(b), which protects information supplied to Her Majesty's Government in confidence by other Governments and by international bodies. As an example, such information might relate to the shipping of highly toxic wastes to or from the United Kingdom, or the spread across frontiers of radiation, acid rain, or pesticides or other chemical products. It was not so very long ago that we were made aware of the distress in Poland, Finland, Sweden and, ultimately, Cumbria as a result of what happened at Chernobyl, as a result of a distinct shortage of information from the Soviet authorities.
      Just suppose that the United States Government notified Her Majesty's Government in confidence that a particular model of an airliner was unsafe, and nothing was done about it, or there was serious delay in disclosing the facts, or—if I may borrow the phrase used by the hon. Member for Linlithgow—there was a disposition to be economical with the truth. Under the Bill as it stands, the person who revealed such information would be guilty of an offence.
      The case for the new clause can be put quite simply. Where there appears to be an imminent and serious threat to public health and safety, it should not be an offence for anyone possessing that information to disclose it if he believes that it would be in the public interest to do so. I do not think that the words "public interest" appear anywhere in the Bill, so I will define the term. The public interest in this context means, bluntly, avoidance of a situation which, if left unchecked and unheeded, could lead to the death and injury of fellow citizens and the destruction of property, possibly on a very large scale.
      I went all the way through the Bill and I could not find the words "public interest" anywhere. In the event of a prosecution, therefore, the jury would not be invited to consider the public interest, still less whether the disclosure did more good than harm to the public. Yet, looking back, I can recall—and I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House can recall—a number of instances in which disclosure not only would have served the public interest but would have saved lives.
      Some hon. Members may recall the tragic consequences of keeping quiet about the risks to which the workers in an asbestos works at Acre Mill near Hebden in Yorkshire were subjected in the 1960s. Employees there knew that white asbestos dust was everywhere in the workplace, in the air, on their clothes and on their skin, and was conveyed to their families when they got home. What they did not know and could not know until long after the plant was closed was what this betokened for their health. Some of them were to die of asbestosis and many were to be gravely injured. The dust on their clothes infected members of their families. The local factories inspectorate knew that asbestos was prevalent there and did nothing.
      I will read out a passage from the ombudsman's report. It is to the eternal credit of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), who was at the time the hon. Member for Sowerby, that he campaigned in this connection and took the matter to the ombudsman. The ombudsman concluded:
      "For many years neither employers, with whom the principal responsibility lies for arrangements to protect workers from dangers to health and asbestos, nor the Factory Inspectorate, who are charged with responsibility for

      451
      enforcing the legislative health and safety requirements, were aware of the full extent of the dangers from the dust created by processing asbestos."
      Many hon. Members will know Mr. James Tye, the director general of the British Safety Council, an organisation which enjoys a worldwide reputation for its work in industrial safety. He told me only last week that, in this case, he pleaded with the factory inspectorate to make known the result of its inquiries in the public interest. In a letter to me he wrote:
      "I knew about this situation, I repeatedly asked the District Inspector and the Chief Inspector of Factories to disclose from their official records this situation in the public interest and they repeatedly refused on the grounds that Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act didn't allow them to do so. Workers died and worse still their families died as well."
      I could cite a number of examples but this one makes my point more eloquently than most.
      5 pm
      A second example was the continued failure of the Department of Transport in the 1960s and 1970s to publish the results of its inspection of vehicles, which showed dangerous defects. In his letter, Mr. Tye continued:
      "From 1950 through to 1979 the Ministry of Transport carried out tests of motor cars at the Road Research Laboratory. These tests revealed defects in cars which could cause accident and death, not only to drivers but to pedestrians. In 1979 following a visit to the American Highway Transportation Safety Agency I came back to England and set up a 'hot-line'—in one week we had over a thousand people phone us up and tell us how unsafe their new cars were. All of this information was known to the Department of Transport who would not disclose it to the motorist because it contravened Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act."
      I shall describe two other cases. The British Safety Council discovered two years ago that the highly efficient accident prevention advisory unit of the Health and Safety Executive had produced a confidential report on the safety of the London Underground system: it was never published. If the recommendations of that document had been implemented, there seems little doubt that a major disaster would have been averted. As it was, one management witness at the recent inquiry into the King's Cross disaster said that
      "the APAU Report had not been discussed at any board meeting."
      I shall not dwell on the conclusion reached by the distinguished chairman of the King's Cross inquiry that management was at fault. This is not the occasion to go into detail; however, I will say that the chairman said that cost-cutting came first and safety warnings not even second. If the report had been published, or even leaked, one can say that lives would have been saved.
      Some older Members will remember the long battle that I waged for well over a decade against official blindness to the potential and actual dangers to my Canvey Island constituents. For years they were exposed to industrial hazards arising not only from an excessive concentration of liquefied gas, chemical and oil storage, but from management's careless handling at installations listed as major hazards. As a result there were numerous public inquiries and three health and safety reports.
      Today, circumstances are very different, thanks to the public campaigns that my constituents and I waged together, and, one must concede, to the efforts of the
      452
      Health and Safety Executive. Yet I still recall an electrical engineer, employed at one of the installations, who came to tell me at my clinic one Saturday morning that serious risks were being taken with the safety of liquefied gas storage which posed a serious threat to residents beyond the perimeter fence. The risks arose from a defective alarm system fitted to a number of above-ground tanks containing huge quantities of liquefied gas. Half a mile away was a population of about 35,000. Any escape of liquefied gas would have led inevitably to the formation of a gas cloud and, with the prevailing winds blowing over the residential area—as they would in the Thames estuary —and where there are thousands of adventitious sources of ignition, would almost certainly have experienced one of the greatest disasters of all time.
      My informant was hounded by his employers for his public-spiritedness and felt unable to attend a public inquiry at which what he had to say would have been devastating. I can scarcely blame him for that.
      Eventually, the matter was brought out in public and the necessary remedial measures were taken by the Health and Safety Executive. Disclosure of confidential information in a case of such slackness in safety mangement should have been regarded as a public duty from the start. It was not.
      Mr. Whitney: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it was the broad scope of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, which ranges from national security to the industrial problems to which he referred, that caused the problem? Narrowing the scope of the section so that it would affect only those within the "ring fence"—to use the jargon of this debate—would mean that those industrial problems would be debated and judged in a court of law. Does that not dispel my right hon. Friend's concern?
      Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend has opened up the subject more widely. Since the passing of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, managements at all industrial plants, especially those listed as high hazards, have had a responsibility not only to their employees but to the population living beyond the perimeter fence. I am talking of a period when that Act was in force. The asbestos example that I described occurred before that Act came into force.
      Mr. Jeff Rooker: It is easy for the right hon. Gentleman to answer his hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney). If the hon. Member for Wycombe is correct, there should not be the slightest difficulty about the Government accepting new clause 8.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I shall make a plea to that effect at the end of my remarks, and I am hopeful about its outcome.
      I must issue a warning. If the Government resist the new clause, I must say, with all the force at my command, that they will be asserting that even if cases of malpractice or negligence occurred seriously undermining public health and safety, it would be an offence to reveal them. That runs counter—
      Mr. Timothy Raison rose—
      Sir Bernard Braine: Let me finish my point.

      453
      At best that runs counter to common sense and at worst is plain wicked. The basis of our parliamentary system is that Ministers are answerable in this place for the powers that they exercise.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow made an apposite remark about parliamentary questions. He said that if hon. Members possessed certain information, their questions could often be effective, but how often do we find that questions are deflected because an hon. Member has slipped up with his information, or it is not complete, or there are other factors to be considered? We know how the system works. Yet Ministers must know that they are answerable to the House for the safety and health of the population.
      In my judgment, there can be no justification for anyone to remain silent in circumstances in which he believes, and the information shows plainly, that there is an imminent and serious threat to public health and safety. I hope that I have persuaded my right hon. Friend of the logic and good sense of the new clause.
      Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman referred to parliamentary questions. I do not want to grind a personal axe, but there is a general point to be made—that, given the nature of parliamentary questions, particularly prime ministerial questions, Ministers can simply choose not to answer direct questions and can say something that just puts the shutters down. I intervene because that is relevant to information that comes from the general category of deep throats. Naturally, one must be careful unless one has that information on an attributable rather than an unattributable basis from a man who is careful with civil servants' careers. That is part of the reason for the amendment that we are discussing.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says. If we are questioned in our constituencies about what influence we can bring to bear on Ministers, we say that we can ask them questions and require them to give answers. However, in the present circumstances we get no answers with regard to highly confidential matters. I am going further and saying that, where public health and safety are concerned, Ministers of whatever Government have a duty to be frank and open. If they had been frank and open in case after case that I could cite, tragedy could have been averted.
      Mr. Raison: I am trying to follow my right hon. Friend's argument. With regard to the cases to which refers, which might be covered by clauses 3 and 5, the Bill states specifically that the disclosure must be damaging. Surely, far from being damaging, the disclosures to which he refers would be beneficial; it would therefore be possible for disclosure to be made.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will make that case in greater detail later, as I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer. I believe that I have made my point and I hope that the reasonableness of my case will have persuaded my right hon. Friend to look afresh at the matter. If he can give me an undertaking that he will do so and consider ways and means of accepting the logic and good sense of the new clause, I shall not seek to divide the House.
      Mr. Gorst: I am worried that my right hon. Friend might have been persuaded by the intervention of our right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison).
      454
      Surely he has been ill-advised by our right hon. Friend in that matter. If a balance of harm is done to the public interest and to the Government of the day, my guess is that the Government interest will win and the public interest will lose. It is therefore important to insert the words "public interest", not just the word "harm", in the Bill. There would be two categories of harm, but only the Government harm would be considered. My right hon. Friend should press his new clause and not simply rely on the words in the Bill.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I am not relying on anything, certainly not on the Bill. I had thought that I had made that absolutely clear. At this stage, I am not even relying on my right hon. Friend. I am relying on the sheer good sense and logic of what I have been saying, which is supported by every safety organisation in the country, and which I guarantee will be supported 100 per cent. by all my constituents and probably by other hon. Members' constituents.
      Numerous examples can be given of cases in which failure to disclose information has subsequently led to people losing their lives or suffering ill-health, and that is something—as the greatest man who has ever sat in this House said—up with which I will not put. I am being utterly reasonable here. I want my right hon. Friend to say explicitly that he grasps the point and will do something about it. However, if I fail to obtain a clear assurance which satisfies me, my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) and all hon. Members, we shall press the new clause to a Division.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Hattersley: I wish to speak principally in support of new clause 1 which is grouped with amendment No. 91 and provides an opportunity for the Committee to insert into the Bill a formal and explicit public interest defence.
      However, before I do so, I wish to say something to the Home Secretary about the speech of the right lion. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). In giving many powerful examples, the right hon. Gentleman probably gave two or three examples of the need to speak out and make public certain information, which would be allowed under the Bill. As I know the Home Secretary's techniques, I should tell him that the House will regard his response as inadequate—
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The right hon. Gentleman has not heard it yet.
      Mr. Hattersley: —if he picks simply on those examples in the right hon. Gentleman's speech that are not covered by his proposals. I see from the Home Secretary's smile that that is exactly what he had in mind. Opposition Members know that one case will certainly be covered by some of the examples given by the right hon. Gentlernan; that is the general case in favour of a public interest defence. We hope that the Home Secretary will turn his mind to that general case, which encompasses what he will claim to be safeguards in the Bill and which, in some particulars, would meet his right hon. Friend's point. but would not do so in others.
      The new clause would make it possible for a defendant prosecuted under the legislation to argue that the disclosure which was the basis of the charge was justified in the public interest. It would be possible to argue that a

      455
      disclosure, although unauthorised by Government, was positively desirable in the national interest. If the new clause is incorporated in the Bill, the Government will forfeit their right to be the sole arbiter of where, in these matters, the public interest lies.
      The right hon. Member for Castle Point asked a rhetorical question—whether the words "public interest" appear in the Bill. They do not, but it is the Home Secretary's habit to argue from time to time that something which amounts to an observance of and a respect for the national interest appears in the Bill and makes the new clause and amendment No. 91 unnecessary. The Home Office press release of 11 November suggested that a public interest defence already appears in the Bill. If the Home Secretary seeks to justify that press release, he will no doubt do so in the way that I shall describe, having asserted that the suggestion that public interest is recognised, let alone acknowledged, is simply untrue. We established in our debate last week that, with regard to clause 1, the prosecution is not required to demonstrate anything except the fact of disclosure.
      The rest of the Bill is certainly less absolute, but it does not contain the protections that were suggested, at least by implication, in the intervention of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) when he interrupted his right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point. In lieu of a public interest defence, as the Home Secretary will describe it, the Bill includes what are described as "specific tests of harm." But if they are examined, as they must be, in comparison with a proper public interest defence, they are seen to be nothing like an adequate substitute, particularly since, looking at them closely, we realise—and we must put the point even before we debate the so-called tests of harm later in our consideration—that the so-called tests of harm are not precise, are not objective and therefore are not reasonable.
      I offer two examples to justify the claim that the tests of harm cannot compensate for the absence of a public interest defence. If a disclosure prejudices the capabilities of the armed forces in part or in whole, or is likely to do so, an offence is committed. The width of that definition makes it virtually worthless as a protection for anyone who reveals anything about the armed forces, and makes it wholly different in kind from a public interest defence. It covers all that the armed forces are doing, anywhere and at any time.
      Obviously—this is the sort of example that defenders of this as an alternative to a public interest defence will bring forward—neither Labour nor Conservative Members who oppose the Bill would attempt to justify revealing, say, the battle plans of the British Army of the Rhine, thus impairing the armed forces' ability to defend this country.
      Consider another example. Let us assume that a civil servant discovers corruption at an ordnance depot and that the scandal is suppressed by authority. The revelation of that scandal might for a week or two prevent that depot from operating with its normal day-to-day smoothness, and because of that would prejudice the operations of the Army in that small particular.
      Harm will in consequence be done. A prosecution can in consequence follow, and on the evidence of the Bill, since harm was done, the prosecution would succeed. But
      456
      surely on balance it would be in the public interest for the revelation to be made—although since there is no public interest clause in the Bill, that revelation would be illegal.
      Mr. Heffer: If the Rhine battle plans were purely defensive, in line with NATO policy, I would agree with my right hon. Friend's comments. But if the plans were not purely defensive and a small group of people in the Army got control of the Army and decided to extend into a positive shooting war without anybody else's agreement, would my right hon. Friend not think it right that that should be revealed to the nation?
      Mr. Hattersley: While I do not want to divide the opposition to the Bill, were a public interest defence included in it and were someone to reveal the battle plans of BAOR, offensive or defensive, and were I to sit on the jury which tested the propriety of that, I would come down on the side of it not being in the public interest that those plans should be revealed. That is a point on which my right hon. Friend and I may disagree, but let us concentrate for the sake of this argument on those areas where we are in unanimity about the desirabilitiy of allowing to be made public that information which can be made public without damage, by any criterion, to the national interest.
      Mr. Whitney: In considering the right hon. Gentleman's example, it is important to get as near to reality as possible and away from hypothesis. There is a workshop or ordnance depot where corruption has been discovered. Is he seriously suggesting that he believes it possible that, if the discoverer of that information so persisted right the way up through the chain of command of the Army and Civil Service, to the permanent head of the Ministry of Defence and on to the head of the Civil Service, the whole of that web would participate in covering up the corruption?
      Mr. Hattersley: I have noticed from the repeated interventions in debates by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney)—no doubt the product of his years flitting from the Army to the Civil Service and on to Government—his extraordinary deferences to authority. He always believes that the next man up will do the right thing. That in my experience, and I suspect his, is not how life turns out in practice.
      We must consider in discussing the Bill—for it is protecting the public interest—those occasions when the next man up does not or might not do the right thing. The Bill as drafted says that when the next man up does not do the right thing, it becomes a criminal offence to say so. I hope that the hon. Member for Wycombe will try to concentrate on that concept rather than reiterate his pathetic belief that authority is always right.
      Mr. Whitney: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand—I appreciate the limitations he may have in comprehending this—that we are not talking about incompetence. He was talking about corruption and was inviting the Committee to suggest that the whole of the structure that he posited would condone corruption. I think I see him sniggering. I do not subscribe to that view of the Civil Service or of the armed services of this country.
      Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to that grand old traditional view of life and society and will no doubt vote that way when the Committee divides on this issue.
      Mr. Rupert Allason: An example that springs to mind quickly of somebody who would suffer badly under the Bill is Jack Kane, who made allegations relating to corruption and the leakage of secret information from a GCHQ establishment in Hong Kong. He pursued that case, and as far as I can tell—having followed the case as best I can, bearing in mind that there is an injunction on it—there have not been any criminal convictions, except that Jack Kane has had to seek employment as a milkman.
      Mr. Hattersley: I understand—the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that if Mr. Kane had, in the circumstances he described, revealed what he regarded as corruption and the attitude of authority, under the Bill as drafted he would be prosecuted and convicted. So I repeat that the width of the definitions and the limitation of the harm test mean that they are in no way an appropriate alternative to the public interest defence.
      I will give a second example. The Home Secretary will no doubt say that when we talk about information regarding international matters that can or cannot be revealed, the limitation on revelations and prosecutions for unauthorised revelations will concern only matters which jeopardise the interests of the United Kingdom abroad.
      The idea that that might form the basis of a defence and provide some sort of protection was dealt with by the BBC, which wryly said that that definition could not be used as useful guide to journalists. It will, no doubt, be used as a useful weapon for politicians who wish to determine what journalists write and say, but that is different from a public interest defence.
      There have been—no doubt we shall hear about this again from the Home Secretary—arguments as to whether a public interest defence could reasonably become a feature of English law. On the evidence, it is already in some respects a feature of English law. There is no doubt that the aquittal of Mr. Clive Ponting amounted to the jury's judgment that he acted in the public interest by revealing the truth, when the Government wanted to deceive the British people.
      I was not sure whether the quotation given by the hon. Member for Wycombe was intended to incriminate my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) or incriminate Mr. Ponting. The question is not whether we like or admire Mr. Ponting or whether he is the sort of man with whom we would want to be stationed in China. The question is whether the principle that underlined his prosecution and the removal of the principle on which he was acquitted is a principle that we wish to uphold in the Committee today.
      Not only the Ponting case gives one reason to believe that, at least to some degree, there is an element of public interest defence. The judgments of the Law Lords in "Spycatcher" made it clear that at any rate some of their conclusions were based on an assessment of where the public interest lay. Lord Keith of Kinkel, having referred to the public interest implications of the Crossman diaries as a precedent, turned to the proposed injunctions against The Guardian and The Observer and said:
      "I am of the opinion that the reports and comments proposed. . .would not be harmful to the public interest."
      Lord Brightman judged that the articles—I quote again exactly from the judgment—
      "were not in fact damaging to the public interest and are not therefore a proper foundation for any case by the Crown against the newspapers."
      5.30 pm
      Mr. David Winnick: Surely one other case that comes to mind is that of Cathy Massiter, who, as I think my right hon. Friend would agree, is a woman of the utmost integrity. She performed a public service by disclosing what went on in the security services—the abuses that seemed to be connected with the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he was Secretary of State for Defence. Surely that lady, who was not prosecuted—and rightly so, of course—would have absolutely no defence under clause 1.
      Mr. Hattersley: If there had been a prosecution in that case, if I had been on the jury, and if the public interest defence had been invoked, I would have wished to declare Miss Massiter wholly innocent, in that she was acting in the public interest. But whether the Home Secretary accepts my hon. Friend's judgment, and mine, that in a number of matters affecting security the public interest criterion is already partly present, he has to accept that it exists in other English laws as they now stand. Under section 4(1) of the Obscene Publications Act, conviction is conditional on the public interest being served, for it is possible for a defendant to argue that publication is "justified as being in the public good".
      The significant—I almost said "sinister", but it would
      be too open, too overt, to admit that it is sinister—damaging and dangerous thing about this Bill is that if it is passed in its present form it will extinguish many of the elements of the public interest defence that now exist. That fact alone—the present elements are to be distinguished—disqualifies it from being described, as the Home Secretary so often chooses to describe it, as a great liberalising measure.
      I repeat—for it is worth repeating—that in this
      particular the Bill removes a defence which, at least in part, was available under, I think, part of section 2 of the 1911 Act, and which was successfully employed by Mr. Clive Ponting.
      Mr. Hurd: Oh.
      Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary says, "Oh." I want to develop the point of the Pouting case and the Ponting judgment. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that this is only illustrative, that it is not simply about Mr. Pouting, although what happened to Mr. Ponting demonstrates what the law now says and how the law will soon be changed—in my view, for the worse.
      If this Bill becomes law, it will not be possible, as it was possible for Mr. Ponting, to argue that, while the rule of confidentiality had certainly been broken, the public interest was served. Nor will it be possible for a defendant to argue that, while some marginal harm might have been done to the national interest, the good that disclosure did more than outweighed the damage.
      The present Act—the 1911 Act—is explicit. My hon.
      Friend quoted it, but it is worth quoting again.
      That Act says that it is no offence to make a disclosure to someone
      "to whom it is in the interests of the state"
      the informant'
      "duty to communicate the material."
      The Home Secretary always says that that provision was not intended to be interpreted as the Ponting jury chose to

      459
      interpret it, but, with great respect to the Home Secretary, I must say that in this matter his opinion is of no consequence whatsoever.
      The fact is that the section was so interpreted, and there are two views we can take of that interpretation. The first is that it was a point that was so good in law that at least the Government were not able to appeal against it. The second is that, if the area of law is at least grey, as the Home Secretary suggests, a British jury's wisdom and instinct for justice and common sense led it to choose to make a public interest defence relevant to that case. Either way, the Home Secretary is overturning and reversing processes that are better than those that he chooses to put in their place.
      Dr. David Owen: Is not the fascinating thing the fact that the Government did not take that case to appeal, because they were afraid of the judgment? If an appeal had upheld the jury's judgment, this legislation would really have been impossible to produce, so the Government decided to change the law so as to prevent that defence from ever being used again.
      Mr. Hattersley: I agree entirely. I believe that, at the time, there was an upsurge of the opinion that telling the truth in order to contradict the misinformation that is spread by the Government is not something for which a man ought to be penalised and sent to prison. The upsurge of feeling was such that the Government could not have maintained their case successfully in any court.
      The result is that there is a period of cooling off in the hope that that feeling of outrage will subside, and then the Government bring in a Bill which, in this particular, is far more repressive than that which it is intended to replace.
      The fact is that, whatever the Home Secretary may say about the present law, the jurors in Mr. Ponting's trial, balancing Mr. Ponting's unauthorised revelation of the truth against the Government's official dissemination of inaccuracies, judged that, among the persons to whom, in the words of the Bill, it was in the interests of the state for the truth to be revealed were the citizens of the state, the people themselves—that it was in the interests of the state for the people to know what was happening.
      The public interest defence is essentially based on that contention—the contention that it is sometimes in the interest of the state as a whole for the people to be told the truth when the Government want to suppress the truth. That is a principle that ought to be respected in every democracy, but if this Bill goes through unamended by any of the group of amendments and new clauses that we now debate, a defence based upon that essential canon of democracy will be wholly obliterated.
      I know that I encourage some hon. Members opposite to support the Bill when I say that, under the present proposals, Mr. Clive Ponting, who was acquitted under the 1911 Act, would be convicted, but I want to repeat that, whatever else that fact proves, it certainly demonstrates that the Home Secretary's contention that this Bill is in almost every particular more liberal than the one it seeks to replace does not stand up to a moment's examination.
      Before I seek to justify the concept of the public interest, I want to make clear the limited nature of the new clause that we now propose. Its wording is so intended that
      460
      it does not provide a defence for civil servants who, acting out of political prejudice, personal resentment, pique, or spite, reveal what should be kept secret. The public interest defence will be possible only in the limited circumstances that the clause specifies—where the man or woman charged with the offence is able to demonstrate that he or she had reasonable cause to believe that the facts revealed indicated the existence of crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect in the performance of official duty, or other misconduct.
      Because it is so limited, what the Committee has to decide, when we come to vote tonight, is whether a public servant who believes that one of those situations exists —crime, fraud, the abuse of authority, neglect or misconduct—should be sent to prison for attempting to end the abuse by making the abuse public, even if he or she has attempted to find redress under the internal mechanisms and found that, under those mechanisms, redress is impossible.
      Under the Bill, unless it is amended, in the sort of circumstances that I have described, the wrongdoer may well escape, while the public servant who revealed the wrongdoing is automatically prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison.
      Mr. Tony Baldry: I have been listening carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has had to say. Will the test that juries will have to apply under his amendment be subjective or objective?
      Mr. Hattersley: It will be a test according to the criteria I have just described—namely, that the man or woman had reasonable cause to believe that the conditions that I have outlined were operating. Of course, that means that there may be occasions when the jury says that the man thought that a misdemeanour was being perpetrated or that the woman believed that misconduct was taking place, but that that was an unreasonable conclusion for the man or woman to come to, that it was not based on sufficient evidence. In that case, the man or woman would be convicted rather than acquitted.
      There may be some, therefore, who will feel that this is an over-exacting test of the public interest, but we have tried to put it in minimal terms in order that anyone who has the slightest instinct and feeling for the proper public interest of this country will feel able to vote for the new clause.
      I hope that some hon. Members will feel able to vote for the amendment, because the implication in this amendment and in the new clause carries an idea which is essential to democracy in this country. Without a public interest clause in the Bill, what is harmful to the national interest is determined by the Government. They become the arbiters of the national good and, at least in their own minds, synonymous with the national good and the public interest. There are occasions in any democracy when on an objective, unbiased judgment, a Government act against the national interest. To allow the Government to decide what is in the national interest allows the Government to act lawfully, but tyrannically.
      Lord Hailsham constantly warned us about the dangers of Britain becoming an elective dictatorship, before he joined one by becoming a member of the Cabinet in 1979. Lord Hailsham and the Secretary of State must understand that to announce, as the Bill announces, that the Government will decide within the vaguest of

      461
      parameters what may or may not be published, without the benefit of a public interest defence, is a perfect example of elective dictatorship in operation. The Government claim to act for the state, of the state and to be the state and they extinguish one of the people's basic rights, the right to know the things which can be published without causing damage to the community as a whole.
      We argue that the absence of a public interest defence means that information will be suppressed which, were it made public, would be to the benefit of society as a whole. Not only ought that information to be available, but it would benefit society through its availability.
      Reasonable men and women will agree that, when the interests, and particularly the security, of our society are threatened, it is right and necessary to proscribe and prohibit the publication of official information. However, the public interest defence is, by definition, about information which, if published, certainly does not damage the national interest and may be to its benefit.
      The public interest defence also insists that a court of law—a jury—should decide where the public interest lies. The Government are incapable of understanding that they cannot be the arbiters in those matters. That is true—I repeat this because it is worth repeating—because the Government are not the whole state and should not believe that they are or act as if they are. It is also true because, very often, information is suppressed which need not be suppressed and is kept in secret by the Government, not to keep it from unfriendly powers, but to keep it from the people of this country.
      The crucial test of an Official Secrets Bill is whether it adequately distinguishes between information that it is necessary to keep secret in the national interest, and information that is either capable of publication or which it would be positively in the national interest to disclose. In the absence of a public interest defence, this Bill fails that test.
      The Bill provides—not absolutely, but far more widely than is acceptable in a democracy—the right of the Government to decide what people may know and what they may be told. Throughout the lifetime of this Government, we have seen that their obsession with secrecy is not so much about protecting information necessary for our security, but suppressing information which is embarrassing to the Government. Time after time, information well known to other Governments, friendly and unfriendly, and freely available in other countries has been proscribed or pursued through the courts. Without a public interest defence, the Bill allows the Government to suppress information which the people of this country have the right to know. That is why I will happily vote for the amendment.
      Mr. Hurd: I thought that it might be helpful to the Committee if I intervened at this early stage. If it is convenient to the Committee, I will gladly speak again if necessary. I thought that it might be sensible to discuss the amendments from the Government's point of view in the wider compass of the Bill and with regard to our general approach to protecting the national interest.
      I agree with all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken that the question whether there should be some form of over-arching public interest exemption from the offences in the Bill goes to the heart of the measure. In my mind, it raises the question whether the criminal law can have any effective role in relation to official secrets. I want
      462 to consider what has been said and to consider the amendments, not in detail at this stage, but to see how they fit into the Bill's structure and the approach that we have tried to adopt to deal with section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.
      5.45 pm
      Once again, I do not recognise the portrait of the Bill that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark brook (Mr. Hattersley) painted. I do not expect at this stage to persuade all members of the Committee, but I am sure that hon. Members are open to argument about these matters and to our request that they consider exactly what the Bill states.
      As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook anticipated, I disagree with the argument that there is already, partially, some kind of over-arching public interest defence in the existing criminal law. A number of defendants have tried to claim that there is a limited form of such a defence, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot cite cases in which the courts have accepted that argument. Certainly, juries have acquitted in some cases—and a feature that is common to the existing law and to the Bill is that, at the end of the day, juries must decide and they do not give reasons for their decisions. Nevertheless, it is a flimsy argument to erect a great construction on the basis of individual cases.
      Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hurd: I want to make progress as I have a connected point to make, but I will give way later.
      The right hon. Member far Sparkbrook quoted the Obscene Publications Act 1959. I was surprised that he did that as I thought that all hon. Members, lawyers and non-lawyers, would agree that that Act is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: It is criminal law.
      Mr. Hurd: We have had difficulty from time to time in deciding how to change the Obscene Publications Act 1959, but I cannot think that the isolated example that the right hon. Gentleman gave is a good example to cite in this context.
      Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary and I may argue about whether it is a good example, but I hope that we shall not argue about whether it is an example. The right hon. Gentleman contends that the public interest defence does not exist in criminal law. I have given an example in which it exists and I do not understand how he can continue to claim that it does not exist in that area.
      Mr. Hurd: I am sorry, but it does not exist in the official secrets legislation. That is my point. The right hon. Gentleman cannot sustain his flimsy construction in that area. He has found, quite accurately, an example where it exists in another piece of the criminal law—that is perfectly true—but the force of his argument is spoilt by the fact that everyone considers his example to be a thoroughly unsatisfactory statute.
      Mr. Aitken: How can my right hon. Friend possibly argue that section 2(1)(a) of the Official Secrets Act 1911 does not exist and has not been used as a form of public interest defence? Not only has it almost certainly been used

      463
      as an argument by those who have not been prosecuted, such as the civil servants who briefed Sir Winston Churchill before the war, but it has been used in specific cases. I naturally remember the case in which I was involved. In that a great deal of the Old Bailey's time was taken up with submissions, which were accepted, to the effect that the words in section 2
      "in the interests of the state"
      formed the basis upon which a jury could acquit. So there is clearly a public interest defence and it just does not add up for the Home Scretary to deny its existence.
      Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend and I have had this exchange before. I can only repeat my previous answer. As I said a moment ago, defendants have tried to construct that defence, but it has never been accepted by the courts.
      Mr. Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hurd: No, I stand by this.
      Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the custom of the House that in Committee right hon. and hon Members, whatever their status or experience, give way to reasonable interventions, particularly from those Members who have served the Crown on matters relating to their speeches and to the law?
      Mr. Hurd: I have already given way several times. I am perfectly prepared to give way to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). Then, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to continue what I consider is a connected argument, but I shall give way again before I sit down.
      Mr. Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the argument for the defence in the Ponting case—that the disclosure was to a person to whom it was in the public interest to disclose it—could be advanced in a prosecution under the Bill?
      Mr. Hurd: I am not saying that. I am making the point that neither the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, nor the right hon. and learned Gentleman, nor my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has been able to show where the courts have established a public interest defence under the existing law. The argument with which my hon. Friend concluded is that there have been acquittals—a fact that I acknowledged five minutes ago. Juries do not give reasons—and the one thing common to the Bill and the existing Act is that ultimately the jury takes a decision without giving reasons.
      I hold to the view that it is perfectly reasonable to debate the proposition that we should provide a public interest defence. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook spent most of his speech on that subject. However, it is not possible to argue, as the amendments do, that we should retain something which exists in the present law under criminal legislation.
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the mover of the amendment, may I ask you whether at this stage, when there is a clash of opinion with QCs and others taking very different views, it would be reasonable to ask for the presence of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General to clear up these matters?
      Mr. Michael Foot: They should have been here.
      Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend says that they should have been here. I do not wish to be offensive to the Home Secretary, but as the mover of the amendment and a layman I think we are entitled to have a Law Officer present.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not have the authority to do what he asks. It might make sense for the Secretary of State to be allowed to reply to the debate so far. In Committee there is no requirement for any hon. or right hon. Member to seek the approval of the Committee to speak on a second occasion.
      Mr. Hurd: We are covering ground that we have covered before. I want to get to the heart of the matter. Regardless of whether there has been a public interest defence, on which I disagree with some right hon. and hon. Members and I think that I am right, we now reach the question whether there should be one in the future.
      I hope that the Committee will agree that there is no need to create a public interest defence where there can be no prosecution. I listened with very great care to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, who has since had to leave the Chamber. As he said, under the 1911 Act there could be a prosecution if there was any unauthorised disclosure of official documents on matters such as public health or aircraft safety. My right hon. Friend gave examples from the factories inspectorate, the Department of Transport and from his own continuous and eloquent efforts to protect his constituency from certain environmental evils. I am not so familiar with those cases as he is, and I do not know what reasons officials or official organisations had for withholding information on those various occasions, but having listened carefully I can assure my right hon. Friend that if the Bill is passed those officials will not be able to say to him what they said on those occasions—that they could not give him the information because it was against the criminal law.
      Mr. Hattersley: I realise that the Home Secretary is dealing with the speech of the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) at some length, so I wish to ask him a question that relates to the part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech regarding safety, the possible outbreak of disease, damage or contagion. Would the Bill catch the Windscale cover-up of 1957 when the Cabinet took a conscious decision not to allow people to know the damage that was caused by the leak at Windscale?
      Mr. Hurd: I do not know the background to the Windscale case or whether it conceivably could have come under any of the tests of harm in the Bill. However, I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's examples and I cannot think that they would. Indeed, my right hon. Friend's speech drew from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook the first acknowledgment in many hours of debate that the Bill, as compared with the Act, contains important safeguards. That was a very important and interesting admission. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point that it is not common sense that, whatever the arguments about the merits of particular disclosures, they should not be conducted on the basis of the criminal law. There may be wrinkles that I have not grasped, but I cannot see how his examples could

      465
      be within the scope of the present Bill, although they certainly came within the scope of section 2 of the Act. His speech was a measure of the substantial changes between the existing Act and the Bill which have been acknowledged for the first time by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I shall not contend the instances that my right hon. Friend recalls. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) gave other instances such as information originating from foreign Governments which might affect matters such as salmonella, poison or health risks, and information on the safety of aircraft engines. Those matters will still be covered by the criminal law with a very trivial defence barrier.
      Mr. Hurd: I will not swap epithets with my hon. Friend—he knows better than that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point dealt with that point, but it was not the main thrust of his argument. He said that he had been led to believe that it was possible that issues which might otherwise have been removed from the criminal law under the Bill, although they exist in the Act, might be retained by the protection which the Bill gives to confidential information obtained from other countries or international organisations. It has been argued that it would be an offence to disclose any EC draft directive or any confidential document on any subject. I understand why that misunderstanding may have occurred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and the safety organisations that he cited.
      It is perfectly true that that would have been the case under the White Paper. One of the criticisms made in the House when we debated the White Paper was that it went far too wide. Sir Leon Brittan made that point at the time, and we listened to that criticism. Therefore, the position is different in the Bill. Under the Bill, no one who discloses such information—information derived from a confidential draft EC document on salmonella, for example—can be convicted under the Bill unless his disclosure jeopardises our interests abroad. seriously obstructs the promotion or protection of those interests, or endangers the safety of our citizens abroad, or is likely to have any of those effects and he had good reason to know that it would. That is quite a different kettle of fish and it would be a considerable contortion to imagine circumstances in which the Bill as opposed to the White Paper could meet any of the cases that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point put forward.
      I entirely understand why my right hon. Friend put his case so strongly. If we had rested on the White Paper, although the great majority of the cases that he mentioned would be outside the Bill and would be examples of information liberated from the criminal law under the Bill, there might have been an argument about information derived from abroad. However, the change between the White Paper and the Bill deals with that point and I hope that on reflection my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) will regard it as reasonable.
      Mr. Buchan: The other aspect in clause 2 for which, again, there is an absolute case relates to defence. I live near the Clyde estuary, surrounded by nuclear weapons, nuclear bases and nuclear installations. If there were a leakage, damage would be done to the health of the local
      466
      community, but disclosure could damage our prestige, standing or relationship with allies. Would the interest of the state mean the interest of the people in the area and therefore mean that the information should be disclosed, as was argued in regard to Windscale, or would the Bill prevent that?
      Mr. Hurd: The present law provides no protection. We shall discuss later the specific defences to which the hon. Gentleman refers and hon. Members will decide whether they are sufficiently specific, too wide or too narrow.
      6 pm
      Mr. Gorst: My right hon. Friend is exchanging the disincentive in section 2 of the Act for a further disincentive. No one will feel free to make a disclosure with the sword of Damocles described as "harm" hanging over his head. The prosecution will have to prove that harm took place—and unless the person is proved to have been justified in making a disclosure in the public interest he will go down for years.
      Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has not grasped the narrow nature of the Bill. In the type of case with which my hon. Friend sympathetically helped my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), there is no question of having to prove harm. Prosecutions cannot be brought on matters relating to public health, so there is no need for a public interest defence.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: What about clause 3(3)?
      Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has returned to the international issue.
      Mr. Shepherd: My right hon. Friend asserted that under this category information coming from the EEC would not harm the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, and he emphasised "abroad". One of the issues raised in previous debates was that the test of damaging the interests of the United Kingdom abroad is satisfied by the fact that a document is confidential. That is what has caused the difficulty and why we say that it is within the scope of the criminal law.
      Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is wrong—
      Mr. Shepherd: It should be amended.
      Mr. Hurd: The test of damage to our interests abroad applies whether or not the prosecution is based on the contents of disclosure.
      Mr. Shepherd: What is the test?
      Mr. Hurd: The test is of jeopardising our interests abroad. It is extremely unlikely that the examples given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, the Father of the House, will be brought within the scope of the Bill.
      I shall deal with the parts of the Bill that are relevant to the arguments deployed by hon. Members about public health and safety. With two exceptions, it will be for the jury to decide whether a disclosure meets the terms of the harm described in the Bill. Most people expected ministerial certificates to be introduced. All issues are to be decided by the jury because it is not the Government but the jury who are the arbiters on the basis of the legislation that Parliament passes. That is why I do not recognise the portrait painted by the right hon. Member for

      467
      Sparkbrook. I understand why those who, like the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, thought in terms of ministerial certificates—throughout their working lives their propositions were based on ministerial certificates—have difficulty in accepting the full implications of the change that we are proposing.
      Two sets of circumstances are defined in the Bill in which we believe that the disclosure of official information without authority must inevitably cause harm. The Committee has already discussed the first—clause 1—in which a former member of the security and intelligence services or a notified person breaks the secrecy by which the services must operate. The second relates to the disclosure of information about or arising from the use of the special investigation powers under statutory warrant from the Secretary of State. In all the other more substantial information covered by the Bill, including information relating to security and intelligence that is not covered by the special offence that I have just mentioned, it will be for the jury to decide whether a disclosure caused or was likely to cause the form of serious harm to the public that the Bill specifies. I cannot accept that any of the harm tests are minor, trivial or unimportant. Hon. Members will want to discuss the wording of the relevant test, but no criticism of it can be a sufficient argument for setting aside or overlaying those tests with a different public interest defence.
      In different ways, the amendments propose an over-arching, public interest defence. It is worth mentioning that there will be no over-arching, public interest prosecution. We have deliberately narrowed the scope of possible prosecution by providing, in most cases, the specific harm test. At present, the prosecution need not prove harm, but in future it will not be possible for it to argue against a civil servant who reveals a defence secret that the disclosure damaged some vague public interest. The prosecution will have to show that the defendant knowingly caused or was likely to cause the harm defined by Parliament in the Bill.
      In the light of the relevant harm tests, the defendant is free to introduce such evidence as he chooses to support his argument that the disclosure was not likely to cause that harm or that he had no reasonable cause to know that it would. He can argue that the prosecution's application of the test of harm is mistaken and that on a proper application of the test his disclosure was not likely, for example, to damage the capability of the armed forces. He may say, on the contrary, that as he was revealing deficiencies his disclosure could not possibly have harmed the forces and could only have enhanced their capability. Within the test of harm, the jury will have to decide that argument.
      The Bill does not allow the defendant to argue that, although his disclosure has caused the specified harm, and he knew that it would, the court should weigh that against some other consideration. Critics argue that that is a restriction on the defence, but it is also—I am sure that this will be acknowledged by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, who is a former Solicitor-General—a restriction on the prosecution in the sense that I have just described. The argument will be whether the test of harm has been satisfied.
      Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary seems to be arguing that there is a concept of balance of harm. He said that it would be open to argument that, although some harm had been done, even more good had been done— [Interruption.] The Home Secretary said or implied that, and I am asking for clarification. Am I right in thinking that, if a little harm is done, it is sufficient to convict even though the defence may argue that much benefit has been derived at the same time?
      Mr. Hurd: If the prosecution were based on the test specified for defence information, the defence would simply argue that harm had not been done or that capability had not been damaged. The defence would adduce arguments to prove its case, but neither the prosecution nor the defence could import vague arguments derived from other matters. I hope that that is clear.
      Mr. Buchan: If the harm relates to the defence of the country, but the good relates to the interests of people in the area, it would be sufficient to prove that harm had been done—not to make a balance—for the person to be found guilty.
      Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is right, and on that he will base his criticisms of the Bill. In the case that he mentioned, the test would be whether harm had been done to the defence forces.
      It has been suggested—this is the crux of the matter—that there are circumstances in which it is necessary for a person seriously to harm this country's vital interests to reveal a matter of public concern. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) sought to argue that from his example. We do not accept that argument because we believe that there are ample ways of pursuing grievances, worries and anxieties up to the highest level if one is a public servant, although the methods vary according to the Department concerned.
      The case that has caused the greatest discussion in Committee is the absolute offence. I remind the House that about 15 months ago a staff counsellor was appointed to whom members and former members of the intelligence and security services could take anxieties about their work. He has unrestricted access to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to myself to report on any matter raised with him.
      Mr. Winnick: Let us consider again the case of Cathy Massiter. Had there been a staff counsellor then—I know that he was appointed afterwards—and she had not been satisfied that her complaint was being dealt with properly, what could she have done if what she saw as an abuse by the security services continued? Is he telling us that in those circumstances someone like that or anyone else in future should come to the conclusion that there is no overriding interest for the country above that of the Government of the day?
      Mr. Hurd: There have been two recent changes since that case—I have deliberately not referred to past cases. I have just mentioned the first and the other is the procedure for warrants which took up considerable time during the debate on the Security Services Bill. The hon. Gentleman knows the position. One reform already introduced is that warrants must be authorised personally by the Secretary of State with the commissioner looking over his shoulder and, of course, people with grievances will have access to

      469
      the tribunal. We propose to extend that principle to any interference with property that the Security Service may undertake.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd rose—
      Mr. Hurd: So there have been two substantial changes in recent years and, between them, they provide a remedy for iniquity—to use the legal jargon for the point that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made. The remedy that a member or a former member of the security or intelligence services should seek should be other than breaking the duty of confidentiality.
      Mr. Hugh Dykes: My right hon. Friend has commended to us the enhancement of the internal Civil Service rectification procedures and has said that the internal situation in all Departments will be much improved. Does that not mean that he should have greater assurance and self-confidence and accept the strong arguments for the public interest defence? The senior civil servants to whom aggrieved civil servants take complaints about serious misdemeanour will know of the solemn and serious procedures and will know that, in the background, there is the possibility of the public interest defence being invoked if an unallowable disclosure takes place. On the other hand, the aggrieved civil servant who is anxious to get off his chest the fact that gross and improper misdemeanours and wrongdoings are occurring in his Department will know that the final, solemn and awesome step, which he does not want to entertain as a possibility, is that public interest defence which he knows that he has the right to invoke in the final analysis. Surely my right hon. Friend should have more confidence in the internal procedures and should see the merits and weight of having those two considerations proceeding jointly, rather than one cancelling out the other.
      Mr. Hurd: I admire my hon. Friend's great ingenuity in making that point and I shall try to deal with it. I was trying to put the argument that, although it would have been possible, a long time ago, to argue that the people referred to in clause 1 had no remedy except to go to the press, that argument no longer exists. In dealing with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) one must look at the amendments, one of which he believes I should accept.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I hope that my right hon. Friend saw the letter in The Times a week ago from Lord Croham, Sir Douglas Wass, Sir Patrick Nairne and others. They envisaged that internal procedures cannot always be relied upon and that, therefore, some other mechanism is needed. The burden of my right hon. Friend's argument is that internal procedures can be relied upon absolutely, which conflicts with the views of those who have administered the Civil Service for some years and who have some insight.
      Mr. Hurd: The letter did not argue for my hon. Friend's proposition, but for further strengthening of internal procedures. The letter-writers were a little out of date because the procedures have been updated. There is now access to the head of the Civil Service and not just to the head of Department, but that is a minor change and we do not rest our case on that. The letter from those
      470
      distinguished former public servants is an argument not for amendment, but for a further strengthening of internal remedies.
      It is useful that our critics have tabled this group of amendments because we then have something to shoot at:. Some of the amendments, such as amendment No. 91, would justify disclosure on grounds, such as the suspicion of misconduct, so wide that they would give the wrong message to public servants and could lead to a dangerous weakening of the public service.
      Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hurd: I shall just illustrate my point. New clause 1 and some of the other amendments seek to provide an absolute defence for anyone who can show reasonable cause to believe that the information he disclosed suggested the existence of misconduct, however minor. What is misconduct? Does it mean being slow in answering a letter or taking a few days off when one should not? We have had to face such criticisms. It is right to say that the amendments go wide. What is meant by
      "neglect in the performance of official duty"?
      That could cover comparatively minor matters. Amendment No. 91 provides that indication of such behaviour would be sufficient to prevent prosecution for an unauthorised disclosure, even if it caused great harm.
      I shall now deal with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. He implied that it would not matter if the plans of the British Army of the Rhine were revealed so long as one indicated the existence of neglect in the performance of public duty or other misconduct.
      Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hurd: I am coming to the end of my remarks.
      Far from asserting the Government's role as an arbiter, which is the gravamen of the charge made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, the Bill, in comparison with section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, is shifting the balance in favour of the individual, whether a civil servant or journalist, by withdrawing the criminal law wholly from the bulk of official information and providing that the specific harm test will not be laid down by Government but agreed by Parliament. For most of the remainder, the prosecution will have to pass the specific harm test, and the Bill provides that nobody can be convicted if he had no reason to know that his disclosure would be harmful and will leave the final decision to the jury without ministerial certificates.
      The question is whether with all those changes we want to provide grounds—sometimes loosely defined—that would justify public disclosure of information that Parliament will have decided should be kept close. I am sure that we should not.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Home Secretary's early intervention in the debate has been helpful, because it has revealed the poverty of the Government's case at an early stage. We shall not now have to indulge in speculation about how the Government will deploy their defence, but can instead examine the argument that the Home Secretary has used to seek to deflect almost universal criticism of the Government's refusal to adopt a public interest defence. There was widespread support for the Government's attempt to amend section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, but by digging

      471
      in his heels against the public interest defence the Home Secretary has frittered away the goodwill that he undoubtedly enjoyed when he embarked on this task.
      I shall speak specifically to new clause 5, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), but before I do so I should like to discuss amendments Nos. 81 and 16, in the name of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Their purpose is to restrict the scope of the offence relating to disclosures about security or intelligence to disclosures about the lawful activities of the security and intelligence services. If the amendments were carried, it would not be an offence to reveal information about the illegal activities of the service. That would deter such activities, as anyone contemplating illegal activity would know that he ran a greater risk of being publicly exposed. The Home Secretary did not refer to amendments Nos. 81 and 16, and perhaps he will do so later in the debate as they could be accepted without undermining the Government's objectives as he outlined them.
      We went over a good deal of the ground in our debates last week, but there are one or two points that I should like to make for the first time. It should be recognised that there may be a particular benefit to society in the unauthorised disclosure of information, even if that causes damage, and such a case is not entirely hypothetical. The Government considered the issue back in 1979 following an adverse report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the production of a report by the Civil Service Department called "Legal Entitlements and Administrative Practices". A committee was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Deedes with the advantage of the membership of Lord Croham and a number of other distinguished lawyers and administrators. That report proffered advice from the Lord Advocate's Department in Scotland:
      "There would be fraudulent silence if an official had previously given information which he subsequently discovered to be incorrect and failed to communicate the true situation, if that failure would result in the person remaining ignorant of a right to claim."
      The Director of Public Prosecutions reported that such silence could also amount to a conspiracy to defraud in English law. The Government's committee reported:
      "In constitutional terms, the Minister is responsible for the actions of his Departmental staff, who act on his behalf and whose authority is delegated to them by him. This, however, does not absolve the individual civil servant from his obligation to act within the law in carrying out his duties. If he breaks the law he cannot seek to excuse himself in terms of the constitutional responsibility of his Minister."
      It is widely understood that the Bill makes the civil servant's position even more difficult than that described in the Government's own document of 1979, and it is interesting to note that the original advice was given by the man who is now Lord Chancellor. The Bill would make the civil servant's position more difficult because it would force him to choose between making an unauthorised disclosure which could cause damage—factually demonstrable damage or conclusively deemed damage—and remaining a silent party to a criminal offence. In advancing the public interest defence, we seek to protect civil servants from that dilemma. That is part of the argument behind my new clause 5, which differs slightly from new clause 4,
      472
      tabled by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, although I should be ready to support his new clause if the Minister preferred it to mine.
      The form of defence that I advocate would require that a Crown servant should first have taken reasonable steps to comply with established procedures for making such disclosures to the appropriate authorities but that they should have had no effect. I acknowledge freely that that defence is more akin to that under the civil law of confidence in which the balancing of competing public interests is involved. The fact that this can be done had been shown conclusively by the Law Commissions. The Law Commission reported on this matter in October 1981 and the Scottish Law Commission in December 1984.
      The more recent of the reports, the Scottish Law Commission report, stated the case straightforwardly:
      "We have no doubt that the law should be prepared to recognise that use or disclosure of confidential information in the public interest may sometimes be permissible and justifiable. Unless this is clearly recognised, the law on breach of confidence could become a shield for those engaged in criminal or other antisocial activity."
      I readily acknowledge that those remarks were made in the context of the amendment of the civil law. The conclusions of the English Law Commission were equally forceful, and its consideration of the common law supports the conclusion that I have described. If the court is capable of balancing public interest considerations in the civil law—as it has in a number of cases—I do not see why it cannot similarly balance public interest considerations in criminal law cases. I put it to the Home Secretary that, while his attempt to distingush may be historically interesting, it is not relevant to the argument.
      Mr. Archer: Would not the hon. Gentleman go a step further than that? If it is unjustifiable to apply civil sanctions without making that balance, is it not even more unjustifiable to apply criminal sanctions without doing so?
      Mr. Maclennan: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
      The Home Secretary has shown the weakness of the ground on which he stands by his uncertainty in dealing with the legal situation. He has tried to run the argument that there is no such thing as a public interest defence in the criminal law. That argument has been disproved and displaced, and he has heard examples of such a public interest defence. So he has modified his position to suggest that there is no public interest defence in the sphere of official secrets.
      To abbreviate the debate, which no doubt will be a long one, I shall not rehearse at length arguments about the Ponting case. Clearly, in that case a public interest defence was successfully deployed by Clive Ponting and was a contributory factor in his acquittal. The Home Secretary is standing on very weak ground if he is arguing that the law of England on this matter was set out by Mr. Justice McCowan in his statement in that case, and if that is the only ground on which he rests his argument that there is no such defence in criminal law. He has not succeeded in persuading the House.
      6.30 pm
      The public importance of having a public interest defence cannot be overstated. The Bill is taking existing legal protection away from civil servants and the

      473
      possessors of official information who have good reason to be convinced that there is wrongdoing and that the public interest is served by disclosing this fact.
      The Home Secretary has argued that the official channels of communication are sufficient. But although improved avenues from those that existed in the past can be used and relied on by a concerned civil servant, to have his concerns ventilated, higher up the service, very few of us, in the light of the "Spycatcher" case, will feel total confidence that the senior civil servants will necessarily take the view of the concerned official, and not the view of the Prime Minister, as she instructed Sir Robert Armstrong to take her case and point of view and contest it in the courts around the world. Few of us believe that in other cases the political view of the political head of department will not prevail against the view of an official who is perhaps at a much lower level that what will be done will be done properly in the public interest.
      I do not believe that the law proposed by the Home Secretary is a good law, because it will not work. The sense of public and civic responsibility that imbues our Civil Service will override even the consideration of the possible criminal penalty that a civil servant may suffer as a result of revealing wrongdoing.
      This is plainly a response to the "Spycatcher" case and, more directly, the Ponting case. It will fail in its objective, but it will not fail without great hardship and uncertainty and agonising. It will take away from patriotic civil servants who are seeking to put the interests of the nation before the corporate interest of the body in which the wrongdoing is done a legitimate protection that they ought to enjoy in the law of the land, and which they do enjoy in the civil law. There is no argument but that they will not enjoy it in future under the criminal law.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: It is always worth bearing in mind what the Bill does not deal with. It is not about section I offences of crime, espionage and treason. It is directing its attention to the generality of Government information in a number of specified areas that we think ought to be secured. The Government contend that that security should descend so low as to cover documents that are currently classified as confidential. We are looking to see whether the criminal law should be appropriate to that. The Government further contend that from as low a degree of secrecy as confidentiality they need to apply two years imprisonment and take in the whole grading of document classification in Whitehall.
      The Government's proposition to the House in the Bill is that it is necessary to send a man or woman to prison even if he or she reveals crime or fraud or iniquity, without their having any defence or the Government's having to adduce any form of damage or harm. That is an outrageous and monstrous proposition. It is a proposition that tyrants hide behind. It is a proposition that should be rejected by the Commons of Britain. There is no way that this has ever been an acceptable contention outside the Napoleonic wars or the darkest days of the Stuart monarchy. It is something which we fought to overturn. A Conservative Government come to the House and contend that it is necessary to send someone to prison for up to two years, without his having a defence, even if the information relates only in Civil Service classification terms to "confidential". I think that that proposition is one we should want to reject.
      474
      We have failed to look at the classification, or succeed in encouraging the Government to be more generous in their view of who should be covered by the absolute offence category. We learnt last Wednesday, in an extraordinary debate, that the Home Secretary, or the Government of the day, can nominate anyone to be covered by the category of absolute offences. That, therefore, means that, should it be in the mind of a Home Secretary who is neither as benign as my right hon. Friend nor a Conservative—it is for a generation later that we are legislating—he could nominate the editors of newspapers if necessary, if in his opinion the measure was so loosely drawn that the Government would not accept that it required refinement to meet what they had been saying offstage.
      We have often had this sort of difficulty when pressing new clauses and amendments. There have been press releases making assertions about the damage test. I have heard my right hon. Friend talking about serious damage. The Government write to newspaper editors and say, "We will prosecute only where serious damage is involved." They write to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and talk about serious damage. On Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary talked about serious damage being incurred before the Government would invoke the criminal law.
      Yet look at the Bill. It does not mention "serious damage" anywhere. It trips down a degree of classification, and says "damage"—in order to meet some of the contentions that a man or woman should go to prison, possibly without a defence or the opportunity to mount one, or that the Government have only to establish the lowest level of damage: confidentiality. In some cases the evidence is so stacked against the defence as to make it difficult for them to overcome the prosecution's contention on a narrow front, such as that the Home Secretary did not take up or respond to clause 3(3) in which it is deemed that damage is effective because a document is confidential. Almost every document I have ever heard about in Whitehall, or between Governments, is marked "confidential", so that trivialises the damage test that the Government have to meet.
      That is why we say, having been unable so far to coax the Government into generosity and a realisation that they are the representatives of the British people, through the House of Commons, and not the state aggrandising itself at the expense of the House of Commons, that there ought to be some amelioration of the Bill, and some brake on the Attorney-General raising a prosecution on the basis of something which is trivial, but could possibly succeed in a criminal prosecution in the courts. That is why my hon. Friends, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in other parts of the House, have expressed a desire for some form of public interest defence. As I said, it is not as caricatured in the White Paper. It is set out fairly specifically in new clause 4.
      Mr. William Powell: Supposing a jury is trying a person charged under new clause 1, which has been tabled by the right hon. :Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), and they conclude that the disclosure was not in the public interest but that, when it was made, the man being prosecuted genuinely believed that it was in the public interest for it to be disclosed. Would that ensure that he would be acquitted?
      Mr. Shepherd: Until now I had assumed that my hon. Friend was a distinguished lawyer. I understood that that was his profession. It is for the jury to determine guilt. If they find that the man has committed an offence, no matter of his calling out that it is in the public interest, they will determine his freedom. The jury will decide. In those circumstances, the jury will find him guilty.
      The point about a public interest defence is that there is a mechanism for the individual to say that, in the public interest, the revelation of crime or fraud overcomes the fact that he released a confidential document and therefore overcomes the fact that the prosecution merely has to prove that he has done some trivial damage. The jury can weigh in their consideration whether his revelation of fraud or of crime was in the public interest. That does not stop the disciplinary procedures of the Civil Service coming into play. It does not mean that the man will not be dismissed, but it means that he can at least say, "I have acted in an honourable way."
      I read in The Daily Telegraph of last Monday
      "Whistleblower law to break Left's grip".
      It seems that the Government, through their new Local Government and Housing Bill—I have no doubt that if I or The Daily Telegraph have got it wrong we will be corrected—will seek to appoint what The Daily Telegraph, I am sure, wrongly characterises as whistle blowers
      "empowered to speak out against illegal or unfair actions as part of a campaign to raise standards of local government".
      What they think is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. I do not know whether many people would say that crime or abuse goes on—The Daily Telegraph refers to illegal or unfair actions—in local government. We want it revealed. I should think that all hon. Members will march through the Lobbies in support of that contention.
      Mr. Robin Corbett: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There has been the most disgraceful leak. The Local Government and Housing Bill was published yesterday. The name "whistle blower" does not appear in the Bill. He is generally called a monitoring officer. In all other details, the hon. Gentleman is right. The Bill refers to contravention by the authority, by any committee, and so on, of the rule of law or of any code of practice, maladministration or injustice. It is on all fours with the hon. Gentleman's point.
      Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: I stand in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell). Is there not a major flaw in new clauses 1 and 4? It is what the person making the disclosure actually believes—[Interruption.] No. New clause 4 states that he must have
      "reasonable cause to believe that it indicated the existence of crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect in the performance of official duty or other misconduct."
      If a person did it in good faith and had reasonable cause at the time, but it is wrong, the jury will acquit him, despite the harm and damage to the national interest. The new clause relates to what a person believes, not to what the situation actually is.
      Mr. Shepherd: The person must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the jury that he has met the criterion—that he has proved that the disclosure or retention of the
      476
      information, document or other article was in the public interest. As the Home Secretary has been arguing, it is then that the jury comes into play. It is for the jury to decide.
      6.45 pm
      Sir Ian Gilmour: On a more fundamental point, the defence must have a reasonable cause to believe. A defendant cannot say, "I believe that." If it is idiotic, the jury will not allow it. It is reasonable cause, which, to some extent, is an objective test.
      Mr. Shepherd: At the end of the day, that is the test. We may be sending people to prison. We are prepared to enact this legislation for people revealing crime or fraud. The Government say that that proposition is quite right.
      At one stage last Wednesday hon. Members learnt of the wig maker of a former head of the Civil Service in 1918. The Minister said that it was an operational matter. It was quite right too, he told hon. Members, that that individual should be prosecuted. We want to ensure that that sort of nonsense is not contained in the Bill or could be interpreted by a court of law. Therefore, we are trying to provide the means by which a jury and, therefore, the House can be alerted to facts about our national life.
      Mr. Hind: I should like my hon. Friend to consider this point again. He is discussing the public interest. The public interest is exposed in his argument, but he must look at the test that follows, which would show a jury what the public interest is. His test of defining the public interest is what the person making the disclosure reasonably believes is a criminal offence or whatever. If that is erroneous, much damage can be done to the public interest.
      Mr. Shepherd: My hon. Friend misunderstands. If a person's judgment is erroneous, he is guilty and will be sentenced accordingly. He will be found guilty by the jury. It is a jury point.
      Mr. Hurd: The jury decide.
      Mr. Shepherd: I join my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in asserting the value of the jury in determining the matter. It is in that spirit that one moves this contention.
      There is the argument in the Duncan Sandys case which is well remembered by hon. Members who have long memories or are better read. That case occurred before the war, and the Committee of Privileges examined it. It made the point that—it follows what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said—to go to a Member of Parliament is the right of every citizen in this country. One cannot express the freedoms and rights of the people without having access to a Member of Parliament. That is essential. With this legislation we do not provide the right to those covered by absolute offences to go to a Member of Parliament. We discover that we do not allow them to go to a solicitor. As I understood the debate last Wednesday, a man in the designated category or in the security services could not even seek advice from his solicitor because he would be imparting information that was contrary to the Act. It is an absolute offence—any information to any person. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will amend the Bill to take account of that fact.
      Mr. Gorst: Even though a man may not be able to go to a solicitor before he has committed an offence, he presumably will do so after he has committed it.
      Mr. ShepherdI certainly hope so. My right hon. Friend and the Minister of State are always happy to remind us to read carefully what they have said, as one does. As I understood the debate, that is exactly what was said. It is an offence to reveal any information to anyone, to which the Minister added, "and quite right too".
      Mr. Archer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister of State appeared to say that someone would have committed an offence but that there might be some difficulty in proving it?
      Mr. Shepherd: I do not want to detain the Committee, because many hon. Members want to speak. We are asking why it is right to send someone to prison without a defence for revealing a crime or fraud. Is it not necessary in our democratic country to know when crime or fraud are committed in Government? We cannot have accountable Government unless we know what they do. If we erect barriers so that we deny the citizen and the House the ability to know that information, we may never be able to judge appropriately and properly whether the Government are ethical, appropriate and working in the interests of this country.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is always a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). He brings passion to issues which over the years have become pedantic. They come as much alive as the constitutional debates of the 18th century. As an older Member of Parliament, I simply say to him that it raised my heart to hear him talk as he did about the role of a Member of Parliament. Listening to the debate last evening, I wondered whether the role of a Member of Parliament had degenerated into knockabout farce to replace the music halls. The way the hon. Gentleman dealt with a difficult issue lifted my heart.
      I am glad to speak after the Home Secretary, because what he said added force to my view that, on this subject and many others, it is difficult to get the legislation right. Earlier in the debate, there was a reference to four former permanent secretaries who wrote a letter to The Times about procedures within the Civil Service. The Home Secretary explained that they were arguing that the Government's proposals did not go far enough. I simply use that example to show that the Government think the Bill goes far enough, but that those former civil servants said that earlier changes did not go far enough.
      As to my experience of the Official Secrets Act 1911, I want to refer to the Franks report. I was a member of the Franks committee which so many called in aid when arguing in favour of reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. I do not believe that any of us who were members of the committee at that time thought that we had got everything absolutely right. I certainly did not when, years later, I made a statement in the House and issued a White Paper.
      I accept that no Bill was forthcoming in my day. We see what is happening now, when the Government have a majority of over 100. With a majority of minus three, the Leader of the House would have put me in my place if I
      478
      had proposed legislation. We had not reached the point of dealing with certain issues, not the least of them being the question of the public interest.
      When I was on the Franks committee, the Prime Minister of the day gave evidence to it. In a different context, I accept, he said that there should be a new defence that publication was in the public interest. Therefore, I could not forget that, when I eventually introduced legislation, it had to include something about the public interest, however difficult it was.
      When the Home Secretary talked about the public interest, he confused me. It is not very difficult to do so in this respect, because I am not a lawyer. I do not wish to be disrespectful to the Home Secretary, but I wonder whether there should be a Law Officer on the Treasury Front Bench. Lawyers, distinguished or otherwise, have been arguing about what the Bill means. If they are doing that here, before the legislation receives Royal Assent, heaven knows what will happen when they get into court.
      I ask the Home Secretary to read paragraph 37 of the Franks report, headed:
      "Control over prosecutions by the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate."
      The paragraph says:
      "This decision is taken by the Attorney in his capacity as the Crown's senior Law Officer, responsible for the enforcement of the criminal law, not in his capacity as a Minister in the Government of the day. In deciding whether to prosecute he applies his judgment to the balance of public interest involved."
      At the moment, this public interest aspect is firmly in the legislation. I remember the then Attorney-General approaching me from what seemed a long distance across the room. He wanted to consult me, although making it absolutely clear that the decision was his, about whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute. The Attorney made his own decision on that case, although he consulted others—including, I think, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). We were not consulted together, but the Attorney was taking a view of the public interest.
      The names of the Law Officers are in the Bill. Therefore, will not the Law Officer still take a public interest view before deciding whether to prosecute?
      Mr. Archer: So that we may keep our minds clear about this, does my right hon. Friend agree that the question whether it is in the public interest to prosecute is a very different question from whether it was in the public interest to make the original disclosure?
      Mr. Rees: I understand that. That is why I am raising the matter. It is with diffidence that I return to the Home Secretary the point that if there is a Law Officer public interest concept in the legislation at all, there ought to be a public interest concept somewhere in the original decision.
      The public interest is a vital concern in the legislation. I realise that we have been debating the amendment for a long time; we will probably still be debating it at 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock, because it is a most important issue. I hope that we do not hear talk of a closure. This is an important issue, which the House has to tease out and discuss. It is not enough to argue that the amendments in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members have been drafted wrongly. The Government should have a chance to come back to us on Report. I hope that there will be a Report stage. Government Whips may come in

      479
      and say, "My God, are they still at it? What time are we going to take?" But this is not the Water Bill or another privatisation Bill, important though they are.
      As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made clear, the public interest in a democratic society is an important issue. Whatever Government are in power, society has every right to protect discussion and papers. We are arging about the balance of public interest, which changes from decade to decade. When I came to the House, less knowledgeable on these matters than I am now, I found hon. Members on both sides of the House who were concerned about such issues although they did not loom large in the so-called quality newspapers. The whole issue has developed since because of cases. I do not believe that we have heard the end of cases. People being what they are, there will be other cases. Therefore, it is important that we examine carefully the matter of the public interest.
      I base my remarks on what the Franks committee reported nearly 17 years ago. What came out then is relevant to what we are talking about now. The recommendations which we made were based on words written with all the majesty of a proconsul—like Lord Franks, with all his experience in Government service, in wartime, in the university world and as an ambassador eventually in Washington. He was a most remarkable man. Paragraph 116 of the report said:
      "National security is widely accepted as the prime justification for employing criminal sanctions to protect official information."
      That is where I start. Later we said:
      "In our view, the appropriate test on this basis, in relation to national security,"—
      we are talking about national security—
      "is that unauthorised disclosure would cause serious injury to the nation."
      I do not want to quote much more, but reading it afresh brings it all back to me. In paragraph 118, we said:
      "This means that the criminal law would not apply to information the unauthorised disclosure of which would cause some injury to the interests of the nation, but short of serious injury."
      Many people would be surprised on reading this to see that
      it is "serious injury" and not "some serious injury".
      However difficult it is to draw it up, that should be the basis of any legislation. How does one make one's judgment on that? I admit that there were difficulties in that respect. I would like to relate the matter to current issues. We said that criminal proceedings would be taken only against issues—documents, I suppose, in detail— where the mark on the paper was "secret" and above: that is, "secret" and "top secret". I admit, too, that the difficulties were that classifications of Government documents are for administrative purposes. As hon. Members will know, they are the vehicle by which civil servants know how to protect the contents.
      There are far more classified documents in the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office than there are in the Department of Education and Science. How are they protected? With "secret", for example at the top of the document, the private office knows how to handle them. Whether the classification told the truth about the nature of the document went out of the window long ago. Classifications were an administrative device. We felt that
      480
      there would have to be a clean out in Government service, that the classifications would have to be changed, and that documents within the Government service would have to be looked at from time to time to see whether the nomenclature at the top bore any sense.
      At home I have some documents which were issued when I was Northern Ireland Secretary with, I believe the nomenclature "confidential". They were reports about what the press had been saying about the situation in Northern Ireland at a difficult time. Given the feelings in the Northern Ireland community at that time, if that document had gone out of the Northern Ireland Office, heaven only knows what conspiratorial thoughts would have arisen. The classification, therefore, was perfectly proper, but about six months later one could have used those documents to wrap up fish and chips down the Shankill. The classification was right at the time but wrong a few months later.
      What do the classifications mean? I shall relate it to the Government's current problem. Let us start at the lowest classification:
      "RESTRICTED. Undesirable in the interest of the nation."
      It says underneath that:
      "The 'interests of the nation' are interpreted broadly."
      The classifications continue:
      "CONFIDENTIAL. Prejudicial to the interests of the nation."
      "SECRET. Serious injury to the interests of the nation."
      That is why we picked up the words "serious injury". Then:
      "TOP SECRET. Exceptionally grave damage to the nation."
      I picked that matter up because the other night, on "Newsnight", there was last week's leaked document about the White Paper on the reform of the National Health Service. At the top of that document, it said "Secret". In other words, if that document had got out, what it was saying was that it would cause serious injury to the nation. I do not believe that for one moment. What should have been at the top of that document was: "Keep this quiet until the Minister has revealed it in the House of Commons next Tuesday," and it should have been treated in that way. But secret? The classification was being used for administrative purposes. If the Government ever find out who leaked it—although today's Evening Standard puts a different interpretation on who did leak it—the treatment of the man or woman concerned would be determined under the Franks recommendations, because of the word "secret" at the top of the documents.
      Whatever the Government say, it is important, when deciding these new clauses and amendments, to hold on to "serious injury" as properly defined. We shall have to put our minds to that definition, because there is a public interest.
      Something I did not realise until I was on the Franks committee—not many other people knew it either—was that under the legislation, there had grown up conventions—let alone what was in the Act—that whether people had given information away was determined by whether they were authorised. We then discovered that some senior civil servants and Ministers were self-authorising. That meant that if a civil servant on the clerical grade leaked a "secret" document he was in real trouble. Of course, we are not talking about spies and section 1 of the Act. If a senior civil

      481
      servant leaked a secret document or talked about it over lunch, he would not be in trouble. Similarly, if the Minister did it, it would be self-authorised.
      The question of authorisation is extremely important in the light of the story in the Evening Standard, which I do not believe. I wanted to use the article to authorise this story. It says:
      "No. 10 dilemma … will they tell Maggie?
      Affair of the Cabinet grass."
      It says that it was leaked by a Cabinet Minister, but I do not believe that for one moment.
      Mr. Buchan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Baldry: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Rees: Let me get my other line in.
      I have never known of a Cabinet Minister coming back to the House after a Cabinet meeting and talking to the press about what had happened that morning. I believe that that is a fiction, from the imagination of thriller writers. However, if it happened, it would be self-authorisation. That raises an important issue. It is an issue which goes back to the Duncan Sandys case, which was a much more important issue. If this were to be a Cabinet Minister, I bet that he or she would not be brought to court. I believe that the Attorney-General would say that it was not in the public interest to bring the matter before the court.
      Mr. Baldry: Of course, the only reason that that has come out in the Evening Standard is that the press has to give some explanation of why the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) performed so appallingly at the Dispatch Box on the National Health Service White Paper. The only justification the press could come up with was that it was in some way a leak from the Government Benches to throw him off his stride. The truth is that it was undoubtedly an unauthorised leak and, even given four days studying it, the hon. Gentleman still muffed it at the Dispatch Box.
      Mr. Rees: As I wake up in the morning, the first thought that comes into my mind is not that I am not at the Dispatch Box. The hon. Member should take into account the fact that one is not eaten up with great ambition to do that, but it just happens. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that this did not happen, and the media have made it up, he must forgive me. However, if we suppose that it happened, what would the Attorney-General do if it came to his notice, via MI5, which apparently has a role in all this business, including business connected with hon. Members on the Floor of Parliament?
      Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend is being too moderate about this matter. He says that he does not believe this story, but surely the question is whether he has reasonable cause to believe it.
      Mr. Rees: What we are showing this evening—I hope the Government will allow us to have such a discussion on the other clauses—is that it is important to have a discussion on this clause. In the second major group of amendments, we should find something called the "public interest".
      I went into the court during the Ponting case because the documentation was not "secret" and above. It was the Government who said that it was not a matter of national
      482
      security. The man should have been dealt with in other ways and not brought before the court. If it had been a matter of national security, there is no way I would have become involved, but it was not a matter of national security. It is national security and serious injury that should be the linchpin. The rest should be dealt with in the Government service by the sort of procedures that major firms have and all of us have in any organisation to which we belong.
      I ask the Government to give us a chance. It will come up again in the Lords, when very eminent lawyers will be talking about it. There is a case, in a free society, on that balance, as Attorneys-General have had to take into account over the years in a very non-political way. Is it in the public interest? That was the question Sam Silkin put to me on one issue. Whether his decision was right or wrong is not a matter for me. There ought to be a matter of public interest in this legislation.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: I speak in support of new clause 4 in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and other right hon. and hon. Members who, as we know, recommend the public interest defence.
      Having heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and having read his speeches on the subject, I am still not clear why he does not accept new clause 4. I should have thought that the Government would be in favour of people acting in the public interest, instead of which they are strongly against it. I should like to look at the reasons that have been given. I do not want to enter into the argument between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about whether there is a public interest defence under the present law. That does not seem to me to be altogether relevant. But I was surprised by what my right hon. Friend said about the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Although certainly that Act is defective, he would surely concede that it is a great deal better than what went before. so it does not become him to denigrate the defence in that. I think that he was perhaps not speaking under full advisement.
      The point is that whether there is or is not a public interest defence under the present law is not relevant now because in the spheres with which we are dealing the law is becoming stricter. We all concede that that part of the Bill is excellent. The Home Secretary has cleared away the criminal law from great areas, but by implication he agreed that the law is becoming stricter in certain spheres when he said originally that the present law was too weak and too wide. Clearly he is now making it narrower and stricter, so the absence of a public sector defence now—if there is such an absence—is not relevant to what should happen in the future.
      New clause 4, which is much the same as new clause 1 but meets the point to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred, ensures that a civil servant or public employee would have to go through the established procedures and that those procedures would have to fail before the public sector defence would operate. Then, as we know, the defence would be existence of crime. I cannot believe that the Government would like crime by a public servant not to be revealed—or would they? I should have thought that the Home Secretary, especially in view of his other responsibilities, would have been quite strongly

      483
      against crime. The same surely applies to fraud, abuse of authority and negligence. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rather trivialised the matter when he referred to not answering a letter. Clearly that would not apply. The idea that the jury would listen to such a defence is clearly wrong.
      New clause 4 is fairly strictly drawn. It would not enable a defendant to say that he did not believe in the Vietnam war, the Falklands war or the Nigerian civil war. It is not a question of disagreeing with public policy. He would have to have found some crime or misdemeanour—something very wrong in the public service—that he was revealing. I cannot see why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not prepared to go along with that. He said earlier that he was against such a defence because it should be no part of the narrowly targeted scheme that is proposed, but it is difficult to think of this law as a narrowly targeted scheme. It is more like a blunderbuss than a precision instrument, so that argument seems irrelevant. My right hon. Friend said that confusion would be brought into the law where the Government are seeking to achieve certainty, but there is seldom any certainty in the law when my learned colleagues on either side of the House, or indeed in the courts, get at it. For anybody who has listened to the debate either today or last Wednesday to think that there will be any great certainty in this law is surely an illusion.
      7.15 pm
      What my right hon. Friend must have meant was that it was better to have a certain conviction than a defence which might get someone off. I cannot see what other meaning that sentence could have. Surely, on reflection, my right hon. Friend would agree that it is much better to have a slightly uncertain law which will prevent injustice than a certain law which will lead to people being wrongly and unjustly convicted. That is what the argument is about.
      I suppose that my right hon. Friend will say that this is a matter that should be left to the jury. We all have great faith in the jury and are very pleased that the Government are going to allow it to continue and are not going to throw it open to any form of market or put it up for auction—that it will remain as a palladium of our liberties and so forth. It is very important that the jury should continue, but the jury is not infallible, as the Home Office has every reason to know.
      I certainly have every reason to know it because one of my constituents was wrongly convicted, had his life ruined as a result and was then let out by one of my right hon. Friend's predecessors. That illustrates how wrong a jury can be. It was not in any way the fault of the judge, who summed up in favour of the defendent. It was the fault of the jury—and, of course, the fault of the Court of Appeal which said that the jury could not be wrong and must be infallible. The second time round they got it right, but by that time my constituent's life had been more or less ruined.
      It is not enough, therefore, to leave it to the jury. The law must be clarified so that the jury knows what it is allowed to consider and what it is not allowed to consider. It is surely far better for the jury and for the law that
      484
      people who are acting correctly in the public interest should not be sent to prison for doing something which most people would think was right.
      As the arguments that we have heard against the public interest defence have been extremely threadbare, I hope that the Government will think again.
      Mr. Foot: May I first make one or two personal references. I do not mean them in any offensive way, but I want to refer to one or two hon. Members who have spoken earlier in the debate.
      The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, tabled a new clause and apparently received a favourable response from the Home Secretary, who indicated that the right hon. Gentleman had understood the Bill and the new openings that would arise if it went through. Therefore, the dangers that the right hon. Gentleman described when in the past he played such a distinguished part in bringing these matters to the House did not arise. It was all covered by the Bill.
      I certainly hope that that is the case. The right hon. Gentleman raised important matters. I say that particularly because he referred to the work of the Health and Safety Executive, which I was responsible for establishing. It was largely because of the right hon. Gentleman's activities that we ensured that the HSE covered various areas. So I hope very much that it is true that, as the Home Secretary seemed to suggest, the public safety problem is now removed, and that it will be confirmed by including the new clause, or the equivalent of its words if the Government do not think that those words will do the job satisfactorily, in the Bill. I believe that that would assist and I hope that everyone would be satisfied.
      It was very important that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) reminded us at the beginning of the debate of the Ponting case, which was one of the origins of the Bill—it was not the sole one, but obviously it had an effect on the Government's thinking. It is right that the House of Commons and the Government should draw the proper conclusions from that case. The Government have drawn the wrong one, but that is another matter.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow was right to raise the matter afresh because it is part of the proper prelude to this debate. I emphasise that, because I disagree with my hon. Friend about the Belgrano affair. I have never thought that he was right about that because that ship might quite easily have returned to the battle line. However, that does not alter the fact—indeed, it reinforces it—that it was wrong that false information should have been given to Ministers at the Ministry of Defence. It was also wrong that Ministers were prepared to purvey some of that false information to the House.
      It is pretty wretched of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) not to turn up for these debates—I think he is still a Member of the House. He should have come to speak, particularly on matters in which he had a close interest at the time. Many hon. Members will remember the speech that the right hon. Gentleman made at the time of the Ponting affair. He should come to the House to say whether he still holds the views that he tried to persuade the House to adopt at that time.
      The Ponting case has affected this legislation and it is important that we should examine it carefully. The origin of the Bill is not, as the Home Secretary said, that the Government carried out a general examination of the way

      485
      that present legislation was working, examined the Franks report and came forward with a great liberal reform. That was not their motive for introducing the Bill—although they did examine the past.
      Two cases inspired—if that is the proper term—the Government to introduce this legislation. I can clinch that claim by asking hon. Members to imagine how the Home Secretary persuaded the Prime Minister to give both her and her Cabinet's support to the Bill. Does anybody imagine that he went to her and said, "I propose to deal with the official secrets trouble that we have experienced over the past few years by introducing a great liberal reforming measure that will make it easier to deal generously with such cases"? The Home Secretary would hardly have persuaded her on the spot with such an appeal. The right hon. Gentleman did not say to the Prime Minister, "This is the way to establish your great liberal reputation and make your predecessor's Administration seem a reactionary one."
      I picture it another way, with the Prime Minister asking the right hon. Gentleman, "Well, can you assure me that your change in the law will mean that we shall not have another Ponting or `Spycatcher' case? Will it solve difficulties such as those two?" Whatever variations the Government permit in other parts of the Bill, and I hope that some will be made, solving such difficulties forms the linchpin of the Bill.
      Central to the Bill—we discussed it last week, too—is the fact that the Government say that they will lay down for the first time an absolute principle of confidentiality, combined with a refusal to permit a public interest defence. The Government believe that those two factors will ensure that they have a new form of protection for official secrets, and that they will not have to suffer the humiliation of another Ponting or "Spycatcher" case. It is likely that the Home Secretary gave the Prime Minister assurances on both those matters.
      It is also probable that Law Officers were invited in to discuss the matter. It is deplorable that those Law Officers are not present for this debate. I mean no disrespect to the Minister of State, who stood up to last week's blast and battering with great fortitude and allowed many other hon. Members to put their arguments. I do not class him with some of his colleagues of similar rank in other Departments—the parade of parliamentary popinjays—with whom this House has to put up. However, I say to the Minister and the Home Secretary that it is scandalous that the Bill should be carried through the House with no Law Officers present—particularly when, as I have said, it was the mistaken advice that they gave over the past two or three years that was largely responsible for the Government's difficulties.
      In the Ponting case, the Law Officers' advice turned out to be wrong. The "Spycatcher" case was an even more glaring, persistent and expensive affair which continued month after month, with the Prime Minister and Home Office and Foreign Office officials asking the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General for their advice. Now, when we come to make a change in the Bill, we do not even have the chance to see whether the Law Officers agree with our interpretation of the Bill.
      The Home Secretary has frequently attended the debates, but is not qualified to tell us the exact legal position. He has not answered the demands made by Opposition Members. It would have been much better if the Minister had arranged for the Attorney-General to
      486
      wind up the debate on this central part of the Bill. We need to know whether it is time that no public interest defence existed before. The Home Secretary is wrong to say that, and the more he repeats it, the more he injures his case. He should understand that a public interest defence has been used effectively in the past in the cases of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and of Ponting and "Spycatcher".
      When the "Spycatcher" case went to the Law Lords, they expressed a different view on the matter from that persistently taken over the previous two years by the Executive, as advised by its Law Officers. The reason for the Bill lies in all these past events. However, instead of drawing the proper conclusions from them and declaring that the law should be made more liberal, the Government have introduced a Bill that tightens the law and removes the public interest defence from some parts of it.
      The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) first raised the Sandys affair to which I referred last week. The Minister of State rightly said that he did not know as much about it as I did. He spoke as if it were not a matter of major consequence, but it was. It was not only that it involved the Committee of Privileges, although that was an important element. The Duncan Sandys case was referred to the Committee of Privileges. That offered protection to a civil servant or a member of the defence services because it allowed him to approach a Member of Parliament. That was extremely important, but the matter was never brought to a conclusion.
      The Government of the day were one of the most wretched in our history and would have pursued Churchill and those associated with him in the most bitter manner. At one stage, they almost tried to destroy him in his constituency. At that time, Churchill had to be careful about the way in which he defended himself because the Government would not have refrained from convicting him, Duncan Sandys and his associates of being guilty of betraying the nation.
      7.30 pm
      I remember the spirit of vengeance that sometimes prevailed in the Whips' Office of the Conservative Government at that time. They were very bitter times. Even then, Churchill said that the Government could not proceed with an official secrets Act of that kind. He said that there must be proper protection not only for a civil servant to be able to approach a Member of Parliament, but also for the patriotic citizens who said, "We shall tell Churchill and other people what are the real dangers."
      That defence was operable at that time. The matter did not go to a court. There was a general consensus that, in the last resort, Churchill and his associates could not be pursued. That was an estimate of the element of public interest involved in the affair. A public interest defence was available to people approaching a Member of Parliament. There was a public interest defence in that critical issue even under the wretched Official Secrets Act 1911 which we all know must be abolished. Let no one deny that they were critical issues. They involved the life of the state and people had to make up their minds what they were going to do. Some brave people decided to defy what was apparently the Government's view at the time, and that view was as obtuse as this Government's approach to the Bill.
      Mr. Hore-Belisha and Neville Chamberlain said that all right rested with them. They claimed to be the people who

      487
      knew and had to be obeyed. They were the Executive with the almighty power. Anyone who tried to trespass on that had to be dealt with by being driven out of public life. That is what would have happened if Churchill had gone down on the Duncan Sandys case. It would have been impossible for people to estimate the consequences for this country. Given that background, it is pitiable for the Government to say that they are dealing with the question properly when they come to the House and cannot answer the question whether the people who took the honourable course of telling Churchill at the time of the Duncan Sandys case and thus broke their oath had done right.
      The Government should take away the Bill and introduce much better proposals to deal with the matter. New clause I covers the question of a public interest defence better than any of the other new clauses. However, if the Government proceed with the Bill without any legal advice, with nothing but their majority on which to rely and with scarcely any discussion or attempt to listen to anyone, it will destroy for ever the Home Secretary's liberal reputation. His reputation stands a good deal higher than that of most of his colleagues, but, if he rams the Bill through in the face of such opposition, he will live to regret it all his life. I plead with him to go back to the Cabinet and say, "We shall have a public interest clause in this Bill because the House of Commons demands it."
      Mr. Edward Heath: Having had an opportunity to join in the debate on an earlier occasion, I hope that this will be a brief contribution. On that occasion, I congratulated my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on tackling this immensely difficult task. Today's debate, which has been serious and, in many ways, fascinating, has demonstrated both the problems involved and the skill with which the Home Secretary has attacked the problem.
      The Bill is undoubtedly an improvement on what we discussed in the White Paper, but, at the same time, I do not believe that it is by any means absolutely right at present. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who, naturally, from time to time shows slight impatience with our difficulty in understanding some aspects of the Bill, will regain all his patience, put up with us and recognise that there is great force in most of the arguments that have been put forward in the debate so far.
      My right hon. Friend appeared to make his contribution with an unaccustomed rush. I am not sure whether he was trying to hide what he was saying or whether he was trying to prevent us from realising what he was not saying. However, I hope that he will examine these points because they are of immense importance. He can claim that arrangements are now made for civil servants who are aware of evil in their work to go up the ladder and endeavour to put matters right. We must ask ourselves, as has already been asked, exactly how practical that is.
      A civil servant who complains will be told, "I must refer this to my senior officer". The matter will go up the ladder until it reaches the permanent secretary. After a chat at the customary weekly lunch of permanent secretaries, the permanent secretary will then say, "I must tell the Minister". The Minister will say, "I didn't realise all this was going on, but for heaven's sake keep it quiet—tell the fellow that it's all being dealt with and for heaven's sake don't let the press know about it". At what stage does the
      488
      civil servant take action? The Minister may say, "I must tell the Prime Minister," and the Prime Minister will say "For God's sake, think of that by-election—we must tell the fellow that we understand his anxiety but that it's really not justified."
      What happens after that is crucial. I put it in a light-hearted way, but it is the crux of the matter. Does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary believe that there is, or can be, a difference between the national interest and a Government's interest? That is the fundamental question. In my mind, there is no doubt about it because it is exactly the same with all constitutional philosophers throughout the ages. There is very often a difference between a national interest and the interest of a particular Government. When we are in opposition, we constantly point out in the House the great difference between the national interest and the interest of the Government then pursuing their policies. If we accept, therefore, that there is a difference between the national interest, described here as the public interest, and a Government's interest, we must find a way of safeguarding that difference. That is what this debate, the Bill and the Franks committee report are about. How can that difference be safeguarded?
      The best suggestion that we have had so far—on the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine)—is that the public interest must be taken into account. I would describe as artificial the point that has been made by lawyers among my hon. Friends about proof of reasonable judgment that the public interest was taken into account by the offending person.
      I would go further than the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who gave an example of corruption at an ordnance depot. He went so far as getting it put right. In my view, Parliament and the country have the right to know that the corruption existed and had been put right. I therefore go a stage further than the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that we agree. When evil has been committed and has been put right, it should be made known. If evil is committed, it should be brought to the notice of those who have to deal with it and if they do not deal with it it should be brought to the public notice. When it has been dealt with—and the action taken—the matter should be made public.
      Mr. Dalyell: Would the right hon. Gentleman go along with the letter to The Times by Douglas Allen, Sir Patrick Nairne, Sir Frank Cooper and Sir Douglas Wass?
      Mr. Heath: Yes, I would go along with that. Civil servants want more safeguards because they recognise the way in which civil servants are likely to react under the present system. One must be realistic about this.
      I do not want to go over the matters which were raised by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) about how all this came about. The present Government have a problem about leakages—there can be no doubt about that—and they have sometimes sought to deal with them by prosecutions. Their problem arises from the fact that they have used their press office at No. 10 in a way which can be described as corrupt—in a way which went far beyond not only the achievements but even the aspirations of any previous Government. I am not asking the Home Secretary to nod his head in agreement with that, but he will know from his experience at No. 10

      489
      between 1970 and 1974 that what I have said is the case. If the lead is given in that way, others might be expected to follow it.
      I have always had the greatest respect for the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), a former Home Secretary, though this evening he displayed extraordinary naivety when he expressed the view that it was impossible for any member of the present Cabinet to have left a Cabinet meeting and told the press and others about the contents of the National Health Service paper.
      One of this Government's problems has been that, as differences inside the Cabinet have been so great—leading to the sacking or withdrawal of 22 members over the past few years—the tendency to talk has been irresistible. That has been followed by others at different departmental levels, and it is now part of the problem with which we have to deal.
      I hope that the Home Secretary will accept the proposed new clause, or accept it in principle and say that it requires amendment. I do not understand how there can be any solid objection to the inclusion of public interest. It has been said time and again that there must not be any question of public interest, even though we have heard that it exists in, for example, the law on obscene publications.
      The Home Secretary sounded what I thought was an ominous note when he said that the law on obscene publications was unsatisfactory. Does that mean that we are to have another prudish attack on the laws of this country, taking us back to the time when people had to go abroad to read what they wanted to read? Are we to have that from the present Home Secretary—[Interruption.] That is an interpretation of what my right hon. Friend said.
      I see no reason why the public interest should not be embodied in the Bill. Speaking from experience, in the Leila Khaled case, the Attorney-General said that he had to take the public interest into account, and he did. Why cannot the public interest be taken into account in this legislation?
      Dealing with health and safety, the Home Secretary said that it was most unlikely that a prosecution would be brought in certain cases. It is not enough to use the phrase "most unlikely" in this Committee. We have every right to say that we want to be absolutely sure, and we want it in a form that will enable us to be absolutely sure that the kind of action about which we have been speaking will not be taken.
      When we last discussed this issue, I said that my test for all this was a simple question—under this measure, in this country, if it occurred, would we know about Irangate? That is still my test, though my question has not been answered. We would not have known anything about it. We would not have known about the evil policies, the hypocrisy, the corruption and the lies of President Reagan's regime. Is that justifiable in a modern democracy? Not for one moment.
      Until I can be satisfied that this new legislation will deal not only with the problems about which hon. Members have been speaking but with the internal corruptions of Governments, I shall not be able to support it.
      7.45 pm
      Dr. Owen: The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) spoke with great conviction. The problem is that the Home
      490
      Secretary has in many ways produced a great improvement on the present law. Unfortunately, the measure has the fatal weakness of lacking a public interest defence. If that were inserted, many of those who might have reservations about some aspects of the legislation would give it a broad welcome.
      Can we manage to persuade the Home Secretary to amend the Bill in that way, or is our problem not the Home Secretary but the Prime Minister? I suspect the latter to be the case, and our real problem is how to persuade her. We have tried today and on previous occasions to invoke history. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) did that today with great effectiveness.
      The events of the 1930s should concern hon. Members, particularly the way in which Winston Churchill was briefed. That was a major issue which cannot be ignored. I became worried when the Home Secretary was asked about the revelation that the Cabinet in 1955 deliberately decided not to reveal the leak from the Windscale plant. The right hon. Gentleman said that he knew nothing about it.
      It was one of the most serious recent cases, and. it showed how the Government, the Cabinet, thought that they were interpreting the national interest as their interest. When the Home Secretary studies those Cabinet papers he will probably conclude that they acted against the national and public interest.
      That was the crucial point made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. We in Parliament will not accept that Cabinet, Government, national and public interest are at all times the same. We are well aware that there have been occasions, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad intentions, when democratic Governments, in this and other countries, have taken decisions against the national and public interest. The interests cannot be equated.
      That is not just the view of hon. Members. It might be said that we are jealous of the Executive, that we are always on our guard, standing on our dignity and not ready to trust the Executive. We are speaking also of Law Lords, and in many distinguished judgments they have taken the same view. Consider, for example, Chandler v.
      DPP in 1964, when Lord Reid said:
      "Who, then, is to determine what is and what is riot prejudicial to the interests of the state? The question more frequently arises as to what is or is not in the public interest. I do not subscribe to the view that the Government or a Minister must always, or even as a general rule, have the last word about that."
      The Home Secretary will say that there is in the Bill, for the vast bulk of cases, the harm test. Because the harm test will go to a jury, they will reinterpret the right hon. Gentleman's law. When there is some other interest, the jury will try as hard as possible to inject some public interest, but will be advised by the judge not to take account of the public interest, I am not a lawyer, but I believe it will be difficult for counsel to argue the case for public interest because of what will be said.
      I come to that group of people who will have no chance to argue in that way—people designated under the measure—those who work in the security and intelligence services or who come in touch with those services. These are people to whom I think we owe very special attention because they will have no defence—automatically, they will have committed a criminal offence.
      Here again I should like to invoke a Law Lord. After all, the judgment of Lord Griffiths in the House of Lords

      491
      on the Attorney-General v. The Observer was extremely favourable to the Government. Lord Griffiths said that he thought that it was absolutely right that there should be a rule forbidding any member or ex-member of the service to publish any material relating to the service. He was on the Government's side. But he went on:
      "theoretically, if a member of the service discovered that some iniquitous course of action was being pursued that was clearly detrimental to our national interest, and he was unable to persuade any senior members of his service or any member of the establishment, or the police, to do anything about it, then he should be relieved of his duty of confidence so that he could alert his fellow citizens to the impending danger".
      He argued for a public interest defence.
      We may dismiss the decisions of all these Law Lords, but we are going to hear more about them in another place, and there is a very real chance, in view of the extraordinary level of cross-party interest in, and concern about, this matter, that they will put this provision back into the Bill and thus improve it. That will be the real test of this House and—dare I say it? —also the real test of Conservative Members of Parliament. Are they just going to throw that as well?
      I know that this is not a simple question, and I say to the Home Secretary that I understand the difficulties on the question of the security and intelligence services. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the ABC case, as it was called. He said that he had been consulted by the then Attorney-General. He said that I too had been consulted, and that is so. The Attorney-General always made it very clear that it was his decision but that he would come and ask us about what the effect would be if some of this information in a court case came into the public domain.
      I do not think that I breach too many secrets when I say that initially I was against prosecution in the ABC case. However, everybody came in and persuaded me that it would be terrible not to prosecute—people in the services whom I respected said so—and I eventually relented. But one of my reasons for doing so was that I was given an absolute promise that the case would be heard in camera. However, what happened, if my memory does not serve me badly, was that they managed to argue that it should not be heard in camera.
      This is one of the problems, and if the Home Secretary is listening to this debate and is prepared to reconsider this case, I should like to put a suggestion to him. In a case that involves somebody designated under this Act, who is going to be granted a public interest defence, I personally would accept that that case should automatically be heard in camera. There are very great difficulties in open court in deploying the full arguments as to why one believes that it is not in the public interest for information to be put out. It is a fair point that what appears very minor information can, cumulatively, be very revealing.
      We are dealing here with a very small category of people. I am not arguing that all cases should be held in camera; I would argue that in a vast number of cases a public interest defence should be heard in open court. I am dealing simply with the small group of people designated in the Act who at the moment have no provision for appeal, no public interest defence, no rights at all—people who are subject to automatic criminal action. Such were the very people who gave Winston Churchill information all through the 1930s. All those would have been
      492
      designated under this legislation. They would automatically have been adjudged to be taking criminal action if this had been the law of the land.
      I believe that that would be a possibility for the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary has used the jury; he has gone away from ministerial designation. That, broadly, has been accepted. However, it would be possible to have a full court case, the jury making the decision, but to hold the proceedings in camera. Were that the case, some of the problems that arose in the ABC trial would be avoided.
      It is very important that we get this law right. The paradox of this Government is that they talk about secrecy, yet we have had more actions and court cases than almost anywhere else. We have also had more revelations of real, genuine secrets than in any other period in our history. The paradox is that we know more about GCHQ and about the security and intelligence services, including some quite damaging information, because we have not had the right law—law that would have carried sufficient confidence. So it is important that we get it right.
      The Home Secretary will say that he has made some changes, that we have welcomed, and I agree. Putting MI5 on a statutory basis was a sensible decision, and I supported the legislation, but the Home Secretary cannot carry all the House. On the question of public interest defence, he certainly is not carrying the House.
      In the Green Paper that the Government produced, there was a certain element, in respect of public interest, suggesting that they were yet to be convinced. Some of us hoped that the Home Secretary was open-minded. My personal belief is that he is still somewhat open-minded about this. As I have said, a lot more will be heard about the matter in another place. My belief is that, if the public interest defence could be reintroduced in this Bill—the general one that we seek to put in the clause for the vast bulk of cases; possibly this suggestion that I am making about automatically hearing in camera cases involving security and intelligence and people who are designated under the Act—it would be not only a vast improvement but a confidence-building measure in this House and among a wider public, resulting in acceptance of some aspects of a Bill which does in fact, broaden information but is stricter in areas in which many of us accept that it ought to be stricter.
      It is in that spirit that I hope the Home Secretary is listening. I hope he will let us know whether designation is or is not subject to judicial review. I hope the Minister of State will agree that he did say two different things.
      Mr. John Patten: It is subject to judicial review.
      Dr. Owen: I hope we will have it on the record that the Minister says that it is. We now know that at least that designation will be challenged, which is a comforting thought.
      Mr. Hattersley: Did the Home Secretary say it?
      Dr. Owen: I am prepared to take it from the Minister. [Interruption.] We have had two answers.
      Mr. Buchan: Repeat the question.
      Mr. Hattersley: Could the right hon. Gentleman also ask the Home Secretary exactly which clause in the Bill makes that more than a matter for his judgment and a legal necessity?
      Dr. Owen: One thing that has certainly emerged from the earlier debate and from this debate is that we expect an amendment to come forward from the Government to make this clear beyond peradventure.
      I am hoping also for a further amendment to be brought forth by the Government, possibly in another place, to deal with the public interest defence. It would do the reputation of the Home Secretary a great deal of good if he were to table such an amendment. What is much more important is that it would do the Government's reputation, and that of the Prime Minister, a great deal of good—and that is something they need at the moment. They would at least be showing that they are capable, occasionally, of listening.
      Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has rightly said that we should look to the lessons of history. This has been echoed and re-echoed by hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House.
      While I support the broad sweep of this Bill, I think that its sweep is too broad. In their determination to silence any other would-be Peter Wright, the Government are in danger of going rather too far. The fundamental premise behind their thinking is that the Government and the Government alone are the guardians of the national interest and that, perforce, anyone breaching security can only be acting against the national interest. Of course, it is the common weakness afflicting every Government, no matter what their political complexion, to equate Government interest with the national interest when history has shown time and again that that is not so.
      I invite the Committee and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider a scenario in which a British Government might act against the national interest to the point that they are wittingly or unwittingly providing military assistance to a hostile power. If hon. Members considered that suggestion to be a far-fetched flight of fancy, I would not blame them, but they would be mistaken. To my certain knowledge, it has already happened. I am not referring to the period immediately before world war 2 referred to by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport and also mentioned with passion and eloquence by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). They referred to an incident in which highly classified intelligence was supplied to a certain prominent Back-Bench Member of this House.
      8 pm
      I am referring to information which came into my hands in January 1977, following my appointment as an Opposition spokesman on defence. That information showed that the Labour Government of the day had given approval to one of our top electronics firms, Lucas Aerospace, to enter into a contract with the Soviet Government. That contract was signed on 22 December 1976 and was for the supply of advanced electronic equipment to improve the performance of the Kuznetsov NK144 jet engine which powered the TU-144 "Concordski". The Committee may feel that that was innocent enough, but when I pointed out that that engine—extended by 12 inches and uprated 10,000 lbs of thrust, from 45,000 lbs to 55,000 lbs—also powered the Soviet Backfire nuclear strike bomber, the gravity of what was afoot becomes apparent.
      494
      Thanks to an individual in the Ministry of Defence and a senior research scientist working for Plessey, I was able to obtain confirmation of the facts and to learn that while Lucas Aerospace was to supply a digital fuel control system for the Soviet engine, Plessey was to provide a variable geometry jet nozzle. The combination of those two pieces of equipment could have significantly extended the range and radius of action of the Backfire bomber, possibly to the point that it could strike the United States from Soviet bases.
      At least one of the contracts involved pushing back the frontiers of science on behalf of the Soviet military machine. The senior research scientist who contacted me from Plessey begged me to do all in my power to ensure that the contracts were cancelled because in his judgment they constituted a clear threat to the security of Britain and of our allies. I made it my highest priority to do all in my power to secure the cancellation of those orders. None the less, despite questions and debates in the House and press articles and radio interviews, it took nine months before the contracts were cancelled and the Government of the day acknowledged that a serious error of judgment had been made.
      It transpired that the contracts had been approved before the Government knew that the engine that powered the civil "Concordski" also powered the military Backfire. Evidently my telephone calls to the official in the Ministry of Defence were monitored, because soon afterwards I was cautioned by the then Secretary of State for Defence not to try to communicate further with the official concerned. I have no means of knowing what, if any, disciplinary action was instituted against that official. However, I know that a prosecution of that official or the senior research scientist at Plessey under the Official Secrets Act 1911 would have been unlikely to succeed because they could have claimed under section 2(1)(a) that their disclosure of secret information to a Member of Parliament was "in the national interest".
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that there is no national interest defence in the present legislation, but he is mistaken. Section 2(1)(a) states, in effect, that a person may be guilty of a misdemeanour if he communicates specified information to any person other than the person to whom he is authorised to communicate it or to a person to whom it is
      "in the interests of the State his duty to communicate".
      That key premise and defence existed for people connected with my grandfather's case before the war, in the Duncan Sandys case and in the case to which I have just referred. There would have been a defence before a court of law and almost certainly a prosecution would have failed.
      Mr. Aitken: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept this point, which will strengthen his argument and perhaps destroy further the inaccurate argument put forward by the Home Secretary. A Select Committee of this House sat in 1938 to deal with the Official Secrets Act 1911. Part of its findings were based on the evidence of a Clerk of the House, Sir Gilbert Campion. The report states that the Committee
      "could imagine circumstances in which it would, in the interests of the State, be the duty of a person having information to communicate it to an MP although he was not authorised to do so."

      495
      The example to which my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has referred seems to have been foreseen some 30 years earlier, thus confirming the existence of a public interest defence under the 1911 Act.
      Mr. Churchill: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
      In the example that I have outlined, had this Bill been on the statute book the Labour Government could undoubtedly have shown that harm was done because the disclosure resulted in the cancellation of contracts between this country and the Soviet Government worth many millions of pounds. The Lucas Aerospace contract was valued at £10 million. I do not know the value of the Plessey contract.
      Mr. Baldry: If my hon. Friend wants to make that assertion, he should look at clause 2 and tell us where the Ministry of Defence or the prosecution could have shown that the case history that he has outlined would have prejudiced the capability of any part of the armed forces to carry out their task? Nowhere in clause 2 does it state that the loss of a contract comes within the context of a damaging disclosure.
      Mr. Churchill: If one of the people who had been conveying information to me had been a designated person, it would have been an absolute offence under the Bill. The defendants in the case that I have outlined could no longer claim that they had communicated information to a person defined in the 1911 Act as
      "to whom it is in the interest of the State his duty to communicate".
      It disturbs me that under this Bill those people acting solely out of patriotism—few hon. Members would dispute the patriotism of the two individuals to whom I have referred—by imparting information about the Soviet contract could be held to be guilty of a criminal offence and liable to a two-year prison sentence. The fact that they acted in the national interest would be no defence. Is that really what my right hon. Friend and the Government have in mind? I find that quite impossible to believe.
      Most worrying of all, if the Bill is passed unamended, is the damage that it will do to the privileges of the House as accepted during the past 75 years, and the rights of individuals in certain circumstances to communicate classified information to Members of Parliament without fear of prosecution, provided that they can show that the disclosure was in the interests of the state.
      Mr. Terry Dicks: My hon. Friend must excuse me because, unlike him, I am not an expert in these matters, but is the logic of his argument that, if the Bill had been in force before the war, the appeasers would have gone free and Vansittart would have ended up in jail?
      Mr. Churchill: My hon. Friend must forgive me. I am not dealing with the period before the war—I am dealing with a specific case of which I have personal experience. The way in which that case would almost certainly have been handled under the Bill, were it to be passed unamended, gives grounds for serious concern. It is a clear deficiency in the Bill that there is no national interest defence and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the
      496
      matter afresh in the light of the facts that I and other right hon. and hon. Members have put before the Committee today.
      The Government have a responsibility to produce legislation on this vital issue that will stand the test of time and not legislation designed to slam the door on the horse that has most recently bolted from the stables. If my right hon. Friend is not minded to accept new clause 4 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), at least let him bring forward his own national interest amendment.
      Mr. Archer rose—
      Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. I apologise sincerely to you, to the House and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), but may I ask you to reflect on something while my right hon. and learned Friend makes his speech? This important and crucial debate has been going on for more than four hours. In contemplating whom to call when my right hon. and learned Friend sits down, might it be a good idea to call someone who will speak in favour of the Bill, as so far only the Home Secretary has spoken in favour of it.
      Mr. Baldry rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I can deal with that point of order. I am not aware who is in favour or not in favour of the Bill. I call those hon. Members who rise, and I shall continue to do so.
      Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Miss Boothroyd. I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), but the matter is of some importance. My right hon. and learned Friend who is about to speak has been a Law Officer of the Crown, a solicitor and not a barrister—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is a barrister."]—but not an Attorney-General. I can espy no one on the Treasury Bench representing the Crown. I know that the matter has been raised before, but my right hon. and learned Friend will be asking searching questions which understandably the Home Secretary is not equipped to answer. Is there some procedure whereby we can have a dilatory motion until a person equipped to answer those points can be brought to the House?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I was almost one jump ahead of the hon. Gentleman. That is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for the Government and not for me. Mr. Archer.
      Mr. Archer: It may set my hon. Friend's mind at rest if I tell him that the searching questions that I had in mind to ask have already been asked. I hope that the Government work sufficiently effectively for the Law Officers already to know that they have been asked. As to the matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) invited you, Miss Boothroyd, to reflect, you might reflect on it, but I hope that at least half your mind will be on the argument that I am seeking to adduce.
      If the purpose of the speech by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) was to point out that Governments do not always act in the best interests either of the public or of the nation, if there is a distinction, either

      497
      through malice or by mistake, I wholly agree with him. However, this is a serious debate and our main theme would not be enhanced if I were to enter into the dramatic details of the particular example which he gave. Whoever is in government, there is a consensus in the House that it is not the same thing to talk about the interests of Government and the interests of the nation.
      I appreciate that the Second Reading debate is over, but it is worth reflecting for a moment on the background against which the debate is taking place. We are debating the circumstances in which someone may be prosecuted and punished as a criminal for revealing information. The vast majority of common law jurisdictions, and many other jurisdictions as well, have a law which imposes on Government a requirement to make that information available. Their courts debate whether Governments should be entitled to refuse information.
      That impressed itself on me when I was looking to see whether courts in other countries had experienced, difficulty in deciding where public interest lies. They have not. There are cases enough about the public interest, but in Australia, Canada and most common law jurisdictions, public interest cases are about when the Government may refuse a disclosure of information. The public interest provision that we are discussing is about the circumstances in which, exceptionally, someone may tell the public without being sent to prison. So we are discussing the exceptions to the duty to conceal, while they are discussing the exceptions to the duty to reveal.
      8.15 pm
      It must be common ground that there have been occasions when misdeeds of those in government ought to be revealed and that it would have been wrong had they not been revealed. Unhappily, we still do not know whether Richard III murdered the princes, but if he did, and had that become public knowledge, would anyone argue that that would have been other than in the public interest? Of course it might have been damaging to the nation's armaments because the battle of Bosworth would have taken place earlier. Would not the world have been a nastier and dirtier place if Watergate had not come to light?
      There have been a number of interventions on whether the public interest coincides with the interests of the Government. One of the historical foundations of the privilege of the House, which Mr. Speaker claims on our behalf, was the case of Sir Thomas Haxey in 1397. Sir Thomas was a senior official in the service of Richard II, and he asked the House of Commons to discuss a remonstrance against some of the King's practices. The King obtained from the House the name of the whistle-blower, and persuaded the other place to rule that it was treason to seek to remedy anything pertaining to his person, rule, or royalty. Sir Thomas was condemned as a traitor. But the House took the view that what he had done was in the public interest, although I do not think that it used those precise words, and history has vindicated him as one of the pioneers of our constitution. Even the King decided that it was unwise to pursue a whistleblower when what he had revealed was already in the public domain, so Sir Thomas was pardoned and restored to his former position. I sometimes think that it is a pity that the present Cabinet are such bad historians.
      Of course there have been Government secrets which would have been better not disclosed. Those who disclosed
      498
      them were at best misguided and at worst wicked. In the early 15th century, the House secured a promise from Henry IV not to listen to any of the leaks about proceedings in the House until the debate had finished and the House had reached a conclusion.
      Of course, there have been times when the public's right to know has been invoked in the interest of nothing more edifying than a thirst for scandal or a profitable market in tittle tattle, but that is just the case for the new clauses and amendments. That is why we need some way of distinguishing between the two categories, and the Bill does not provide it. It simply says that, for certain categories of offence, the prosecution must prove that some harm resulted. It does not say—the Secretary of State did not show a clear realisation of this—that anyone shall be entitled to balance that harm against the good that might follow, however great the good. Under clause 1, there is not even a requirement that any harm should be established. The argument appears to be that, when security information is divulged, some harm is bound to follow.
      It does not require the imagination of a John Le Carré to envisage circumstances in which the public benefit that follows a disclosure is out of all proportion to the harm caused. We have heard many such examples this evening. Suppose it came to the knowledge of a member of the security services that a vast installation contained chemicals, explosives or nuclear material that was unstable and capable of causing a public disaster. Could it possibly be said that the harm to the security services or defences arising from revealing that information was in any proportion to the benefits of causing that danger to be removed? When Ibsen wrote "An Enemy of the People" he clearly invited his audience to conclude that the enemy of the people was not the man trying to alert them to the danger. To invoke the harm that would follow a disclosure would be a fig leaf to cover a great obscenity.
      If it is said that my example is far-fetched and that Ibsen was not introducing realism to the stage, I pose this question. If, before the Watergate disclosure, anyone had written a play using its facts as the plot, a Minister would have said that it was too far-fetched to be taken seriously. A jury that has heard the evidence—the merits of the case properly argued by both sides—and has been properly directed by the judge is eminently capable of weighing that balance.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that no speeches had been made supporting the Secretary of State, and that speaks for itself. However, I had expected one argument to be made and it was the only consideration which at one point caused me to hesitate. A person who is in the dilemma that we are discussing—who is asking whether it is his duty to maintain confidentiality or expose inequity—would have to make a judgment without knowing the view that a jury might take. He may say, "I must exercise my judgment in good faith but find subsequently that I have committed a criminal offence because the jury takes a different view." He would be better protected if there were some way of resolving that issue before he made the disclosure and before a prosecution followed.
      We are dealing, ex hypothesi, with officials who have exhausted the system's channels. Any further oracles would have been part of the service, part of the culture of confidentiality, would probably be drawn from the ranks of the establishment and be motivated by the same

      499
      secretive culture. My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) spoke of the "next man up", and we all know examples of the "next man up." We know what happened to Fletcher Christian after he mutinied on the Bounty. The Admiralty did not support the subordinate who took over from his superior, and we have a further fictional example in "The Caine Mutiny". The difficulty is that no sieve is provided prior to disclosure and prosecution. If the Home Secretary introduced a solution along those lines, some of us might be prepared to consider a settlement.
      Mr. Dalyell: Might not the dilemma of Fletcher Christian have applied to Sir Ewen Broadbent and Sir Frank Cooper, had Clive Ponting gone to them?
      Mr. Archer: My hon. Friend poses a fascinating question on which one is tempted to speculate. Sir Frank Cooper was one of the signatories to the letter we have been debating. I am not sure that what one does in concrete circumstances and when standing aside and writing to The Times are the same. I am not sure that I would recommend three wise Privy Councillors. I am inviting the Secretary of State to consider an alternative solution if he thinks that it might be preferable to some of those that we are debating.
      Mr. Spearing: Would not the dilemma facing any of the gentlemen mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) be greater because the document leaked in the Ponting case questioned the validity of the joint position that had been reached by all parts of government? Surely that would have put them, according to the principle of "next man up", in an impossible position?
      Mr. Archer: My hon. Friend is saying that there would not be a "next man up".
      Mr. Buchan: Or "next woman up".
      Mr. Archer: The woman may have been part of the agreement. We must hand the problem to the courts and to a jury properly directed. A decision must be made expost facto.
      Hon. Members who are not drawn to a public interest defence would have the comfort of knowing that anyone who is in a dilemma and is inclined to believe that his or her duty requires disclosure will be a potential martyr because he or she cannot be sure what will happen. But the possibility that a person with an irrepressible conscience will be labelled an enemy of the people is better than the certainty, and that is the case for the amendment and new clauses. The fact that a jury will have power to decide—we hope by applying the same common sense standards as the person in the dilemma—may help to sustain a future Sir Thomas Haxey.
      Mr. Gary Waller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the fact that it could not be certain in advance how a jury would decide. Is not the difficulty that if one asked any 12 people their definition of the national or public interest one would receive a completely different answer from that which one received from another 12. It would be unsatisfactory if the public interest, which can be determined in many different ways by many different people, were the issue at stake.
      Mr. Archer: The jury in the Ponting case retired for only a short time before it returned with a unanimous verdict. I am wholly in favour of the jury system and have been amazed at how well it has worked in these cases, from the seven bishops case down.
      It is important that someone, at some stage, should be able to make these judgments. We must not remove from anybody the power to make such judgments and say, "There will be no defence and no one will have the authority to vindicate you." That would be completely unacceptable.
      Sir Ian Lloyd: In my judgment, the public interest is the obverse of the portcullis, which is the proud badge of Parliament. Neither Government nor Parliament is the sole custodian, but they are both major custodians of the public interest.
      The Government of the day, however it may be drawn from the House, must always be the trustee of the public interest. The discharge of trust, and the conduct of that trust, must always be subject to a broad, continuing and on-going examination inside and outside the House. As I understand it, that is the definition of democracy. It is defined in the House by the width of the carpet between us. Sometimes the width is an enormous gulf, but at other times it is narrow indeed. I suggest that this evening it is very narrow.
      Nonetheless, the Government are entitled not to be humiliated by those who serve them, and that is where the difficulty begins. In imposing the necessary disciplines on their servants, the Government must define carefully, and often in the greatest detail, precisely what the measures and limits of that discipline are. As several right hon. and hon. Members have said, in distinguished speeches, the moment that they extend that definition into the area of public interest, the greatest difficulties arise.
      8.30 pm
      It was my privilege, as a very amateur historian, to deal with a case that is highly relevant to the debate. I propose to put the case before the House because my decision on whether to support the Bill will depend on the answer that I receive from my hon. Friend the Minister of State about the case. In 1941, our tanks were performing extremely badly in the western desert. They were outgunned, under armoured and too slow and they were being shot up and destroyed by the Germans on a distressingly large scale. Our tanks were no match for the 88 mm guns, whether mobile or fixed. That must have been known to the commanders concerned and to everyone up to the general staff, but nothing appeared to be done and, from my analysis of the records, very little was being done.
      A Captain Scott in one of the armoured regiments decided that the only action to take was to write to his father, who happened to be Lord Herbert Scott, the chairman of Rolls-Royce. I have seen the letter and it described the appalling situation in the desert. He said to his father, in so many words, "For God's sake, do something." Lord Herbert Scott was in the position of being able to inject an important urgency and rethinking into tank production, performance and design. I have no doubt—and Captain Scott had no doubt—that he was in breach of the Official Secrets Act 1911, and his father was in no doubt of that either.
      But from what I have heard earlier, it seems that the position is this. Captain Scott should have gone through

      501
      the usual channels: first his commanding officer, then his brigadier, then his divisional commander, then his corps commander, then his commander-in-chief in the middle east, General Wavell, then the chief of the Imperial General Staff and finally the War Cabinet. In reality, how far would he have got? How far would his message have got?
      Mr. Hind: If my hon. Friend thinks carefully about what he has just said—and I am sure that we all commend the courageous action of Captain Scott—he will realise that Captain Scott would not have committed an offence under the Bill, for the simple reason that the harm that would have come from his disclosure would have been nil. In fact, his disclosure would have been beneficial to the country. The point that my hon. Friend has missed is that the pillar of the Bill is what harm comes from a disclosure.
      Sir Ian Lloyd: All I can say is that the possible harm of disclosure from a means more public than that of a private letter would have been that the Germans would have learnt what our position was far sooner than they would have done from their military experience.
      Mr. Buchan: I was in a tank regiment in the 8th Army. We said that if we saw an 88 mm. we were dead. That was the difference between the two weapons. The other problem was that if any other rank had written the letter, it would never have reached the end of the line. Many deaths had already resulted.
      Sir Ian Lloyd: I am obliged to the hon. Member, who speaks from great personal experience, which I certainly do not have. I am merely reporting the facts as an amateur historian. What happened was that as a result of the highly private, unofficial and irregular intervention, the tanks that we produced and which went into action on D-Day in 1944 were significantly better than the tanks in the western desert. I have no doubt that, had Captain Scott's action been known to the military authorities, he would have been court-martialled.
      It seems ludicrous to argue that in all such cases, the official channels must be used to the ultimate limit before any other action is taken. Under the provisions of the Bill, would Captain Scott be prosecuted or would he have a defence in the public interest? If he would have such a defence under the Bill, I would support it. If he would have no defence, I cannot support it. I believe that there will be other circumstances in other times when other Captain Scotts will have to take courageous decisions similar to those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) when his distinguished grandfather acted as he did because of inside information in the 1930s. If we rule out such occasions by definition and put such a weight on the exercise of courage that it becomes impossible, we shall not be acting in the public interest and the Government will not be either.
      Mr. Heffer: Under the provisions of the Bill, Captain Scott would obviously have been in some difficulty and so too would the gentleman to whom the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) was referring. So too would those who gave valuable information to his grandfather. That is the point of the amendment and the arguments against the Bill. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made that point clearly when he said that someone who is not of the lowest levels in the Civil Service may see something with which he or she does not
      502
      agree, become upset and go right through the channels to the Minister. The Minister may say, "Well, keep it quiet and don't tell the press anything about it." That person may go back later and be told, "It's all right, you've no need to worry, because it's all being dealt with." Three months later, that person may discover that nothing has happened that his or her views have not been taken into consideration, that there has been no change. He may feel passionately about it, but what can he do?
      It is true that nothing could be done under the present Act, but nothing can be done under the Bill either. Such a person cannot resign and make a statement. Anyone who has been a Minister can have an argument and resign—or in my case, get kicked out. He can make a speech in the House explaining his point of view, but civil servants will not be in a position to give a press conference. If they do, under the provisions of the Bill, they will immediately be in trouble and they will have no real defence. They already know the terms of the Bill and they are in real trouble.
      The problem does not concern only military equipment. That is important, but the Bill raises other questions, and of course, people have different views about what is in the public interest. That is a serious problem.
      Take the example of a practising Roman Catholic—indeed, somebody practising any religion. What is that person supposed to do if his bishops issue a statement on something? The American bishops issued a pastoral letter to their national conference, entitled "The Challenge of Peace". Paragraph 147, on page 46, says:
      "Under no circumstances may nuclear weapons or other instruments of mass slaughter be used for the purpose of destroying population centres or other predominantly civilian targets."
      Paragraph 150, on page 47, says:
      "We do not perceive any situation in which the deliberate initiation of nuclear warfare, on however restricted a scale, can be morally justified."
      Suppose that a Catholic member of the Civil Service, who had not thought much about the question, received that pastoral letter and thought, "That's right. It is a matter of conscience." I am giving an extreme example because I think it important to do so, but one could give other examples.
      That civil servant may discover that someone is about to initiate the use of nuclear weapons. What is he to do? Under the Bill he would have to keep quiet. His conscience might tell him that he had to speak out, in which case he would be in immediate trouble under the Bill. That is the whole point. One cannot stop people having a conscience or feeling so concerned about something that they have to make a stand.
      If I remember rightly, the Home Secretary himself said that he did not think that, in the last analysis, fear of criminal action would stop people. Of course it will not. I could not. In the end, a person will make that statement irrespective of whether it is criminal to do so, and will suffer the consequences. We should at least give people the opportunity of some defence—the defence that they consider that what they have done is in the public interest. Others may not agree with them, and they may end up on the receiving end, but people who feel strongly should have the right to argue the public interest defence.
      No real action was taken against any of those who argued that there should have been better equipment arid aircraft, and rearmament, to offset the growth of German

      503
      weapons under Hitler. Thank God they did that. We were in trouble as it was, and we should have been in much greater trouble if civil servants had not taken that view.
      I know that other hon. Members want to speak and I know that it is nice when one has sat here all day to think, "Now that I am at last on my feet I shall go on as long as I want." I shall not do that; I shall restrict myself to a few points.
      I wish that we were discussing a freedom of information Act, which would be far more useful to the people of this country than this Bill. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made an excellent speech, but I did not agree with him that the Bill improves matters. I cannot see how it does. It may improve minor details here and there but in some respects it has made matters worse, and that cannot be acceptable.
      It would be a good thing if we had a freedom of information Act. Look what happens in the United States. The list of defectors from the CIA is getting longer and longer. They all go on television and write books and newspaper articles. The effect of that has been that the American people are much more careful and much more concerned about the CIA. They look more closely at what the CIA does in other countries, although they could look closer still. Take the case of Oliver North: how could all that have come out, with secrecy laws like ours?
      Mr. Tony Banks: It could not.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Heffer: Precisely; it could not. We have to look at the American example. I think that hon. Friends will agree that I am not in love with the American system and American politics. I do not like the Americans' unbridled capitalism, but that is another matter. One cannot say that their legislation is not vastly superior to ours in some respects. There are two British examples. How did we find out that we had agreed to the manufacture of the bomb? We learned years afterwards. We had a Labour Prime Minister at the time. How did we learn about Chevaline? Again, it was a long time afterwards. Everybody said, "It was done in our name but there were no debates or discussions" Why not? Why should not people know about these things?
      I am cutting my speech considerably, but I want to conclude by quoting what is unfortunately a somewhat lengthy statement from a book called "The Second Oldest Profession" by a man called Knightley. It is a very interesting book, and the last page sums up the position:
      "So in the mid-1980s we are faced with an intelligence community which has grown to a size and power which is unprecedented. It is so big and so expensive that we can only guess at its size and cost. But there is no doubt about its power. In the Soviet Union national leaders come from its ranks. In the United States its influence on presidential decisions is such that it is sometimes difficult to decide whether the President is running the CIA, or the CIA is running the President …
      There might, just might, be some justification for the intelligence community if it did what it claimed to do: provide timely warnings of threats to national existence. But, as we have seen, this claim is exaggerated even in wartime and, in peacetime, intelligence agencies seem to have spent more time trying to score off each other, protecting their budgets and their establishments, and inventing new justifications for their existence, than in gathering intelligence.
      504
      Perhaps this is because—when not deep in their fantasy world—the intelligence community knows that open, published information, and that obtained through traditional diplomatic and other overt contacts, have proved this century by far the most useful source of military, political and economic intelligence for both sides."
      I shall end on that note, because that is what we should be talking about. Meanwhile, we can at least support the excellent amendment tabled by my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
      Mr. John Wheeler: I hesitate to enter into the whirlpool of this debate—
      Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. Forgive me for raising a point of order at this stage. It is not meant to offend you, in the Chair, or other hon. Members. You will be well aware that certain hon. Members have been waiting to make a contribution in this debate for nearly five hours and I believe that other hon. Members have arrived more recently.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member is always very courteous to the Chair. I am sure that he will understand that calling a Member is at the Chair's discretion. I really am doing the best I can to be as fair as possible in a very difficult debate where so many hon. Members are seeking to speak.
      Mr. Wheeler: I hesitate to enter into the whirlpool of this debate, for many of us have indeed been here for well over five hours, listening to most complicated but important arguments on the new clauses. Those of us who have been here from the outset will agree that those who have spoken thus far have spoken from a position of great worthiness and a desire to see the law right.
      So far, my right hon. Friend's proposals have been almost friendless. I at least intend to speak in support of the Government, if only to show that, from all this ebb and flow, the Government offer the Committee certainty in the law, and that is the one principle to be gained from this Bill. The plain truth is that, if we accept either new clause 1 or new clause 4 we shall virtually wreck the Bill. Both are effectively wrecking clauses. They may not be intended deliberately so to do by the whole Committee, but that will be the outcome of supporting them.
      In essence, my right hon. Friend suggests that the criminal law should define the offence with certainty. The law should be concerned with the actions of an individual rather than motive. That has been the essence of our debate. New clauses 1 and 4 include phrases such as "reasonable cause to believe" and
      "existence of crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect in the performance of official duty or other misconduct".
      That is a catch-all phrase.
      The trouble with these phrases in the new clauses is that they are vague and ambiguous. They will import uncertainty into the law if the Committee passes them, whereas my right hon. Friend seeks courageously to reform section 2 of the Act, to restrict it severely and to impose upon the prosecution tests of harm, which are provided for five of the six categories.
      I shall dwell on the test of harm for just a moment. I heard several hours ago, although I hope that I was deceived—the phrase "balance of harm". This is nothing to do with the balance of harm. It is to do with the test of harm, which the prosecution would have to prove unambiguously before a jury. As we have gone through the past five hours, we have lost sight of the integrity that my

      505
      right hon. Friend brought to the proposals. He is saying that the prosecution will have to prove its case before a jury, which is a formidable test. More than 50 per cent. of cases tried before a jury in London today in which there is a "not guilty" plea result in an acquittal. The fact is that some fanciful suggestions from hon. Members have been to the extreme of credibility, including the notion that the Crown prosecutor or the Director of Public Prosecutions would embark on a prosecution in such cases.
      Mr. Gorst: May I put this suggestion to my hon. Friend in a slightly fanciful but nonetheless helpful way to show why I believe him to be wrong?
      We are elected to the House to perform a function based upon trying to do something in the public interest. If we were to he judged at the end of the day on how much harm we had done, we would have got the balance of philosophy wrong. The same could be said about this piece of legislation. My hon. Friend is absolutely wrong to say that it is important to judge whether harm has been done. We ought to judge whether the matter has been dealt with according to the public interest. After all, if we were to judge whether a bank robber had done more or less harm in his crime where would that lead us?
      Mr. Wheeler: My hon. Friend is reversing the arguments of the past five and a half hours. He has really put forward a plea in mitigation. While we could go down the road proposed by right my hon. Friend and aim for certainty in the law, the defence could advance the argument in mitigation before a jury to justify what had been done to break the law. It would rest upon the jury whether they wished to believe that.
      I would say to my hon. Friend, as we have gone round this subject for many hours, and there is little more that is new to be said about it, that one cannot persuade a British jury to convict anyone if they do not want to. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is proposing to trust the jury.
      9 pm
      Mr. Buchan: I have waited a long time to try to deal with some of the points that have now been encapsulated by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler). He exactly exemplified the Government's wrong-headed attitude in this case. I hope that they welcome him as an ally. He has at least been consistent in stating the argument. He talked about certainty in the law. But our view of the law was certainly exonerated by the Ponting trial. Twelve out of 12 jurors said that the law was an ass and should be rejected. They knew that he was technically guilty within the law, and they rejected it.
      Throughout the "Spycatcher" case and the series of judgments on it and from what was said by the Government, we thought that this antiquated law, which proved to be an ass, would be swept out and something intelligent, sensible and rational would be put in its place. Instead we have a cheat of a Bill which claims to be a reform. If anything, it has made the situation worse. It introduces the spurious concept of harm, allowing juries to think that they are getting some kind of balanced argument as opposed to the ass that was made of the previous one. It has introduced a series of absolutes which would declare everyone who would have been exonerated by the intelligent behaviour of the Ponting jury now automatically guilty.
      506
      Their argument is wrong. The hon. Gentleman's technical argument in accusing the amendments of being wrecking amendments is also wrong. They are far from wrecking amendments. Public interest is essential if we are to have security legislation that can be acceptable in any democracy.
      It was said that the Colonel North case would not have occurred in this country. That is quite true. If an Irangate had developed in this country, the case would never have been prosecuted—certainly not in front of cameras and not in a court. The honest whistleblower would have found it almost impossible to come forward. That is one of the problems. Far from being wrecking amendments, these are the only kind of amendments that will ensure that the law which is about to be passed can be at all acceptable.
      The hon. Member for Westminster, North asked how the disclosure or retention of information or an article was in the public interest in that someone had reasonable cause to believe. Much fun has been made of the phrase "reasonable cause to believe." Much of English law—I specify English law, not Scottish law—depends on the assumptions to be made by a reasonable person.
      Mr. Hind indicated dissent—
      Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. A Daniel has come to judgment. An hour ago, he was squealing about that point.
      Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman is correct. Much English law is based on the reasonable man principle, but a jury will look not at what was done and the harm that resulted from disclosure but purely and simply at what the person who made the disclosure believed to he the situation. That is not dealing with the problems that the Bill sets out to correct.
      Mr. Buchan: That is precisely the reference to the reasonable person in English law. The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. That person will not necessarily be found innocent. He will have to prove that he had reasonable cause, not that he imagined that he had reasonable cause. [Interruption.] He will have to prove that he had reasonable cause to believe. He will have to bring forward the objective factors on which he based his belief.
      Far from being neglected, that argument was brought up in a curious way in regard to the obscenity legislation. A jury had to decide whether a reasonable man would consider whether a certain act of obscenity could cause gross offence to others. The reasonable cause to believe principle is perfectly sensible and right, although not in that case. It is the only way in which a man who after all cannot prove that he is not guilty until he is brought to court can then prove it.
      Every case that is brought forward is based on reasonable cause to believe, or there would be no trials. The point of jury trial or any other trial is to decide whether there was reasonable cause to believe that X happened. That is the basis of law. I wish that Conservative Members would grow up.
      The Home Secretary said that there has been no such public interest proposition in law before. He is wrong. He is wrong even about the Act he seeks to amend. If there had been no public interest case, Ponting's defence would have nothing to argue, but there was a glimmer of public interest.

      507
      Section 2 of the 1911 Act refers to the interest of the state. That is to be wiped out. There is no clause to allow the interest of the state to be pleaded. The Ponting case was concerned with whether the interest of the state was the interest of the Government of the day. But it was in the Act. The Home Secretary is talking nonsense when he says that it is no defence to any charge that the long-term effect of the criminal act was beneficial and that that benefit outweighs the harm done. That is not totally our argument but let us accept it for the moment. The Home Secretary is wrong. It was in the obscenity legislation and even in the Act which he seeks to replace.
      In the "Spycatcher" judgment Lord Griffiths ruled that if a serious iniquity arose, which could not be stopped by complaints to the authorities, an official should be relieved of his duty of confidence so that he could alert his fellow citizens to the impending danger. Lord Griffiths said that if iniquity was being committed and if there was no other means by which it could be stopped, because complaints were not being listened to, an official had no other means of action if he had reasonable cause to believe that there was danger. His duty of confidentiality should be suspended so that he could alert his fellow citizens. So their lordships were saying that it was not only proper that this should happen but that it was a duty.
      Some of the historical cases rehearsed today have proved the occasional necessity for the honest whistleblower. It was the honest whistleblowers leaking like hell to Churchill throughout the 1930s who began to alert the country to the serious mess it was in. One reason why such people were not charged was that if they had been brought to public trial it might have alerted the whole country to the truths which were being concealed by the Government of the day. Some Conservative Members failed to understand that point today. There may be a width of carpet between us but it is not a carpet under which we can sweep honest arguments.
      Even the amendments which we are putting forward cannot always deal with the problems. I was touched by the case referred to by the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) of the man Scott who wrote to his father in England about the weakness of the guns. I was in the 8th Army and, as I said in an intervention, we had a common saying that if a man saw an 88 he was dead because it shot faster and more accurately. We had 75s, which were useless against 88s. I had one tank commander who lost three tanks in one day at Sidi Rezegh. If a private or a corporal had said what Scott did, he would have been in gaol.
      The old boys' network has helped the honest whistleblower. It was easier for Churchill, Vansittart and others. It was not so easy for the honest whistleblower in the lower ranks. It is one thing in a country which has the safety of the old pals' network; it is another when we have larger numbers of civil servants than ever before and papers go further down. It is no longer a case of simply dropping into the Athenaeum and saying, "Look here, old boy, this is what they are up to." It is ever more dangerous and difficult.
      Even their Lordships failed to understand. Many civil servants, coming across iniquity, are terrified to raise it with the next in command. He, too, is terrified to raise it further up. There has to be some means by which the
      508
      iniquities of Government can be explored. This is not to exonerate the dishonest whistleblower or to encourage the continual leaking of information.
      Most of the information which is leaked is not secret. Modern technological surveillance is the important thing. The old-fashioned spy might have mattered, but it is not so serious now. A new development does not take place out of the head of Gallileo when he remembers the imaginary story of the lamp moving in the cathedral of Pisa. It arises because of the exchange of technology throughout the world and a new technical development here or there.
      Developments take place through the interchange of scientists. I speak of Erickson in Edinburgh. One week he is lecturing on nuclear strategy to scientists, engineers and generals in Washington. The next week he is in Moscow lecturing about what the generals in Washington are saying. Satellites do the job.
      What happens in the kind of balance adumbrated by the Secretary of State—I fear slightly dishonestly, because he is bright enough to know what this Bill does—to the people on the Clyde estuary. What will happen on the Clyde, where we have to consider the well-being of people living near to a nuclear base? What happens if there is a radiation leakage and it is not disclosed?
      I have a letter that refers to somebody further down the ranks and, frankly, I am not sure how to use it. I shall send it privately to a Minister. I hope that now I have mentioned this man in the House, he will receive some protection. He talks in his letter about a radiation leak. He served for 13 years on the Polaris submarines. The authorities have denied it, but he claims that, one way or another, he has seen his medical records in which it is referred to. He cannot, however, get the Government to disclose those records to him. If he were an admiral, all hell would be let loose until he acquired his medical records. If another leakage, this time of information about the first leakage of radiation occurs in the Clyde nuclear base, it will harm the defence of the State, under clause 2, on two counts. It will harm our relationship internationally, because other countries will ask, "What has happened? Is there a weakness in the British defence and American bases?" It will also harm the people who live on Clydeside.
      If someone leaks information about a radiation leakage and gets charged for so doing, the argument under clause 2 will be that it will harm defence. It prejudices the capability of and it jeopardises the interests of defence. We will have been told that we have certain inadequacies in our defence.
      Clause 3 deals with confidential information obtained from a state other than the United Kingdom which does harm to the state.
      The only way to decide that the man who I mentioned had an honest reason to believe that his information should be exposed is to bring the matter to trial. If that ingredient is missing, he has no chance.
      I had hoped that we would have received a response from the Home Secretary.
      I feel that I should give some reason for my interest in this as I am not especially concerned with problems of secrecy. Other hon. Members know much more about it than I. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is an expert on the matter. I have been pulled into this question of secrecy because I have a vital interest in another matter, which I call the freedom of the word. I have been concerned over the years that not only is secrecy at the top getting more powerful and rigid, but that the

      509
      inability to have freedom in this area is mirrored by what I see happening to the freedom of expression elsewhere. When three people in Britain—Maxwell, Stevens and Murdoch—control more than 80 per cent. of the popular press, freedom is in danger.
      At one time the grandfather of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) had the Daily Express, which was both a popular and a serious paper. It had the best foreign correspondent in Britain, Sefton Delmer. The paper was pursuing the interests and views of Lord Beaverbrook, but serious propositions were being put forward. It was a paper that mattered. Foreign affairs were on the front page. Alongside it was the Daily Mirror, iconoclastic, Left-wing and radical. How different now. If no one sees the danger to freedom, understanding and knowledge, when three people control more than 80 per cent. of the press, they must be dead to the world.
      9.15 pm
      At the same time the Government are slashing public service broadcasting and passing television and radio across to the private sector. We have broadcasting in this country under the same man who introduces Secrecy Bills such as this. So much for freedom of the word in this country; the man who is supposed to be in charge of broadcasting and defending freedom of the word is the same man who allows the special branch to invade the Scottish BBC. This is a strange situation, a dangerous situation. What is happening under his White Paper which is to be debated next week is that public service broadcasting is being passed across to the same people who own and possess the newspapers. Those three newspaper magnates are going to take over satellite broadcasting, too.
      This is what concerns me. I see it in the arts in which I am concerned. Public sponsorship is lower and lower in proportion and private commercial sponsorship is increasing. Ibsen's plays are classics and can be seen in the National Theatre, but it is not quite so easy for a contemporary Ibsen to write a play such as "An Enemy of the People". It is not so easy for the contemporary film maker to raise the necessary money to expose the enemies of the people as Ibsen did. If hon. Members laugh it is because they do not begin to understand what is happening in this country.
      It is alongside this that we are worried when we see Bills of this kind. We should be opening up understanding and access to information, instead of which we are closing and clamping it down.
      At one period in history we depended upon the sovereignty of Parliament to defend and expand our liberty. That sovereignty of Parliament, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has pointed out to me on more than one occasion, has now degenerated to the sovereignty of the Executive, and the sovereignty of the Executive has further degenerated to the sovereignty of the Prime Minister. We have a Prime Minister buttressed by the press being in the hands of three people, and an Executive buttressing her position by this kind of secrecy Bill.
      That is why we would welcome even the most minor of amendments to this Bill to allow some kind of concept of public interest to be involved, so that the honest whistleblower observing an iniquity within what I regard as an iniquitous Government can honestly declare it and be exonerated if he proves his case.
      Mr. Dykes: The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) as usual, went a little over the top, to say the least, but he is a very articulate, fluent speaker and he said much with which I agree—and at least he has been here since the beginning of the debate. I was both amused and distressed when my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) made an admittedly very brief intervention and left a few minutes later when the hon. Member for Paisley, South had started speaking. My hon. Friend is the very distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and I understand that, but I am sorry that he was not able to be here longer because he referred whimsically to the five hours that we have had on this debate already. [Interruption.] It is true that he had been here earlier, but I have been waiting since the beginning of the debate, and some of my hon. Friends have not been here so long.
      I intend to be brief, but I think that these points have to be made. Hon. Members on both sides who have been here all the time have with great force, and almost without exception, pleaded sincerely and honestly with the Home Secretary to give very serious consideration to their very earnest request that he accept the new clause and the amendments clustered around the concept of the public interest defence. This is one of the most powerful debates that I have heard in recent times in a Committee stage on the Floor of the House. It has been a very profound expression of the will of the House of Commons by hon. Members who have advanced very sincere arguments. it has been not a partisan debate or a party battle but a high-level, high-profile parliamentary occasion. People do want to get this Bill right.
      Like others, I express gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for introducing a Bill which contains improvements to the overall situation, thus fulfilling the will of the House as expressed a number of times in recent years when we have seen the difficulties, the leakages and the various prosecutions, as well as the distinguished work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) with his own private Member's Bill—nothwithstanding the Government's reaction to that, which caused disappointment in some quarters. The Home Secretary has given a substantial response to those anxieties. I welcome legislation that does away with section 2 of the Official Secrets Act in its present ridiculous form.
      I cannot understand why the Home Secretary has not said that he is prepared to accept the public interest defence. It is genuinely in the interests of this Government., of any future Government, of governmental integrity, of public life and of the value of this House as a guardian of the public interest—whatever its future electoral composition. There is scope for him to modify his seemingly obstinate stance. I understand the Home Secretary's difficulty and sympathise with him.
      Earlier in the debate, some hon. Members rightly said that one could not analyse why juries returned a certain verdict. They said that public interest came into the minds of the jury in the Ponting case by implication and discussion, and thus affected their decision.
      I was surprised when hon. Members—mostly Conservative—started to decry the jury system, because I thought that we attached great importance to it in the traditions of our British legal system. I, like other hon. Members, have my doubts about the tradition of our British legal sytem. I, like other hon. Members, have my

      511
      doubts about the jury system, which can work in a quirky way, particularly in criminal and City financial fraud cases. We tend to think, more and more, that there should be a panel of professional assesors in such cases rather than a jury, which cannot understand the intricacies of financial fraud and chicanery.
      In cases involving official secrets, there is no substitute for the ideal sacred British tradition of the jury assessing the aspects and values and deciding the relevant prosecution. There is a need to build into the Bill an amendment on public interest defence. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is nodding, but perhaps not at that suggestion. Will he or the Minister, when they have the opportunity, return to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)? The Home Secretary has not yet properly dealt with the difficulties in clause 3(3), which constricts the automatic confidential or contents criteria. It is a worrying subsection, upon which we need more guidance.
      We are talking against a background of difficulties that have occurred in recent years. People have used phrases such as elective dictatorship—I do not, but a previous Lord Chancellor used it about another Administration. We are talking about the background of a political and constitutional system in which Governments with a minority of the popular vote can more or less do what they will—aided, abetted and supplemented, often with beneficial effects, by the tradition of the strong party Whip. In this country, Governments can operate without a true majority and—unlike the system in some other European countries—with no constitutional court to restrain them or say that they have gone beyond the reasonable bounds of what they were publicly elected to do.
      In most other countries, one party cannot govern without a majority of more than 50 per cent. If there are no restraints inside the Chamber or, to a lesser extent, in the Upper House—where it does not matter so much and where their Lordships do their best in difficult circumstances—what are we here for? How can we uphold the public interest and serve the national interest in an on-going sense, rather than simply worrying about what the party manifesto, the Cabinet or No. 10, say? This occasion is a classic example of the traditional ritual of the strong whipping system, with just a handful of Members —mainly Conservative Members—introducing new clauses and amendments. I mean no offence to Opposition Members when I say that.
      If that is the direction in which our politics is going in this country, God help us in this House of Commons. We must realise that we have a sacred duty not always to accept partisanship and say that we will do what the party Whips ask us to do, day in and day out. I do that most of the time, like all hon. Members, both Labour Members and Members from smaller parties, albeit from a problematical political and constitutional position.
      If that is the case—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) implied, although he was dealing with specific points concerning the amendments and new clauses—we might as well give up, because we are not serving the public, and they know it.
      512
      People outside who follow these matters, although they are complicated issues even for parliamentarians, overwhelmingly want a public interest defence.
      I do not necessarily agree with the interesting idea of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). As I understand it, he said that all the officially listed category of persons should be heard in camera if they were prosecuted, rather than simply a significant minority of those designated persons. If it were a significant minority, I might consider that an interesting and constructive proposal, for the reason that the right hon. Gentleman gave—to try to help the Executive—but it would be too sweeping to go beyond that.
      Once again—I do not wish to stray out of order in saying this—we come overwhelmingly back to the idea of a Select Committee of Privy Councillors in this House to oversee these matters. That Committee would be very much reinforced by having the proper kind of public interest adjustment which we want to see and which is contained in these amendments.
      I was touched when the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) spoke in romantic and idealistic terms about the need for amendments to Bills, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee. We live in an age of cynical sophistication. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that we no longer amend Bills in Standing Committee, nor do we normally amend Bills on the Floor of the House. That is out of date and old-fashioned. Small technical amendments might be accepted and, occasionally, amendments on behalf of a trade association or an outside interest group in respect of a legitimate little matter. Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that this is a new era? I wish that he would adjust his thinking to that new era.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: Surely, as a consequence of the absence of restraint, scepticism concerning the United Kingdom's constitution will grow. I argue—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. That is a little beyond the scope of the amendments before the House. Mr. Dykes.
      Mr. Dykes: I agree, but I shall not reply to that comment save to say that I noticed that, after the war, turnouts were at least 80 per cent. and that nowadays they are down to 72 per cent. Perhaps there is something in what the hon. Gentleman says.
      Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend has committed a gross discourtesy to the Home Secretary in suggesting that no amendments are now allowed in debates. I wish to put the record straight. There will be one amendment. I should like my hon. Friend to take account of the fact that all amendments are equal, but one word from the Home Secretary will make one amendment more equal than others.
      Mr. Dykes: I am mortified by the sin that I have just committed. If I had not been interrupted, I would have said that this was a marvellous opportunity for my right hon. Friend to say that that is not the case and that one of the most important amendments that has ever been proposed in respect of such legislation at this crucial stage is acceptable, or, at least, that he and his colleagues—I pay genuine tribute to their work on this legislation—will consider returning to the House with suitable proposals.

      513
      I wish to reiterate a point to which one or two other Members have alluded, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), if I understood him correctly. If there is a public interest defence in the legislation, we positively enhance the previous stage, involving all the other internal Civil Service procedures, to put the matter right before it reaches this stage.
      The senior civil servants above the aggrieved official, up to the head of the Civil Service will have a chance to put matters right in the knowledge that, if they do not, there is a second line of defence for the nation as a whole. In discussion with his seniors, the aggrieved civil servant—in whatever Department he is working, be it security, defence or any other Department of State; it must be remembered that we are dealing with other than matters coming within section 1 of the Official Secrets Act—will know that the channels available to him are more legitimate and valid because the seniors above him must get it right. If they do not get it right, he will have the ability to act—genuinely and legitimately, not irresponsibly, superficially, frivolously, with malice or simply because he disagrees with policy. If he feels there has been wrongdoing, improper conduct or corruption in a Department of State, he will have a second line of defence—or perhaps it could be called a second line of attack—represented by the genuine national interest. That would save this country from going downhill and into dubious areas about which, I believe, journalists are already writing.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Rooker: This has been a long and interesting debate, and although I have listened to all of it, save when I left the Chamber to make two telephone calls, I have not risen to speak until now because I was anxious to hear what senior colleagues on both sides had to say.
      The argument has been one-sided, as I pointed out in an intervention. Knowing the way in which the Government operate, I have every reason to believe that the Bill will be timetabled. We shall probably rue the day—the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) spur me into making this point—that
      when, a few years ago, we had a Government in a minority situation, they did not legislate on this subject. Such legislation, if passed 10 years ago under such circumstances, would probably have stood the test of time.
      I fear that legislation of this type, passed by the present Administration with their overwhelming majority, will not stand the test of time.
      It is clear that the Government do not want public interest included in the Bill. The same can be said of other amendments that hon. Members have suggested but which the Home Secretary will undoubtedly turn down. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to remember that his party, with its present majority, will not be in office for ever. If we had a free vote, major amendments to the Bill would be made.
      I am not suggesting that the official secrets legislation passed earlier this century has stood the test of time. It needs amending, and it will not be an easy exercise. If we are obliged to discuss the Bill under the guillotine, we shall end up having fewer hours in which to debate the measure than had we begun in Committee upstairs in the first place. Those who fall foul of the legislation will be bound to feel that the Bill was not adequately discussed.
      514
      Although we shall not have an opportunity to vote on all the proposed amendments and new clauses, I prefer new clause 4 to new clause 1, but that is only a choice between options. As the Official Report of our debates is read widely, including by those in the other place, it is worth recording that certain issues are regarded as House of Commons matters while others are not. Legislation is separate from that, by which I mean that the rules of the House, allowances, matters of access to the Palace of Westminster and so on are dealt with, by and large, without the Whips being on.
      There ought to be certain classifications of legislation—certainly constitutional legislation, however it is defined—where different ground rules apply, if only to protect this House in future from having to keep coming back and looking at what are essentially long-term constitutional matters. In other words, the people ought not to be messed around every time a Parliament or a Government changes. By and large, the overwhelming majority of the House should accept that such a piece of legislation should be able to stand the test of time—to survive a decade or more.
      That can be done only if future Parliaments know that the legislation was dealt with not by the dead hand of the Whips, not by the sledgehammer, not by the guillotine, but with a degree of free and open debate that we would not normally seek in the case of the ordinary run of legislation—legislation about which we might complain but in respect of whose passage I accept that the Government have to apply the rules of the House in getting their programme through.
      However, this Bill, above all others—certainly any that have been dealt within this Session of Parliament—ought to be treated differently. It would be all very well to make the point that the Committee stage is being taken on the Floor of the House, if we knew that there was going to be a genuinely free debate, if we knew that Ministers would treat the debate seriously—and I sat through the whole debate last Wednesday.
      The Home Secretary spoke a few hours ago. Since he spoke so early, he could not answer the debate. His early intervention was useful to the House, but at no time did he seek to address the substance and the detail of the group of amendments that is before the House, so, clearly, that will have to be done by another Minister, and that will obviously cause other Members to contribute.
      If we knew that there was going to be a free and open debate, if the Government had a totally open mind and showed that they were prepared to listen to points of great importance to our unwritten constitution—theoretically it may be unwritten, but in fact it is written down in statutes like this for the servants of the Crown to operate—that would be a different matter.
      In making this point, I end on the same note as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Mr. Dykes). If the Government were willing to countenance amendments of substance—clearly, provision for a public interest debate is a matter of substance; there is no argument about that—I am pretty sure that there would be less likelihood that servants of the Crown taking that gamble would feel upon them the pressures that they will undoubtedly feel if this legislation gets on the statute book.
      Will the jury agree with me? I do not want people to be put in that position—and I think we have discussed these things a little too glibly. A public interest provision would simply be a long stop—perhaps a threat to the internal

      515
      workings of the Department to make sure that it listened to its employees and tried to see if there were a legitimate and reasonable redress.
      There does not seem to be that degree of openness on the part of the Minister, and I think that we are all—not only right hon. and hon. Members on both sides but the people of this country—losers because of the way this legislation is being handled.
      Mr. Whitney: Given the lateness of the hour, I will endeavour to be brief. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker) that this Bill is crucially important to the people of this country. It is right that I should emphasise that the area of debate centres on a very small number of public servants. The need to correct the Official Secrets Act 1911 has been recognised for more than 20 years, but we understood that that would be a very difficult task. We are all aware that the last Labour Government could not perform that task and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) explained why.
      We must understand how far the Government have come. The concerns that have been expressed tonight from both sides of the Committee centre on a narrow class of people within the ring fence. We are talking about a few thousand out of a total of nearly a million people who would currently be covered by the official secrets legislation.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) and others focused on cases like that of Captain Scott and the tanks and on industrial health and safety matters. There would be great benefits in those areas. We shall have swept away the all-embracing impact of the Official Secrets Act 1911 which is so unsatisfactory. Those activities which are not covered would be outside the ring fence and open to the test of harm. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee should welcome that.
      The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) asked in Committee last week what was happening to this House. I want to know what is happening to this House because we appear to be ready to throw away the very important balance in our concerns about public interest. There is a very difficult balance to strike in public interest matters. We all recognise that there is a fine balance between the public and national interest on the one hand, and the interests of public servants and their civic rights on the other. It all boils down to a very narrow category of civil servants to which the ring fence proposals apply.
      Perhaps the right hon. Member for Devonport and his right hon. and hon. Friends can tell us what happened to the House when the Labour party was in government. The Labour Government recognised the crucial need for a degree of secrecy within the public service. For example, there was secrecy in the Chevaline episode to which reference has been made today. The development of Chevaline was kept from the House of Commons for reasons which will be known to members of the Labour Cabinet of the time. It must also have been known to dozens and possibly hundreds of public servants. I wonder what those right hon. and hon. Members who kept the details from the House would have said if a civil servant had decided that Chevaline was not in the public interest
      516
      and that he would reveal it. Right hon. and hon. Members must look into their hearts to understand the pressures of Government.
      The examples that we have heard today demonstrate the validity of this Government's position. Right hon. and hon. Members have had to refer to absurd examples which do not bear a moment's examination. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is prepared to believe that a chain of civil servants would be corrupt and act in collusion. Of course, that is unacceptable and untrue. He can demonstrate his case only by citing examples which do not stand up. The old cliché that hard cases make bad law has never been more clearly shown than by the examples today.
      We heard much about the Sir Winston Churchill and Duncan Sandys episodes before the war. I was not privileged to hear the speech from the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), but I know that he referred to those matters, as did other hon. Members. If those hon. Members considered their examples, they would realise that the Churchill and Sandys episodes are of a different order of magnitude from what we are considering now. With regard to the public interest, we hope through this Bill to make Government work better.
      In the 1930s we had a massive national debate. It was not a matter of a Ponting, a Peter Wright or a Cathy Massiter leaking information in a brown paper envelope to one individual. It was a major debate and everyone knew what was happening. Sir Winston Churchill was half within the realm of secrecy. He was a member of the Air Defence Council. Because of the lateness of the hour, I shall not read it out, but Martin Gilbert's book contains a list of 20 or 30 senior Ministers and officials who were well known to be in contact with Winston Churchill. I do not suggest that we should legislate for such a difficult situation.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am not sure what my hon. Friend is suggesting. Is he saying that if that were to happen today, Winston Churchill's leakers would or would not be prosecuted? Is he suggesting that it would or would not be appropriate that such people should be prosecuted today? Is the law to be based on some special public debate? If he believes that such circumstances occurred in the 1930s, how can he believe that the same could not happen tomorrow or another year?
      Mr. Whitney: I was saying that it is quite inapposite to believe that we can construct a law to cover a massive national debate. If we seek to do that we shall write a Ponting charter. Nearly every Opposition Member has agreed that such conduct was contemptible and nearly everyone would agree that Government could not function if we had such a charter. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that we have a problem, but the present is one thing and the problem of another national debate is another.
      No one can seriously suggest that the substance of the debate in the 1930s was not clear. Churchill's attack on the Government of the day benefited from the hard information that he had, but the major debate about what was going on in Germany, what the Government were doing and what the Labour party was doing was a matter of public debate so the national interest was not so much in jeopardy. Therefore, we cannot use the 1930s affair to bring into law something that is not in the law of other

      517
      European countries. I commend to right hon. and hon. Members the letter in The Times today. In Switzerland, France and Germany the concept of a public interest debate in such a narrow area is unheard of and does not exist.
      Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend addressed a question in my speech, namely that if a foreign Government, albeit a friendly Government, provide the British Government with information which is then leaked because it is thought by the leaker to be detrimental to the best interest of the safety and health of the people of this country, under the Bill there would be no public interest defence.
      Mr. Whitney: My right hon. Friend has just resumed his place and I had addressed that point earlier. As the person concerned was outside the ring fence, the harm test would apply. Under the Bill, the case that my right hon. Friend was proposing, would be a great deal more advanced, furthered and better off than it is now.
      Sir Bernard Braine: With great respect, my hon. Friend said that the question of harm would not apply, but what would happen if a leak were designed to prevent harm?
      Mr. Whitney: I said clearly to my right hon. Friend that the harm test does apply because the people he is talking about are outside the ring fence. Therefore, the Bill provides a major advance in the direction in which my right hon. Friend would urge us to go.
      As the House knows, I am a former civil servant who, with hundreds of thousands of my former colleagues, gave loyal service to Governments of both complexions. If we introduce a leakers' charter into this narrow sector, we shall do much harm not only to the machinery of Government—to the responsibility and loyalty between Ministers and their nearest civil servants—but to the Civil Service. The affairs of Mr. Ponting and the performance of people such as him do much harm to the morale of public servants, the majority of whom will welcome the clarification and improvement in their status that the Bill offers.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: I rise with some diffidence because almost every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate knows more about the subject than I do. I should like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to answer three questions, the answers to which may be known by everyone else.
      First, is my right hon. Friend sure that people will be able to have their case heard by a jury? I am anxious that, because of the wording of some of the clauses, much pressure will be put on them to plead guilty. If that were to happen, their opportunity to present a defence would disappear. If some form of public interest defence were available, that danger would not exist.
      Secondly, I hope that I have understood incorrectly, but it is not clear whether it is valid to say that while harm has been done, greater good has resulted. Is that part of the definition of "harm" being done? Many hon. Members have said that that is not so and that one may not lay good against the harm that one is alleged to have done. Again, the argument for some form of public interest defence is overwhelming.
      518
      Thirdly, how likely is it that it will be made impossible to mount a defence because the material needed to do so will be secret? This relates to the point made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).
      I do not share some hon. Members' gloom about the closing of channels of communication. Whatever any Government wish to do, the growing cheapness and accessibility of international communications will make monkeys of most Governments over a wide range of matters. I rather welcome that because I believe that, in common with some other countries, we are ridiculously secret. Much better decisions would be made by Government if they were in the habit of consulting widely and early rather than, as so often happens, keeping opinions to their chests and extensively narrowing the amount of consultation.
      The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds. South (Mr. Rees) mentioned the classification of documents. As an administrative device, the suggestion that documents classified below a certain level should, ipso facto, be regarded as not harmful is sensible. The danger is that classifications become ever more restrictive. Embarrassment to Ministers, in particular, is a potent source of wrongdoing. Many Ministers—consciously or unconsciously—connive at the ever-growing number of documents classified as secret or top secret. That, too, would need to be looked into.
      Mr. Corbett: A number of right hon. and hon. Members have said that this has been a remarkable debate, and it has. I am glad that the Home Secretary has been here to listen, and I am not being snide in saying that. I take the point that has echoed around the Chamber since the debate began just after 4 pm that this has been one of those all-too-rare occasions when the voice and will of the House of Commons have been expressed irrespective of party. I am trying to avoid treading in narrow party political trenches. The Home Secretary will be aware of the weight of shared opinion that has come from his right hon. and hon. Friends, which has been reflected by Opposition Members of various parties.
      Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as he has just started his speech. He referred to the debate. Does he agree that there has literally not been a single contribution since the debate began at about 4.15 pm that has tried to prolong the debate? Every point has been relevant and that is all the more reason why there should not be a guillotine.
      Mr. Corbett: I accept absolutely what my hon. Friend has said, which reflects what a number of us have been saying to the Government. The Bill is so important that we require proper time to discuss it. There is not a shred of evidence that any hon. Member who has spoken today or in the first day's debate last week has been seeking to spin out time.
      Mr. Maclennan: I have heard from a number of hon. Members repeated references to the possibility of a guillotine being introduced. As I am not privy to the usual channels, would the hon. Gentleman care to share his intelligence about the Government's intentions on the matter, if he has any?
      Mr. Corbett: I can say to the hon. Gentleman only that I have heard the rumours and I have discounted them as being inconceivable.

      519
      The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) put the nub of the debate in a couple of sentences to the Home Secretary and his colleagues. He asked, broadly, whether the Government accepted that there was a proper difference between the national interest and the interest of the Government of the day. That is the point on which the whole argument about public interest turns. It has been suggested by some of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends that although no specific public interest defence is written into the Bill, that defence will somehow come up in any event and that, in the nature of court proceedings, it will be one of the factors open to the defence. Some of us are not persuaded of that, but the Home Secretary will, no doubt, try to persuade us. If the Government argue that, by implication, a public interest defence will be arrived at in trials, why not write that into the Bill? What will have been lost? The Home Secretary has said that it is in the Bill. I shall be delighted if he will tell me about it.
      In the Local Government and Housing Bill, which was published yesterday, the Government have not just written such a provision on the face of the Bill, but have written it heavily in it. Clause 5 provides for the appointment by local authorities of what it calls "the monitoring officer". The officer's duty is to scrutinise any "proposal, decision or omission" or any contravention of"any enactment or rule of law or of any code of practice" or any "maladministration or injustice" that is happening in that local authority's area. Indeed, it goes beyond the bounds of that local authority, whose representatives can serve on bodies such as police committees, local fisheries committees—we all know what nuisance they get up to—national park committees and any sub-committees of the bodies of the appointing council.
      If that provision—
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Official Secrets Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Official Secrets Bill
Again considered in Committee.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
Mr. Corbett: I shall not labour my point, except to say that if it is important—as the Government seem to feel it is—to write into a local government Bill the role of an officer to look after the public interest, how much more important it is to provide for the public interest in the Official Secrets Bill.
Throughout the debate we have had exchanges about the matter of harm, with which the public interest defence is linked. The Government's case is that harm is caused purely by disclosure, and that it does not matter whether it is a little harm or a great deal of harm. That is what the Government have asserted. The Home Secretary started this argument during our debate on 22 July, when he said:
520
"Our central objective is to narrow the law so it applies only to disclosures without authority of official information which"—
these are the words of which I wish to remind the Home Secretary—
"is likely to give rise to unacceptable degree of harm to the public interest."—[Official Report, 22 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 1413.]
Those were the Home Secretary's words, and he is not a man to use words carelessly. On that occasion he acknowledged that there were different degrees of harm. If there is an unacceptable degree of harm it follows in logic that there must be acceptable degrees of harm. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) reminded us, that is what the Franks committee said. One of the major points in its report was that the Official Secrets Act should come into force only where there was serious harm or serious injury.
The Home Secretary took us on to that ground, and it must have crossed his mind that if he had acknowledged the two principles in the BillS—that the degree of harm was measurable and that it had to be measured in relation to the public interest—we should not have had to spend all these hours on the amendment. If he told us that he is now willing to think again, on the basis of what has been argued so forcefully and eloquently by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, most of our differences over the Bill—though not all, by any means —could be put on one side and we should make much easier progress.
I do not want to waste the time of the House, but the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) raised the issue of public health and safety. Unless the Home Secretary can give us an assurance that under no circumstances will anyone who reveals anything touching on public safety and health be caught by the Bill we shall be in trouble.
If the Secretary of State will bear with me for a minute I will ask him a question, although I suspect that he will give me a different answer from the one I want. Many hon. Members have rightly mentioned the honest and loyal civil servants who know that suspected crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect of public duty or threat to public safety has been going on. That is what has made this debate so important.
But the Government are saying "Mum's the word". They say, "Crawl up this route. Talk to the next man up the ladder and hope to the heavens that he will do something about it."
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup took us through two scenarios where, for the most understandable reasons, there would be occasions where that would not happen. I find that notion deeply offensive to our public servants whether they are in security or intelligence, or merely pushing a pen in Whitehall.
It needs to be said that we are dealing with the morals and standards of public service. We have a right to expect—and we have had it by and large over the years from those who serve the public and those whom we employ on our behalf—that they should stand guardians of the public interest against the all-embracing powers of the Executive.
There is a fundamental difference between us on this matter. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup also referred to it. The question is not simply about where suspected wrongdoing is discovered. Let us accept that in nine cases out of 10 it is put right and that is properly the end of the argument. But as the right hon. Member said,

521
there are circumstances where that wrongdoing is so wicked and against the public interest that the public have a right to know what was done, that it is being put right and that the Government of the day, of whatever colour, will take steps to see that it never happens again.
I want to put to the Minister a case that has already been referred to in our debate. We now know, from the release of official papers, rather than from the work of a whistleblower, that in 1957 following an escape of strontium 90 from Windscale, as it was then known, the then Conservative Government organised a massive cover-up. The accident contaminated milk from 800 farms. That case occurred even before the notorious fire at the plant, where the truth was also bent.
Secret papers were released on 1 January this year. They reveal that no information about that Windscale fallout was released until 18 months afterwards and details were not even given by the Government to the National Radiological Protection Board. The House will remember that in the context of the Chernobyl fallout.
Indeed, the Medical Research Council helped to mislead people about the true extent of the danger by relaxing its standards for safe consumption of the radio-nuclide, so making the contamination appear innocuous. In the face of what we now know to be a Government-organised cover-up, was it or was it not in the public interest at the time for those facts to be made freely available?
Secondly, should such an incident happen again, with a similar cover-up, is it not the case that under the Bill a civil servant who revealed that cover-up would run the risk of prosecution? Perhaps the Home Secretary will be able to tell the House.
There should not be retribution but reward in a democracy. By that I mean public thanks for civil servants and others who speak up on behalf of the people whom hon. Members represent against wrongdoing, neglect of public duty, fraud, abuse of authority, or crime. Illegal acts—yes, even by members of the security and intelligence services—cannot and should not be overlooked in a democracy. It comes down to this: no person in a democracy should be placed above the law.
Mr. Hind: I am grateful to the Committee for the opportunity to speak, as some hon. Members have sat in the Chamber for five and a half hours wishing to take part in the debate. I echo the points that have already been made. It has been an important debate on one of the most important issues that we shall decide in this Parliament.
I support the major thrust of the Bill. There are several weaknesses in the amendments. Much of what was caught by section 2 of the original legislation will not be covered by the criminal law. A typical example is the White Paper on the National Health Service. That document was leaked to the hon. Member for Livingstone (Mr. Cook). It will not be caught by the Official Secrets Bill. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) referred to the Windscale leak. Provided that that was not a military establishment, and I understand that it was not, it would also probably not be caught by the Bill.
Many hon. Members have ignored the pillar of the Bill, which is the harm test. The prosecution must prove that harm has come from disclosure. It is a defence for a Government official who made a disclosure to show that it caused no harm to the public interest. He can also argue in court that the result of his disclosure was beneficial and
522
that, therefore, there was no harm. Those points have been ignored by many hon. Members. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a Member of Parliament receiving a disclosure other than from somebody who is notified, provided that the notification of that disclosure is used responsibly. That factor, too, has been forgotten. It has been argued that disclosure to a Member of Parliament will be harmful.
Hon. Members have referred to one or two examples. First, Captain Scott revealed the state of British armaments and the weakness of British tanks. That was a typical example, in which there was no harm in disclosure. Secondly, I refer to the informaton that Sir Winston Churchill received before the last war. Where was the harm in that disclosure? There was none. Civil servants would have had the defence that is laid down in the Bill.
Much of what has been said about the Bill is not correct. Hon. Members are not looking carefully at the small print in the Bill. They do not realise that the extent of its protection is far greater than many of the Bill's opponents have given it credit, for.
10.15 pm
There are fundamental flaws in new clause 1 and new clause 4. Credit is not being given for the fact that the harm test goes much further than a superficial examination reveals The two new clauses provide for a subjective test. Arguments have been put forward against the Obscene Publications Act where there is a subjective test.
In the prosecution of "Last Exit to Brooklyn", there was a conviction in one area and a acquittal in another. A jury in one area decided on a conviction in regard to "Lady Chatterley's Lover", while there was an acquittal by another jury. According to the new clauses, a jury would decide on the public interest. A jury in Manchester and a jury at the Old Bailey might disagree about the public interest; a jury in Leeds and a jury in Edinburgh might also disagree. Hon. Members should imagine being a judge directing a jury; they would have to decide what the public interest was. If hon. Members had to design a directive and a test they might not think it easy.
The second argument is more important. The lest in new clause 4 is the public interest. What is the public interest there? Under new clause 4 it is what the discloser decides that it will be. Subsection (1) says:
"It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Act to prove that the disclosure or retention of the information, document or other article was in the public interest insofar as he had reasonable cause to believe that it indicated the existence of crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect in the performance of official duty or other misconduct."
The public interest decision is taken by the person making the disclosure. He has to decide whether something is worthy of disclosure. If he is wrong, untold harm will be done to the public interest purely and simply on the subjective judgement of that individual. A jury will consider not just the harm but the overall position. The jury will consider whether the person had reasonable cause to believe, rightly or wrongly, that disclosure should have been made. As a barrister with much experience, I urge the Committee to consider whether anybody would be convicted under new clause 1 or new clause 4.
The difference between the Government's proposals and new clauses 1 and 4 is that the Government's proposals take into account the damage and the harm to the national interest. Neither of the new clauses does so.

523
All that they do is to consider the individual making the disclosure. Through the establishment code and other provisions in the Bill, there are plenty of ways in which someone who feels that he has information to disclose, such as Captain Scott or the civil servant who briefed Churchill, can get that information over without falling foul of the Bill. I urge my hon. Friends to reject the amendments.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Hon. Members have been talking for hours about the public interest. Of course, it is central to the law as it exists and as it will be after the Bill becomes law. That is not the same as a specific public interest defence in court where the burden is on the defendant to prove something. Those who tabled the amendments are asking for something to be done against the defendant. The defendant will have to prove his innocence under the amendments that have been tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I am against such a specific public interest defence. Therefore, I am against the amendments and the new clauses.
There is one stark, glaring and serious problem with such a specific defence, which appears to have been missed in all the discussions that I have heard. If the defence fails and the jury says that the accused is culpable, that what he did was not in the public interest, it is too late—the harm has been done and nothing can correct it. The secret is unjustifiably out. The agents are dead. There is no hauling back. That is what is wrong with a specific public interest defence.
By having such a defence, we will encourage the unstable person to leak. We will encourage the person who wants to make money out of his book to leak and then to claim that what he did was in the public interest. What is wrong with such a defence is that it encourages leaks and there is no going back, if the jury should say that it is an unwarranted defence, because the harm has been done.
The question is whether the arguments for such a specific defence are stronger than those against it. Is such a defence necessary? I believe not, and I hope that the Government will stay firm for the following reasons. First, in five out of the six categories of official information, the Government are providing in the Bill much better than a public interest defence. They are providing the test of harm, which the prosecution must prove and not the defence. The prosecution will not succeed if it is obviously in the public interest that the leak was necessary. The man will go free.
The public interest might also prevent the Director of Public Prosecutions, or whomever makes the decision, from initiating a prosecution at all, because he will take into account the public interest explanation and may say that the prosecution is not likely to succeed. In any case, a judge might stop the trial halfway through because of insufficient evidence of harm. All those are steps for the protection of the accused, which will, for the first time, be written into our law if the Bill is passed.
The trouble with a specific public interest defence is that it presumes that the matter might go as far as the defendant, who then must explain himself and, as everybody knows, it sometimes happens that an innocent defendant is not believed. The jury may say, "We do not believe this public interest defence. We do not believe a word the man has said. We believe he has lied from
524
beginning to end." The man will then be convicted—whereas, if the test was purely one of harm, he would never have been charged, or, if charged, he might have been acquitted halfway through the case because of the inadequacy of the evidence.
Secondly, where the accused is not a Crown servant, the prosecution must prove even more. It must prove he had good reason to know that harm would be done, which is a much harder task than under the present law.
Thirdly, and this has preoccupied the House for much of the debate, in the one in six category—the case of a member or former member of the security or intelligence services where harm need not be proved—there are other reasons for saying that a specific public interest defence is not appropriate.
Fourthly, it is simply not true to say that the honest whistleblower cannot blow the whistle without being convicted of crime. It is nonsense, because he can go to the staff counsellor without being convicted. If he does not like what the staff counsellor says, he can go to the Minister without being convicted. If he does not like what the Minister has to say, he can go to his Member of Parliament and say, "I am bound by the Official Secrets Act"—[Interruption.] It is no use shouting. If hon. Gentlemen listen they may hear what I am attempting to say.
The whistleblower can go to his Member of Parliament and say, "I cannot tell you precisely what is wrong, but I can tell you that I am appalled at some crime, some dishonesty, some fraud, which is being perpetrated in my department." And the Member of Parliament, exercising his right in that capacity, will knock on the Prime Minister's door—if it is a Member of the Opposition and he is terrified of doing so, he can knock on the Home Secretary's door or the Foreign Secretary's door or any one of those doors in the corridor—and the matter will be examined. That is true under any Government, and authority will be given to the whistleblower to explain precisely what he is complaining about without any question of prosecution. That is how the law operates and how the law would operate after this Bill became law—[Interruption.] I know that my hon. Friends are in a good and merry mood at 25 minutes past 10, but it does not alter the fact that the whistleblower has a number of avenues short of going to the Sun or the Daily Mirror and saying "I have a load of secrets; how much are you prepared to pay for them?"
Security Service people are not ordinary citizens whom we are aflicting with some terrible deprivation of their liberty. When they are at work they are very special people and they know that they are deprived of the right to speak freely on security matters when they volunteer for their job, go to work for the state and take money and a pension. The public have a right to expect that those who are paid to protect the nation's secrets do just that. They know what they are about. They are not afflicted and they are certainly not afflicted when they are not betraying the country's secrets.
If a public interest defence were given to them we might have more of a slightly unstable or slightly dangerous people of the character of Peter Wright, whom hon. Members throughout the whole of the "Spycatcher" matter castigated as being a less than favourable person, even though they supported the case against the Government. For all we know the secret service may have a lot of people like that. We have certainly heard in our debates about a number of people who want to sell for

525
money the secrets that they have learnt in the service. If we provide the public interest defence we are telling those people that they can always contend that what they did was done in the public interest.
Lastly, if we do not give a public interest defence to five of the six categories where the prosecution have to prove harm, we cannot give it to this category.
There are some who say, quite fairly, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), that there is always the possibility that a Government will confuse what is in their interest with what is in the public interest—of course that never
happened under the regime of my right hon. Friend—and because a Government cannot decide between what is in the public interest and what is in their interest, the conclusion is that they will prosecute someone who ought not to be prosecuted. That is the logical conclusion.
Ultimately, we must strike a balance and decide where the public interest lies. Is it more in the public interest to risk encouraging the misguided leaker, whose defence is that he is acting in the public interest, or to trust the Government—whatever their colour—the staff counsellor,the Minister, the Prime Minister, the Member of Parliament concerned, or the Law Officers, who are brought in at an early stage, not to hide an offence?
In sophisticated democracies, most would prefer to trust the Government, backed as they are by civil servants of undoubted integrity who would know nearly everything that was going on.
That is the case against the public interest defence.
10.30 pm
Mr. Hurd: It would be courteous if I tried to answer some, if not all, the points made during the long debate which has gone to the heart of necessary discussion of the Bill.
It was perfectly natural that critics of the Bill and enthusiasts for the amendments to it should have taken up most of the time, although there has been a healthy redress of the balance during the past hour or so. I have even caught a glimpse of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who I know thinks we have gone dangerously far in a liberal direction.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) spoke to his new clause after I had spoken; he will forgive me if I do not go into it in great detail. I criticise it on the grounds that it would leave it to the courts to decide what was in the public interest, without guidance from Parliament, and because the courts would decide cases not necessarily on the facts but on the defendant's reasonable belief that he was acting in the public interest at the time of the disclosure. He might admit that he had seriously harmed the interests protected by the Bill; he might even admit afterwards that he had wrongly interpreted the public interest—but he would still avoid being convicted of an offence and paying the penalty for his damaging disclosure.
I missed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), but was given some account of it. I am grateful for what he said in praise of the Bill. However, I do not accept that its effect is too narrow. Of course we want to make it effectively cover the areas in which information needs to be protected. Civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture or the Department of Health now live with the knowledge
526
that section 2 governs the confidential information with which they deal. It would be remarkable if this Bill covered their work. The fact that it does not is a remarkable change.
In the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, the effect is different. Civil servants in those Departments will have to get used to the idea of tests of harm. The blanket protection of the law for the confidential documents that they handle will be removed—a considerable, but different change. So much of the argument has focused on clause 1, dealing with members or former members of the intelligence and security services who are notified, that hon. Members have tended to widen a necessarily restrictive arrangement as if it covered all civil servants. That is far from true.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) always speaks with vivid recollection of the responsibilities of his former office and of the balances that must be struck. He took us through what he called the majestic language of the Franks report, to which he put his name. I cannot refrain from reminding him that that means he put his name to the passage in it that dealt with this very matter. Speaking on a different structure, Lord Franks said:
"The prosecution should have to satisfy the court that the information fell within a category, and that it was so classified, but the court should not be concerned with the effect of the disclosure on the interests of the nation."
The idea that the Franks report can be prayed in aid of a public interest amendment is wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) concentrated on an anecdote that clearly impressed and moved the House. I hope that I can reassure him, although I do not know all the historical detail. On the basis of what he said, I can tell him that Captain Scott would have had a far better defence under our Bill than he would have had under the existing legislation. Any prosecution would have to prove that the disclosure to his father was likely to prejudice or damage the capability of the armed forces. That would be the relevant test. Of course, it could not be met in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend. Furthermore, Captain Scott would have a defence that, at the time of the alleged event, he did not know and had no reasonable cause to believe that his disclosure would have a damaging effect. Under the existing law, therefore, he stood in jeopardy, but he would not stand in jeopardy under the provisions of the Bill.
I agree with the basic point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that the Government should not be the arbiter in these matters. That is why the Bill is constructed as it is. It asks Parliament to lay down certain specific tests. It removes the need for ministerial certificates which have held up the field for so long, and it puts the jury in control, so Parliament and the jury are at the centre of the scene.
My right hon. Friend referred to the time when I worked for him at No. 10, and it is certainly true that I learned what I know and gained many of my impressions of these matters at his knee. He will not take offence if I say that I observed at his knee a remarkably rigorous attitude in these matters. If someone had come forward in those days with a proposition that the House should be asked to pass a Bill on this matter, with no ministerial certificates and no reliance on classification of documents, and which

527
went considerably further than the structure in the Franks report and put a great reliance on juries, he would have received an icy stare.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) made a number of points. He and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) put together an amazing idea—that the Bill went in tandem with the Government's refusal to appeal in the Ponting case. I am not sure how the right hon. Member for Devonport supposes that one can appeal against an acquittal; that is something that even I, as a layman, know is not easy to do. He made a point about hearings in camera and, so as not to waste the House's time, I refer him to paragraph 146 of the Franks report which deals exhaustively with this matter. He was right about judicial review. That is to say, the general law of judicial review will allow a challenge to be brought of a decision to notify a person under clause 1 and no amendment is therefore required to secure that result.
My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) again produced his own story. On the facts that he stated, the two men who made the disclosures would have been able to make an extremely robust defence against any suggestion by any prosecution in respect of the harm test for defence, which would be the relevant one in that case. I do not easily see how the prosecution could have sustained its case in that hypothetical example.
I do not want to repeat to the House what I said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) because, unfortunately, he was not here when I spoke. However, he will be able to read what I said at some length. I listened carefully to the cases that he cited. The information in the cases that he cited came from home and referred to areas not covered by the Bill, although covered by the Act. The official concerned told him that because of the Act, he could not let my right hon. Friend have the information that he wanted, but he would not be able to tell him that in future under the Bill.
My right hon. Friend raised the case where information came not from home but from abroad—for example, from the American Government or the EEC. I can reassure him on that point. I do not see, in the case he mentioned, how either the facts that would be disclosed or the fact of disclosure could possibly have jeopardised our interests abroad, so it would not have fallen within the Bill in that case either.
I have avoided going into previous cases, but in response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) I would say that if in the future a civil servant—not a member of the intelligence or security services—disclosed information about public safety in a nuclear installation, he could not be prosecuted unless harm was done under one or more of the specific tests and definitions in the Bill governing security and intelligence, defence, international relations and crime.
My hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) pursued the issue of clause 3(3), which is obviously causing difficulty, and which I have failed to get across. It is simply that, even if the prosecution chose to argue that it was the fact of disclosure, rather than the contents of disclosure, which caused harm, it would in either case have to show
528
that the disclosure passed the test of harm affecting our interest abroad. So it is not the case that the fact of disclosure would be an absolute offence; it would have to pass the test of harm.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills because when hon. Members were criticising his amendment, I heard him say, with his back rather against the wall, "Well, at the end of the day the jury will get it right." There was a moment of fellow feeling because I have had to use that argument, too. Now we have freed him from his concern with ministerial certificates, although I admit he put them in only because he thought we would not be brave enough to remove them.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I put them in where?
Mr. Hurd: In my hon. Friend's Bill.
Mr. Shepherd: The assertion would have been that there would have been a review procedure of them. They were not the absolute doctrine that the Home Secretary constantly seems to think they were. I wish he had read my Bill originally. That would have been a help in this process.
Mr. Hurd: I did read it, and I heard my hon. Friend explain that he put in a ministerial review because he thought we would not be brave enough to leave ministerial certificates out. We have been brave enough to leave them out, so he and I can have faith in the jury.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made an excellent speech on his Bill about the need to strike a balance between security and freedom. In everything I have heard him say—and I must have heard almost all his speeches on this subject—he has displayed no sign of striking this balance in what I would regard as a fair way. I admire his conviction, but there seems to be no sign of understanding among many critics of this Bill how information about terrorism, terrorists, counter-terrorism and the activities of foreign spies might be disclosed, with substantial damage to the protection of the community, if a door were left open in the way this series of amendments would provide. That is the point to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred.
Almost all the examples we have had have been hypothetical or about past allegedly conscientious public servants being tempted to breach the duty of confidentiality because of some good that they wanted to do. But we must take into account public servants who might have less good motives—who might have bad motives and who would be tempted or encouraged by amendments such as these to inflict quite serious damage on the interests of the citizen because they felt that Parliament had given them a way to get away with it.
I have not been particularly corrupted by office to distort my view in these matters. I believe that I should be conscious of this danger and of the gain to the enemies—not of the Government but of the citizens whom we are protecting—which is inherent in this series of amendments.
Mr. Aitken: The Home Secretary should not be allowed to get away with that reply. Although the hour is late, I must criticise his lamentable answer to what has been a great debate. It has been great because those who have sat here for six hours and 44 minutes know that across the Chamber there has been an amazingly broad measure of agreement in support of the amendment. It has been

529
supported by a former Prime Minister, a former Home Secretary, a former Foreign Secretary, a former Defence Secretary, the Father of the House of Commons, and a broad spectrum of opinion.
We are debating a constitutional measure which needs, if it is to survive across the generations—when different complexions of power groupings will be in place in Parliament—a broad spectrum of support. To see it narrowed down to one sectional interest is a grave mistake, not just today but for the future generations for whom we are legislating.
10.45 pm
I ask myself what is the mystery behind the Government's adamant refusal to take on board the right to allow a defendant accused of breach of the Official Secrets Act to say in court, "Please, jury, listen to my case:I acted as I did because I was trying to prevent a serious crime"—a serious fraud, a serious abuse of authority, or major misconduct or wrongdoing. What is the mystery? Why will the Government not accept a right which, as I shall point out in a moment, has been in the law for over 75 years? I can find only one reason—the quite extraordinary attitude on the part of the Prime Minister that there is no such thing as an acceptable amendment when the matter of debate is in the context of secrecy or security, that on no terms and in no conditions can such an amendment be accepted. That attitude shows a worrying contempt for Parliament and I am strongly critical of it.
The Home Secretary has produced two arguments in defence of his thesis and of his great attempt to persuade us that there is a nice cuddly, libertarian little sheep, under the wolf's clothing of authoritarianism with which the Bill and his refusal to accept this amendment are masked. He has argued that at the moment, in the law as it stands, there is no such thing as a public interest defence, but that contention does not stand up to serious examination. In his winding-up speech he did not answer the point that the right is definitely provided for in the Obscene Publications Act.
More importantly, the Home Secretary neglected the point that the 1911 Act provides for a defence of public interest. That Act was probably the worst piece of legislation ever to be passed by the House of Commons, in living or even historic memory, but it had one redeeming feature—section 2(1)(a), which provided that a person could argue that he had disclosed information in the interests of the state. The idea that that is not a public interest defence is denied by the report of the 1938 Select Committee, which I quoted, and by the example of Mr. Wigram and all the other anti-appeasement civil servants who briefed Winston Churchill. It is denied by the case of Mr. Duncan Sandys, it is denied by the Ponting case and it is denied by the Sunday Telegraph secrets case in which I took part.
If I really want to convince my hon. Friends that something quite wrong is being done today I will take up the challenge presented to me some seven hours ago by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He argued that the Ponting case proved that, somehow or other, the public interest defence was there and was a real safeguard. I suspect that my hon. Friends approve of this Bill because they think, "The Pontings of this world would jolly well be convicted—and a good thing too."
Now that I have had time to look the matter up in the Library, I will give a graphic example of how a public
530
interest defence is right and necessary, and how it once worked in a grave case in 1969 in which this House was misled. I am sorry if this embarrasses some Opposition Members opposite, but it will take no more than a couple of minutes.
The hottest foreign affairs political controversy at that time was the Nigerian civil war. I was not a Member of Parliament but a journalist writing articles in which I referred to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), for example, as a young meteor. As a foreign affairs correspondent I wrote an article based on what was known as the Scott report, which was all about the Nigerian civil war and the supply of arms to Nigeria. Before publishing it I consulted a dear friend who was then a Privy Councillor and a Member of this House—the right hon. Sir Hugh Fraser. I remember to this day how, when he first read the then unpublished copy of the Scott report, he threw back his fine Highland chief's head and whooped, "This proves they lied."
He was referring to statements made in the House, some of them by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Wilson who, in relation to British arms supplies to Nigeria, told the House on 16 May 1968:
"we have allowed the continuance of supply of arms by private manufacturers in this country, exactly on the basis that it has been in the past, but there has been no special provision for the needs of war."—[Official Report, 16 May 1968; vol. 764, c. 1397–8.]
A few months later the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Michael Stewart, said:
"The arms which we have supplied have been broadly, both in quantity and quality, what we were supplying before war began."
The Sunday Telegraph secret case proved decisively that those statements were at best gravely misleading. Before the war began, Britain had been supplying something like £70,000-worth of arms per year to Nigeria. When the Sunday Telegraph published its article, Britain was supplying £10 million-worth of arms to Nigeria of a completely different quality and quantity than before.
Sir Hugh Fraser was right to see that as an example of the House being misled and the evidence has proved him right. That example is relevant to today's debate because it was open to the defendants in that case to argue—under the right of a public interest defence which still exists in the official secrets legislation—that a major wrongdoing had occurred and the House had been misled. Therefore, there was a genuine justification for them to go before a jury and claim a defence because the Scott report was published in the interests of the state to show that the House was being misled. That is a sound, solid, copper-bottomed example of why a public defence is needed, why the public interest defence is in the 1911 Act and why it succeeded then.
If we sweep that defence away now and say that we do not need it because the Government's say-so is sufficient, we throw away a small but very important bulwark of our liberties which have defended the country well in the past. The Bill is a real sign that three terms in office have made the Government unresponsive to parliamentary mainstream opinion and reluctant to defend liberties. To use a harsh term, the Government have become far too arrogant in their belief that they have a monopoly of the right point of view. The public interest defence worked in the past and it should be maintained. It does not deserve to be obliterated by the Bill and it is a great pity that the Government will not accept the amendment.
Mr. Dalyell: Amendment No. 91 heads this group of amendments. Very often senior Ministers make speeches, leave the Chamber and return before the wind-up speeches. I want to pay tribute to the Home Secretary for having been in his place since 4 pm to listen to the debate. He will have recognised that this has been a House of Commons occasion, not a party occasion.
Will the Home Secretary go back to the Cabinet and reflect that right across the political spectrum in the House there are Members who have worked hard on the Bill and who think that on this particular issue he may be wrong? There is no shame in the Government changing their minds. If the House has reached a consensus no shame would attach to the Home Secretary and there would be no crowing from the Opposition if he changed his mind. Action could be taken in the other place.
I have tabled amendment No. 91 as a symbol. Other hon. Members may think that their amendments or new clauses are better, and they may be right, but we are voting on a symbol now.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 267

Division No. 73]

[10.53 pn

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Adley, Robert

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

Aitken, Jonathan

Dewar, Donald

Allen, Graham

Dixon, Don

Alton, David

Doran, Frank

Anderson, Donald

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Armstrong, Hilary

Dykes, Hugh

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Eadie, Alexander

Ashton, Joe

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Fatchett,Derek

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Fisher, Mark

Barron, Kevin

Flannery, Martin

Beckett, Margaret

Flynn, Paul

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

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

Foster, Derek

Bermingham, Gerald

Foulkes, George

Bidwell, Sydney

Fraser, John

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Blair, Tony

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Blunkett, David

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Boateng, Paul

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Body, Sir Richard

Golding, Mrs Llin

Boyes, Roland

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bradley, Keith

Gorst, John

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Gould, Bryan

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Graham, Thomas

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Buchan, Norman

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Caborn, Richard

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Heffer, Eric S.

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Henderson, Doug

Canavan, Dennis

Hinchliffe, David

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Holland, Stuart

Clay, Bob

Home Robertson, John

Clelland, David

Hood, Jimmy

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Howells, Geraint

Cohen, Harry

Hoyle, Doug

Corbett, Robin

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Critchley, Julian

Illsley, Eric

Crowther, Stan

Ingram, Adam

Cryer, Bob

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cummings, John

Lamond, James

Dalyell, Tam

Leadbitter, Ted

Darling, Alistair

Leighton, Ron

532

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Reid, Dr John

Lewis, Terry

Richardson, Jo

Livingstone, Ken

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Livsey, Richard

Robertson, George

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Rooker, Jeff

McAllion, John

Ruddock, Joan

McAvoy, Thomas

Sedgemore, Brian

McCartney, Ian

Sheerman, Barry

Macdonald, Calum A.

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

McKelvey, William

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Maclennan, Robert

Short, Clare

McNamara, Kevin

Skinner, Dennis

Madden, Max

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

Marek, Dr John

Soley, Clive

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Spearing, Nigel

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Squire, Robin

Martlew, Eric

Steinberg, Gerry

Meacher, Michael

Strang, Gavin

Meale, Alan

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Michael, Alun

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Turner, Dennis

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I & Bute)

Vaz, Keith

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Wall, Pat

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Wallace, James

Morley, Elliott

Walley, Joan

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wareing, Robert N.

Morrison, Sir Charles

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Wigley, Dafydd

Mullin, Chris

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Murphy, Paul

Winnick, David

Nellist, Dave

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Norris, Steve

Worthington, Tony

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Wray, Jimmy

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Patchett, Terry

Pike, Peter L.

Tellers for the Ayes:

Prescott, John

Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.

Quin, Ms Joyce

Radice, Giles

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Amess, David

Carrington, Matthew

Amos, Alan

Carttiss, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Cash, William

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Chapman, Sydney

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Chope, Christopher

Ashby, David

Churchill, Mr

Aspinwall, Jack

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

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Baldry, Tony

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Colvin, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Conway, Derek

Bendall, Vivian

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Benyon, W.

Couchman, James

Bevan, David Gilroy

Cran, James

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Day, Stephen

Boswell, Tim

Devlin, Tim

Bottomley, Peter

Dicks, Terry

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Dunn, Bob

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Evennett, David

Brazier, Julian

Fallon, Michael

Bright, Graham

Favell, Tony

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

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Burns, Simon

Forman, Nigel

Burt, Alistair

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Butler, Chris

Forth, Eric

Butterfill, John

Fox, Sir Marcus

533

Freeman, Roger

Major, Rt Hon John

French, Douglas

Malins, Humfrey

Fry, Peter

Mans, Keith

Gardiner, George

Marland, Paul

Gill, Christopher

Marlow, Tony

Glyn, Dr Alan

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Goodlad, Alastair

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Maude, Hon Francis

Gow, Ian

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Gregory, Conal

Miller, Sir Hal

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Mills, lain

Grist, Ian

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Ground, Patrick

Mitchell, Sir David

Grylls, Michael

Monro, Sir Hector

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hanley, Jeremy

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Hannam, John

Moss, Malcolm

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

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Mudd, David

Harris, David

Neale, Gerrard

Haselhurst, Alan

Needham, Richard

Hayes, Jerry

Nelson, Anthony

Hayward, Robert

Neubert, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Heddle, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hind, Kenneth

Paice, James

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Patnick, Irvine

Holt, Richard

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Howard, Michael

Pawsey, James

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

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Portillo, Michael

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Powell, William (Corby)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Price, Sir David

Hunter, Andrew

Raffan, Keith

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Irvine, Michael

Redwood, John

Irving, Charles

Renton, Tim

Jack, Michael

Rhodes James, Robert

Jackson, Robert

Riddick, Graham

Janman, Tim

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Roe, Mrs Marion

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Key, Robert

Rowe, Andrew

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Ryder, Richard

Kirkhope, Timothy

Sackville, Hon Tom

Knapman, Roger

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Scott, Nicholas

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knowles, Michael

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knox, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Lang, Ian

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Latham, Michael

Shersby, Michael

Lawrence, Ivan

Sims, Roger

Lee, John (Pendle)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lightbown, David

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lilley, Peter

Speller, Tony

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lord, Michael

Steen, Anthony

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Stern, Michael

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Stevens, Lewis

McCrindle, Robert

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Maclean, David

Sumberg, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Summerson, Hugo

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Tapsell, Sir Peter

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Madel, David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

534

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Warren, Kenneth

Temple-Morris, Peter

Watts, John

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Wells, Bo wen

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Wheeler, John

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Whitney, Ray

Thurnham, Peter

Widdecombe, Ann

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Wiggin, Jerry

Tredinnick, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Trippier, David

Winterton, Nicholas

Trotter, Neville

Wolfson, Mark

Twinn, Dr Ian

Wood, Timothy

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Woodcock, Mike

Viggers, Peter

Yeo, Tim

Waddington, Fit Hon David

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Younger, Rt Hon George

Waldegrave, Hon William

Walden, George

Tellers for the Noes:

Waller, Gary

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Tony Durant.

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Question accordingly negatived
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Committee do report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Hurd.]
Mr. Hattersley: I do not propose to argue against the motion, but I want to say to the Home Secretary that if we are to have a proper debate on the Bill, such as we have had today, the time will have to come when the House sits long into the night. I hope that he understands that the fact that he asks the House to rise at this late—but not intolerably late—hour must not be used as an excuse for his future conduct, whatever that may be.
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Sir Paul. You were here during many of the deliberations of the Committee, and I think that you will agree that there has been no time-wasting, that no speaker, either for or against the amendments, has tried to prolong the debate and that there have been no wasted interventions during speeches. I hope that you accept that that is accurate of the past four hours and more of debate and that other clauses of great importance need to be debated, as is agreed by hon. Members of all parties.
It would be wholly unfair, in those circumstances, if the Government were to come back next week with a timetable motion. It would mean, in effect, that there would be no opportunity to discuss matters such as we have debated today. I know that the matter is outside your control, but all I am asking is that these remarks should be placed on record because it would be wholly wrong for a guillotine motion to be tabled as a result of the Government's lack of patience.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): As the hon. Gentleman has said, that is not a matter for the Chair, but he has placed his point on record.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Sir Paul. May I draw to your attention the fact that, during the last vote, which was on the character of what many hon. Members felt was an authoritarian Government, a Government Whip was listing all the Conservative Members who came out of the Aye Lobby? That is very strange conduct in view of the fact that our votes are on record. I can only assume that the Tory Whips of this authoritarian Government intended to intimidate Tory Members into voting according to the party line. Can you confirm that intimidation is a serious breach of our Standing Orders?
The First Deputy Chairman: That is hardly a point of order.
Mr. Gorst: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. May I make it clear that the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Cryer) has no substance as far as I am concerned.
The First Deputy Chairman: All I can say to the Committee is that the debate has been in order
Question put and agreed to.
Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That at the sitting on Monday 6th February—

(1) if proceedings on any Motion in the name of Mr. John Wakeham relating to the Water Bill (Allocation of Time) have not been concluded before Seven o'clock, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour shall stand over until the conclusion of such proceedings; and

536

(2) the Private Business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (S.I., 1989, No. 3)
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 3), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th January, be approved.
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 21st December, be approved.
  Question agreed to.

British Coal (Opinion Polling)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.
11.10 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the Minister's attention to the concern among miners at Kellingley colliery about a survey carried out by Research Services Limited on behalf of British Coal. The Minister will have seen early-day motion 328, signed by more than 150 right hon. and hon. Members, condemning British Coal for conducting the survey.
During the week beginning 16 January, a team of researchers visited the homes of some Kellingley miners, unannounced and without prior arrangement, armed with a questionnaire which, the miners thought, sought to obtain views and information that would be helpful to a private company when British Coal was privatised.
The miners were not given sight of the questionnaire, but they were asked whether they were prepared to work for a British Coal consortium, whether they would buy shares in British Coal and whether they would work for a private company. They were asked about the state of industrial relations and morale at the colliery, what bonus payments they received and what was their standard of living.
The miners' trade union is concerned about the invasion of their privacy and their homes, as is their Member of Parliament. The miners were upset that their names, addresses and works numbers had been given to a public relations company, presumably by British Coal, without their consent. They are concerned to discover that British Coal's money—taxpayers' money—can be spent on a survey for the benefit of potential private owners. They are upset that British Coal has supplied a public relations company with their private addresses and works numbers and feel that that action could be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1984.
Mr. Alan Meale: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the service that he is doing to members of the mining industry and the mining community. Let me add my experience to his. When the Government have closed coal mines in Nottinghamshire, lists of miners to be made redundant have been made available to private insurance companies and brokers—sometimes on the same afternoon that the miners themselves have been told. That has happened in my area and in that of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart). Is that yet another example of the way in which British Coal is flagrantly breaching the privacy of those who work for it?
Mr. Lofthouse: I thank my hon. Friend for that example. I have had it confirmed by British Coal that since the survey to which I referred similar surveys have been carried out at 70 other collieries. That gives further weight to the opinion of the Kellingley miners that a campaign is under way leading up to the privatisation of the British coal industry.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: There is a great danger in these developments. Can my hon. Friend imagine a situation where this information collected by private pollsters could be used in the event of privatisation, and where those miners who have been visited and expressed
538
opposition to privatisation plans might be blacklisted by the companies as a result of this disgraceful behaviour of British Coal?
Mr. Lofthouse: There is always danger in this type of thing. Of course, that is why we look to the protection of the Data Protection Act 1984.
One has to understand the problems of the mining communities to realise why miners feel so concerned about such surveys. Since 1984, they have seen their industry devastated by the policy of this Government. In the area covered by the Wakefield metropolitan district council, where these miners live, they have seen the loss of 11 pits and 11,000 jobs, and their workmates and friends have been thrown on the scrap heap, some without hope of any future employment. They are aware that the average age of the British Coal work force is 34. They are also aware that the millers' redundancy payment scheme is not so generous as it was previously. They are seeing their redundant colleagues hounded by the Department of Employment, which could mean the loss of the benefits that they were promised when accepting voluntary redundancies.
Mr. Meale: Is my hon. Friend also aware that redundant miners aged 50 and over have been told by employment officers when they applied for a retraining allowance of £10 plus bus fares under the restart scheme that they could not go on to the scheme, because the £13·95 payable under the pension scheme from British Coal would cease?
Mr. Lofthouse: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that fact to the House's attention. I was aware of that problem.
The miners are aware of the threat from privatisation of the electricity supply industry, and believe that their industry is to be run down even further before privatisation, to as few as 45,000 men. This view is supported by the report of the Coalfield Communities Campaign. They are indeed in fear of the loss of their jobs. We are talking of men with an average age of 34, without any guaranteed weekly benefits when they are made redundant, and without hope of any future employment.
The miners believe that the coal industry could be privatised before the next election. I am beginning to think that their fears might be well-founded. They are concerned by the Government's track record to date, which indicates that there will be no encouragement to replace mining jobs with alternative employment.
In the area I am referring to, there has not been any Government aid to make good the loss of those 11,000 jobs. The Government have refused to grant it assisted area status, which means there are no national Government or European Community grants. There has been no input of any alternative jobs to employ those 11,000-plus former miners.
I had the privilege this week of listening to the suffragan bishop of Sherwood, giving evidence to the Private Bill Committee on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill on 31 January. I sincerely advise all hon. Members, and indeed the Prime Minister and members of the Government, to take a few moments of their time to read and digest the evidence given by the bishop. In answer to a question about whether there had been any change in miners' morale or self-confidence, the bishop replied:

539
"They have a certain not actual depression but a fear hanging over them that the industry is not as flourishing and has not got the future that they thought it had."
He also told the Committee about the effect on a mining community when a colliery is closed down. He said:
"It is a pretty traumatic experience. It is expected. They know it is coming and there is great sadness because a pit village without a pit is a place without a soul."
I confirm that statement. My constituency has had the same experience over the past four years.
Miners get angry and worried when their homes are invaded by public relations people asking questions about privatisation of the coal industry. With justification, they say that it is a further kick in the teeth for miners who have always stood by the country in times of need and provided the required energy and fuel.
They know that privatisation of the electricity industry followed by privatisation of the coal industry, means a loss of jobs and possible unemployment for the rest of their lives. No hon. Member can disagree with that. The miners know what privatisation means for the coal industry. They know all about profit taking priority. They know about cutting corners and slips in safety standards. They are aware of the reason some foreign companies can export cheap coal. They know that the accident rate in South African mines is eight times greater than in this country. They know also that the accident rate in American mines is four times greater. They know what conditions in Britain's coal mines were like before nationalisation; they have been told by their fathers. I never get fed up with telling people what mine conditions were like before nationalisation, because I saw them myself.
That was the climate in the mining community when the public relations people arrived with their questionnaire. The miners want me to ask the Minister some questions. I spoke to the Minister on the telephone this morning and told him of my questions. He may not be able to answer them all, and it may be appropriate for British Coal to answer some, but I hope that he will be able to answer some.
Why did British Coal commission the survey? What were the questions on the questionnaire? What was the information to be used for? Who gave British Coal authority to release miners' names, addresses and work numbers to the public relations firm? Why was I, as their Member of Parliament, refused a blank copy of the questionnaire? Was British Coal's action in breach of the Data Protection Act 1984? Is it possible that the coal mining industry will be privatised before the next general election? Why was the local area management of British Coal not aware of the survey? Why was the local branch of the National Union of Mineworkers not informed? Why is British Coal allowed to spend its scarce financial resources—in effect, taxpayers' money—to obtain information which could be of benefit only to the private sector? As I pointed out, British Coal has confirmed to me that the exercise took place at 70 collieries.
The Government have a duty to the miners to provide alternative jobs if the industry is to be run down to the extent that I have suggested. I hope that the Minister will take note of that and attempt to answer the questions which I have put to him.
11.24 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on having secured a debate on this issue, which is important to him. I know that he has had a long personal involvement in the mining industry and that he speaks from that experience and from the heart as well.
I listened carefully to what he said and, indeed, to the interventions of the hon. Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and Mansfield (Mr. Meale). I shall try to cover all the points they raised. I hope that part at least of the debate will be read carefully by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Trade and Industry.
At the outset I should stress that a decision by the British Coal Corporation to carry out surveys of the attitudes of its employees is a matter that falls entirely within its day-to-day management responsibilities. It is not a matter for the Government. I am, however, delighted to reply to any concerns about the corporation's actions that are brought before the House. Indeed, I welcome the opportunity to correct a number of misconceptions and misrepresentations that have arisen over the corporation's survey of the attitudes of its employees, some of which were referred to by the Member for Pontefract and Castleford.
First, I should like to deal with a general point raised by the hon. Member in arguing that the purpose of such attitude surveys is to usurp the function of the trade union through which employees should properly express their views. Certainly a responsible and realistic trade union has a role to play in such exchanges.
In practice, as the hon. Gentleman will know, and unfortunately in the case of the coal industry, one of he unions, the National Union of Mineworkers, has effectively cut itself off from the negotiation process with the corporation by persistently refusing to accept new conciliation machinery. That machinery recognises a substantial body of miners now represented by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. This sad state of affairs makes it vital for British Coal to conduct such surveys if it is to know how its work force feels on issues that are important to the future of the industry.
I will set out some of the key facts of this survey. First, it was not the first such survey conducted by British Coal. Indeed, such surveys have been conducted for a long time. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will be interested to know that these surveys extend back over the whole period since nationalisation of the industry. That, of course, includes periods when the Labour party was in government. I do not recall, nor do I know of, any similar complaints by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford or by any of his hon. Friends about those surveys.
Mr. Lofthouse: The Minister is right. There have been surveys in the past. Is he aware that this questionnaire, which unfortunately we are not allowed sight of, had questions on it which were never on the questionnaire, before?
Mr. Allen McKay: Is the Minister aware that the earlier surveys were conducted on colliery premises by British Coal and that they were

541
completely voluntary? The Minister shakes his head. I can assure him that that is right because I conducted some of them.
Mr. Morrison: I would not for a moment suggest that the hon. Member was making an incorrect statement to the House. Some of them might have been conducted by British Coal but, as I will explain in a second, others were not.
Perhaps, I could be helpful to hon. Members by referring to a survey which was carried out in 1976 by the National Coal Board, as it then was. That was not carried out directly by British Coal, but by an arm of Imperial college, London. The questions that were asked in 1976 were similar—I accept that they were not precisely the same, as any survey will move on as time moves on—to the ones in the survey we are now discussing. The 1976 survey related to job satisfaction and security, prospects for the industry, and there were a number of personal questions relating to the age and marital status of the miners concerned. In fact, in 1976 questions were also asked about the mineworkers' wives, which did not feature in the 1989 survey. I accept that the surveys were conducted at the pithead on a one-to-one basis, as the hon. Gentleman has said, which is a difference that I accept.
Mr. Meale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Morrison: I will, but I want to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions.
Mr. Meale: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a question which was not asked was whether or not the mineworkers would agree to privatisation?
Mr. Morrison: I can confirm that. Even if I could not have confirmed it, I would almost certainly have been able to say that I can confirm it, because I believe that in 1976 the privatisation of British Coal was naught but a twinkle in the eye of the then Government. It would, therefore, have been an unlikely question to have been asked. I can confirm that it was not asked.
Given this background, I find it difficult to understand why hon. Members are so complaining about the current survey. I am looking at like with like. There is never any obligation—there was not in 1976—on any member of the public or a householder to agree to be questioned in such surveys. I am assured that this was the case with the agencies employed by British Coal, and, indeed, the code of practice that governs the operations of such agencies —it was an opinion research agency, not a public relations agency—and, which the agencies accept, specifically rules out any pressure whatsoever on members of the public to participate. When met with a refusal, the interviewers simply walk away and pass on to the next name on their list.
Moreover, the survey referred to in the early-day motion was not, as has been reported, restricted to Yorkshire or to Kellingley colliery. The survey was conducted among a sample of the Corporation's employees at some 70 collieries. Between 1,000 and 1,100 men were interviewed, representing just over 1 per cent. of the total workforce.
It has been alleged that the method used to conduct the survey amounted to an invasion of privacy. As I have already pointed out, no invasion was involved. Those who did not wish to be interviewed could turn the agency's representatives away from their doorstep, as indeed, some
542
did. I am also advised that the conduct of such surveys among employees on behalf of their employers is a common practice.
That is particularly so among large organisations, which find it a very positive way of seeking their employees' views. Moreover—and I have specifically
asked—British Coal states that it is satisfied that it has acted in accordance with the Data Protection Act.
As said, the survey was carried out on only a sample of the Corporation's work force. At Kellingley colliery, which has a work force of over 1,600 men, the names of just under 100 were provided to the research agency, of which only 30 interviews were required for the survey. I understand that only seven of those contacted exercised their right not to be interviewed. The interviewer simply walked away. There was no debate, no argument and no compulsion. Indeed, I think that the House would agree that it would be a particularly foolhardy interviewer who would seek to argue such a matter with a miner on his own doorstep.
There has also been some wide-of-the-mark speculation about the use to be made by British Coal of the information received from such surveys and in particular about whether answers might be traced to individuals or to collieries in which they worked. I have been advised, and I can assure the House, that the results of the surveys carried out on their behalf by British Coal are presented by the research organisation in statistical form only.
The data collected are analysed at area and national level, not on the basis of individual pits, and there is no possibility that the attitudes of individual miners expressed in the interviews can be traced back to them.
Indeed, this is not the purpose of such surveys. British Coal is by no means the only employer to seek by these means to have a better understanding of the opinions and wishes of its employees. It is surely reasonable for any employer concerned about the future of its company and the health, safety and welfare of its employees to be as accurately informed as possible of its employees' views on aspects which are crucial to the current operations of the company and its future. Such surveys provide helpful feedback to employers on reaction to initiatives and plans that they may put into action.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that this survey was in part aimed at securing information that would assist the privatisation of the industry. There is no truth whatsoever in that suggestion. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear on several occasions, the Government's intention is that after the next election we shall privatise the coal industry. In those circumstances it was entirely reasonable for British Coal to seek to establish how this prospect is viewed by its present employees.
Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Minister giving the House a categorical assurance that there will be no privatisation of British Coal this side of the next general election?
Mr. Morrison: I can repeat what I have said The answer is, in practice, yes, but as my right hon. Friend has said—even, I think when we had energy questions ort Monday of this week—it is our intention after the next general election to privatise British Coal. That amounts to the same point as the hon. Gentleman was making in the way that I think he and I understand it.
The hon. Gentleman requested that British Coal release the information obtained by such attitude surveys. This

543
again is a matter for British Coal, but I have no doubt that it will read with close interest the remarks made by the hon. Member, albeit that releasing the information is not the normal practice.
Finally, I congratulate the employees of British Coal on the really great efforts they have made to put the industry back on its feet since the disastrous events of 1984–85. Whatever attitudes they may have expressed in the surveys, they have worked hard to improve productivity. This has increased by well over 70 per cent. since the strike and within this extremely creditable record there have been some really outstanding performances.
Mr. Lofthouse: The achievements referred to have come about with a much smaller work force, and many records have been broken. Those achievements have been by men accepting voluntary redundancy. Will the Minister pass on to his Secretary of State and to the Secretary of State for Employment the present position of these redundant miners aged 50 and over who are being hounded by the
544
Department of Employment to answer questions, and so on, which could mean a reduction in the weekly redundancy payments that they were promised when they accepted voluntary redundancy?
Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy was asked a question on similar lines at Question Time last Monday. I cannot remember the precise words that he used, but I recall that he responded in a hearing sense. I shall respond in precisely the same way and shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that point.
British Coal has come a long way, in productivity terms, since those really bad days of 1984–85. Those efforts are indicative of the basic attitude of most mineworkers towards their industry. They want it to succeed. That is the attitude most needed to enable the industry to produce assured supplies at competitive prices and so help safeguard its future and that of its employees.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes before Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Veterinary Medicine (Graduates)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list in the Official

  Women graduates in veterinary medicine in institutions in the United Kingdom

  1986

  1987

  Total

  Women

  Women as a percentage of total

  Total

  Women

  Women as a percentage of total

  Bristol

  46

  21

  45·7

  40

  24

  60·0

  Cambridge

  53

  29

  54·7

  56

  23

  41·1

  Liverpool

  47

  14

  29·8

  47

  12

  24·5

  London

  57

  26

  45·6

  65

  29

  44·6

  Edinburgh

  51

  29

  56·9

  51

  23

  45·1

  Glasgow

  58

  29

  50·0

  52

  27

  51·9

  Belfast

  1

  1

  100·0

  2

  1

  50·0

  Total

  313

  149

  47·6

  313

  139

  44·4

  Mr. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the total number of British-domiciled graduates in

  Destinations of first degree graduates in veterinary medicine (United Kingdom1)

  Home employment

  Overseas employment

  Total employment

  Total graduates

  1982–83

  222

  6

  228

  321

  1983–84

  207

  4

  211

  319

  1984–85

  210

  5

  215

  334

  1985–86

  229

  7

  236

  313

  1986–87

  227

  4

  231

  313

  1 Includes a small number of students at university in Northern Ireland and a small number of non-United Kingdom domiciled students.

  Children (Medical Conditions)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the statutory provision made for children of normal ability whose academic progress is impeded by irregular school attendance caused by the crises of chronic medical conditions such as a sickle cell anaemia or asthma.

  Mr. Butcher
  It is the responsibility of local education authorities to make suitable education available for all children in their area. Such provision can be made either in schools or "otherwise than in schools"—for example, home tuition or hospital education. It is for each authority to determine what provision is appropriate for each child, after having taken account of individual circumstances, such as any particular medical condition.

  Teachers' Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to introduce 332
  Report the total number of women graduates in veterinary medicine in each British college in each of the past five years, showing this figure also as a percentage of the total number of graduates;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report the total number of graduates in veterinary medicine at each veterinary college in Britain in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information is shown in the following table. Information prior to 1986 is not readily available.

  veterinary medicine who (a) found employment in Britain and (b) found employment outwith Britain in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information is as follows:

  additional facilities for additional voluntary contributions within the teachers' superannuation scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The prudential pension fund services have been appointed to provide a new additional voluntary contributions (AVC) scheme for teachers who are members of the teachers' superannuation scheme for England and Wales. They have also been appointed to provide these facilities for members of the teachers' scheme in Scotland.

  The AVC scheme will offer a flexible, money-purchase alternative to the existing provision for buying-in added years. Members will be able to choose to invest their contributions in a with-profits or a unit-linked fund, or on cash deposit at building society rates of interest, or to apply them to the purchase of additional life insurance cover, or in any combination of these investments. Members will also be free to vary their contributions, and their allocation between investments, at any time.

  We intend to lay regulations before Parliament shortly to give effect to the new scheme, and to seek approval for

  333
  it under section 592 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 so that teachers' contributions are allowable as a deduction from income before assessment to tax. Subject to these requirements, the scheme will come into operation on 1 April 1989, enabling members to secure tax relief on single premium payments in the 1988–89 tax year.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he will propose at the coming meeting of the Southern Africa Development co-ordination conference in Angola.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [pursuant to her answer, 1 February 1989]: My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has today told the annual donors meeting of the Southern African development co-ordination conference (SADCC) that commitments of British aid for SADCC projects now stand at £60 million. This follows his approval of a £15 million project to finance the second phase of the rehabilitation of the Limpopo railway linking Zimbabwe to Maputo. He has announced that Britain will contribute £500,000 to the programme co-ordinated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to repatriate Namibian refugees from Angola and Zambia; and that we are ready when appropriate to provide technical assistance to help reopen the Benguela railway in Angola. He has also announced an additional £250,000 to help finance UNHCR's programme for Mozambican refugees in Malawi, bringing total British aid for this purpose to £3·328 million.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recently available index figure for output in manufacturing industry; and what was the figure for the same month in 1973, 1979, 1983 and 1986.

  Mr. Atkins
  The figures are as follows:

  Manufacturing Output (1985 = 100)

  November 1973

  111·2

  November 1979

  106·6

  November 1983

  94·9

  November 1986

  104·1

  November 1988

  116·4

  Credit
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to what efforts are being made by the credit card companies and associated banks to assist those borrowers with problems of excessive personal indebtedness.
  334
  Mr. Maude
  The clearing banks through the banking information service provide information on credit and debt, through educational visits, videos and literature. Some 20 financial organisations, of which seven are banks, are providing £750,000 over a period of three years for money advice.

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to the average merchant service charge paid by retailers accepting(a) Visa, (b) Access, (c) American Express and (d) Diners Club for each year since 1984.

  Mr. Maude
  Merchant service charges paid by retailers accepting credit cards are a matter for commercial negotiation between the retailer and card company, and information about these charges is not held by my Department.

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to what range of interest rates are available to personal borrowers in the following categories:(a) bank credit cards, (b) store credit cards, (c) mortgages, (d) bank loans and (e) other forms of credit.

  Mr. Maude
  Detailed information on ranges of interest rates available to personal borrowers is not centrally available. The Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980 (SI 1980/51) prescribe the items to be included in and the method of calculating the annual percentage rate of charge (APR) so that consumers can compare the various rates on offer.

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to what proportion of credit card applicants have been rejected by the credit card companies in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Maude
  The information requested is not available. Whether to accept or reject a credit card application is a commercial decision for the card company concerned. However, a major credit card company recently announced that it rejects about one in three applications.

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what information he has as to what proportion of borrowers in each of the following categories pay interest at the full annual percentage rate; and what is the average percentage paid in each category(a) bank credit cards, (b) store credit cards, (c) bank loans and (d) other forms of credit;

  (2) what information he has as to the annual increases in borrowing on which interest is paid for (a) bank credit cards, (b) unsecured personal loans, (c) secured personal loans and (d) loans from retailers for each year since 1984.

  Mr. Maude
  Credit business statistics published by the Department (there is no earlier comparable data) show that the amounts outstanding to lenders from borrowers were:
  335

  £ million

  Bank credit cards

  Retailers

  Bank loans(on personal accounts)

  Finance houses etc.

  1986

  838

  95

  1,452

  1987

  889

  357

  1,711

  2,619

  11988

  449

  70

  940

  1,500

  1 First half.

  However, the statistics do not distinguish the proportion of borrowers who pay interest on the credit available from those who only borrow for a free credit period.

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to what weighting is given, when calculating annual percentage rates, of the effect of the free credit period which holders of bank credit cards receive from the day of their purchase to their statement date.

  Mr. Maude
  Items to be included in the annual percentage rate of charge and the way it is calculated are set out in the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit)

  £000's

  Scheme

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Total

  Energy audit scheme

  20

  13

  0

  0

  0

  33

  Industrial energy thrift scheme

  2

  3

  0

  6

  —

  11

  Renewable energy source scheme

  24

  11

  0

  2

  0

  37

  Energy conservation demonstration scheme

  338

  194

  134

  16

  0

  682

  Industrial heat recovery consultancy scheme

  291

  594

  878

  173

  7

  1,943

  Total

  675

  815

  1,012

  197

  7

  2,706

  The responsibility of the then Department of Industry for improving energy efficiency in United Kingdom industry was passed to the Department of Energy in 1982 on the recommendation of a Rayner review. The payments shown in the table (excepting those for the industrial heat recovery scheme) arose from contracts entered into prior to the review. The industrial heat recovery scheme closed to new applicants in 1986. The activities of the regional energy efficiency officers located in the Department's regional offices are paid for by the Department of Energy under an agency agreement. Payments made under other DTI industrial support schemes contain conservation-related components but these are not separately identifiable.

  Funds devoted by the Department to savings on the costs of its own energy consumption are likely to be some £208,000 in 1988–89.

EMPLOYMENT

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if in the light of the training and experience required of workers in the Channel tunnel, he will take steps to bring this and similar activities under supervision of Her Majesty's inspectors of mines and within the Mines and Quarries Regulations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The decision on which inspectorate supervises a particular activity is an internal management 336
  Regulations 1980 (SI 1980/51). Any period of interest-free credit is not taken into account in the calculation of the annual percentage rate of charge.

  Energy Saving Schemes
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much has been spent by his Department in each of the last five years on the development and encouragement of energy saving schemes in the public and private sector.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 26 January 1989]: Payments made over the past six years by my Department to the private sector under schemes explicitly designed to encourage and develop energy savings are itemised in the table.

  matter for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, and it is for them to decide on that allocation. The Channel tunnel project is a work of engineering construction and is regulated by the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the construction regulations, which are enforced by HM factory inspectorate.

  Docks (Deaths and Injuries)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the number of deaths, serious injuries and minor injuries sustained in the docks industry(a) in dock labour scheme ports and (b) in non-scheme ports, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The figures are not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  YTS
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, on 30 January, he will give such information as he has as to the level of compensation or damages received by the families concerned following fatalities on YTS schemes from:(a) departmental or Training Agency payments and (b) insurance cover of YTS managing agents and training managers.

  Mr. John Cope
  The Department or Training Agency does not offer compensational damages to families of
  337
  trainees fatally injured on YTS. However YTS managing agents and training managers are contractually obliged to obtain insurance to cover any claims to compensation or damages. Compensational damages paid by either insurance companies or YTS managing agents and training managers are a private matter between them and the trainees' families. The Training Agency is not informed of these settlements.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Extradition
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions since 1979 his Department has made extradition applications for terrorist offences; and how often, by whom, and for what reasons such requests have been rejected.

  The Attorney-General
  With respect to extradition requests to the Republic of Ireland I refer the hon. Member to answers given on 8 and 13 December 1988 by my hon. Friends the Minister of State for the Home Office, the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office and to the answers I gave on 19 December 1988 to my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow and for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).

  Applications for extradition from other countries are a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Land Registry Offices
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the average time taken by each of the land registry offices from receipt to completion of property transfers for each of the years 1984 to 1988.

  Permanent Staff

  Staff in Post

  Authorised complement 1 January 1989

  1 January 1988

  1 January 1987

  1 January 1986

  1 January 1985

  1 January 1984

  Croydon

  550

  458

  495

  472

  484

  477

  Harrow

  585

  520

  520

  535

  526

  537

  Tunbridge Wells

  725

  631

  633

  638

  612

  596

  Lytham

  670

  573

  535

  533

  520

  526

  Nottingham

  890

  712

  686

  641

  644

  639

  Gloucester

  770

  687

  697

  662

  650

  651

  Stevenage

  695

  612

  622

  614

  548

  527

  Durham

  770

  526

  463

  466

  475

  476

  Plymouth

  665

  568

  497

  457

  450

  468

  Swansea

  640

  466

  377

  366

  331

  323

  Birkenhead

  560

  406

  376

  359

  359

  357

  Weymouth

  620

  499

  445

  431

  375

  319

  Peterborough

  680

  547

  432

  411

  375

  338

  Telford

  400

  153

  44

  —

  —

  —

  Coventry

  350

  163

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hull

  340

  112

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicester

  130

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Headquarters (including Computer Services Division based at Plymouth)

  388

  348

  329

  320

  294

  273

  Land Charges Department

  172

  158

  151

  152

  153

  146

  Total

  10,600

  8,139

  7,302

  7,057

  6,796

  6,653

  338
  The Attorney-General
  The average completion times in weeks at each office for all categories of substantive applications at the end of December for the year indicated are shown in the table.

  Office

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Croydon

  5

  7

  13

  18

  22

  Harrow

  10

  10

  17

  21

  19

  Tunbridge Wells

  9

  10

  18

  15

  15

  Lytham

  8

  7

  14

  24

  18

  Nottingham

  8

  8

  16

  22

  27

  Gloucester

  7

  8

  17

  25

  28

  Stevenage

  8

  8

  14

  19

  19

  Durham

  8

  6

  14

  21

  22

  Plymouth

  7

  8

  14

  24

  24

  Swansea

  5

  7

  14

  19

  22

  Birkenhead

  9

  9

  11

  19

  15

  Weymouth

  5

  7

  1

  1

  17

  Peterborough

  6

  6

  11

  23

  26

  Telford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  Coventry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  Hull

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  The last three offices were opened as district land registries in 1988.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the current complement of staff at each of the land registry offices and what were the levels of staff for each of the years 1984 to 1988.

  The Attorney-General
  [holding answer 20 January 1989]: The authorised complement at each of the land registry's offices at 1 January 1989 and the total numbers of permanent staff in post on the same day in the years 1984 to 1988 are set out in the table.

PRIME MINISTER

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans she has to improve co-ordination between Government Departments to promote the protection of the environment.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans she has to improve co-ordination between Government Departments to promote the protection of the environment.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans she has to improve co-ordination between Government Departments to promote the protection of the environment.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans she has to improve co-ordination between Government Departments to promote the protection of the environment.

  The Prime Minister
  I am satisfied that the present arrangements effectively promote environmental protection.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to create a department of environmental protection; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to create a department of environmental protection; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to create a department of environmental protection; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to create a department of environmental protection; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We already have a Department of the Environment whose duties include environmental protection matters.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister whether, following to the recently published White Paper, "Scottish Enterprise", it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to retain the name of the Scottish Development Agency.

  The Prime Minister
  It seems sensible to have a new name for a new body, but we shall consider carefully all the comments received on the White Paper.

  Global Environment
  Mr Fearn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to convene an international conference on global environmental issues.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to convene an international conference on global environmental issues.
  340
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to convene an international conference on global environmental issues.

  The Prime Minister
  In March my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I are convening an international conference in London to address the major global issue of saving the ozone layer. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales will attend a dinner for heads of delegations hosted by my right hon. Friend. President Moi of Kenya will give the keynote speech at the opening ceremony.

  Hormone Ban
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Hyndburn to discuss the threat to steak pie and ox tongue production posed by the EEC hormone ban.

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

  Zeus and Securipol
  Mr. M. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list all Government contracts with(a) Zeus and (b) Securipol Ltd. since 1979; and if she will give the purpose of each contract.

  The Prime Minister
  Details of contracts placed by other Government Departments are not held centrally. Records for my office are readily available only from April 1984. No contracts have been placed with, or payment made to, Zeus or Securipol Ltd. by on behalf of my office during that period.

  Monitoring (Contracts)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government has contracted out to any private company the monitoring of individuals or organisations who are concerned about or object to the sub-sea disposal of nuclear waste; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The recent consultation exercise undertaken by UK Nirex Ltd. on the options for a deep disposal facility for radioactive waste has enabled individuals or organisations to make their views known. I know of no monitoring of those concerned about or objecting to the sub-sea disposal option.

  Engagements
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 February.
  341
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

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

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Brussels Treaty
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to present to the House the amendment to the treaty of Brussels of 1948, providing for the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Western European Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The accession of Spain and Portugal to the Western European Union does not require an amendment to the treaty of Brussels which was modified in 1954. However, the protocol of accession of Spain and Portugal to the organisation will be laid before the House shortly.

HEALTH

  Listeria
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what foods have been found to be contaminated with listeria following diagnosis of a medical condition which has resulted from the consumption of such foods.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Two cases of listeriosis in the United Kingdom have been associated with the consumption of soft cheese, one with cooked chicken and one with vegetable rennet.

  Resources
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate for each English regional health authority the percentage resource difference from its resource allocation working party target in 1989–90 on the basis of the resource allocations presently outlined.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The allocations for 1989–90 which I announced on 21 December 1988 allow every regional health authority to benefit from the additional resources available. These allocations were even handed and not based on the old RAWP method. As the White Paper published on 31 January makes clear, the Government now intend to move on from RAWP to a simpler and fairer system. Distances from target on the old basis are therefore no longer relevant and will no longer be produced by my Department.

  Haemoglobinopathy Services
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many replies are still outstanding to his Department's questionnaire on haemoglobinopathy services from the district health authorities canvassed.

  Mr. Freeman
  Four replies to the questionnaire on screening and counselling for sickle cell and thalassaemic diseases are still outstanding.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, 16 January,Official Report, columns 36–37, what is (a) the number of batches of the blood product factor 8 which have been discarded due to viral hepatitis B infection, (b) the dates on which such batches were discarded and (c) the percentage of overall production which the discarded batches represent.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am advised that since 1982 when the Central Blood Laboratories Authority was established, batches of factor 8 were discarded for this reason in 1983, 1984 and 1988. A total of 10 batches representing approximately 1 per cent. of batches produced were involved.

  Listeriosis (Plymouth)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients with listeriosis were treated in Plymouth hospitals during 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We do not hold this information centrally. However, the information we have obtained from South Western regional health authority is as follows:

  Number of patients with listeriosis treated in Plymouth hospitals

  Financial Year

  1986–87

  information not available

  1987–88

  none

  1988–89

  not yet available

  Cook-chill Meals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield,Official Report, 23 January, column 411, he will indicate the sources of the evidence presented to his Department's expert group which suggested that the cook-chill meals produced would be safe and microbiologically sound.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: The expert group which recently reviewed the existing guidelines considered published and unpublished papers on the microbiological safety of the system, including papers on low temperature pathogens.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield,Official Report, 23 January, column 411, there was any evaluation of cook-chill catering in relation to possible dangers from listeria and other psychrotrophs undertaken by the Department of Health and Social Security between 1970 and 1980.
  343
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: The expert group which produced the cook-chill catering guidelines between 1977 and 1980 did not evaluate possible dangers from listeria and other psychrotrophs. At that time there was, and there remains, no evidence to indicate that the recommendations in the guidelines would lead to problems from listeria monocytogenes or other pathogenic psychrotrophs.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has prepared draft regulations to cover cook-chill food at retailing outlets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to my replies to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on 23 January 1989 at columns 410–11 and 27 January at column 801.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Nursing Staff
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many nursing staff at all levels are employed in the Mourne hospital, Kilkeel; how many of these staff have been advised of their new grades under the clinical grading review; and how many appeals have been received.

  Mr. Needham
  There are 37 nursing staff employed in the Mourne hospital, Kilkeel all of whom have been advised of their new grades. Twenty-six asked to have their grading reviewed under the informal review procedure and eight nursing staff who remained dissatisfied have invoked the formal grievance procedure.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the most recent figure for empty local authority housing; how many of these properties have been vacant for periods over six, 12 and 24 months, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Provision of public sector housing in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I am informed by its chief executive that at 31 December 1988 the information requested is:

  Number

  Total number of vacant properties

  2,525

  Vacant 6–12 months

  335

  Vacant over 12 months

  1,072

  Vacant over 24 months

  n/a

  Type

  Eastern per cent·

  Northern per cent·

  Southern per cent·

  Western per cent·

  NI average

  Statutory1

  55·6

  70·5

  73·9

  74·5

  64·1

  Voluntary

  28·9

  11·1

  16·0

  24·0

  22·4

  Private

  15·5

  18·4

  10·2

  1·5

  13·6

  1 In Northern Ireland local authorities have no responsibility for statutory residential homes: these are provided by the four health and social services boards·

  344
  The figures include properties which are not available for letting—properties awaiting demolition, those used for decanting purposes and those awaiting improvement or repairs.

  Alcohol-related Illness
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in the Greater Belfast area are estimated to be suffering from alcohol-related illnesses; and what has been the trend during the past ten years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not available.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all those beaches in Northern Ireland which failed to meet the European directive on bathing water quality standards in the last year for which data is available; when it is planned for each of these beaches to meet these standards; and what is the estimated cost in each case.

  Mr. Needham
  ; Information on the quality of Northern Ireland's bathing water during the 1988 bathing season is at present being collated. I expect the results to be announced before the start of this year's bathing season. We have recently improved the sewage treatment facilities at Ballycastle, Co Antrim, at a cost of almost £1 million and are currently providing sewage treatment facilities at Newcastle, Co Down, at an estimated cost of £5 million. Further improvements will be considered if the 1988 results show that they are necessary.

  Elderly People (Residential Care)
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of continuing care residential places are provided for the elderly(a) by local authorities, (b) by voluntary organisations and (c) by the private sector in each health board for (i) the year 1981 and (ii) the year 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not held centrally in exactly the form requested. At 31 December 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, the percentage of all available places for the elderly (including a small number of places designated for rehabilitation or respite care) in each of the health and social services board was as follows:

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to allocate milk quotas to those producers who had temporarily entered into Community schemes for the cessation of milk production at the time when the original milk quotas were established; and if he will make a statement.
  346
  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 1 February 1989]: The Council of Agriculture Ministers has agreed measures to comply with the ruling of the European Court in the Mulder case. When the necessary Community legislation has been published, steps will be taken to implement the arrangements in the United Kingdom.

WALES

  Hospitals (Locum Services)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much each health authority spent in 1988 on the fees paid to medical employment agencies for providing locum services for their hospitals; and what was the highest, lowest and average hourly rate paid by each health authority.

  Mr. Grist
  Details of the hourly rates paid by Welsh health authorities for locum services are not collected centrally. The health authorities' annual accounts do not disaggregate expenditure on locum services within hospitals from overall expenditure on such services. During 1987–88 the total expenditure on medical locum services by each District Health Authority in Wales was as follows:

  £000

  Clwyd

  198·8

  East Dyfed

  221·4

  Gwent

  0·7

  Gwynedd

  348·5

  Mid Glamorgan

  569·3

  Pembrokeshire

  392·7

  Powys

  4·5

  South Glamorgan

  1·9

  West Glamorgan

  221·6

  Wales

  1,959·4

  Source: Health Authorities Annual Account.

  Percentage of total residential places in homes for the elderly1

  Local authority homes

  Voluntary homes

  Private homes

  1987

  1988

  1987

  1988

  1987

  1988

  Clwyd

  27·5

  26·0

  4·6

  4·2

  67·9

  69·8

  Dyfed

  67·1

  63·6

  2·6

  2·5

  30·3

  33·9

  Gwent

  74·5

  67·3

  —

  —

  25·5

  32·7

  Gwynedd

  49·3

  44·1

  4·3

  5·4

  46·4

  50·5

  Mid Glamorgan

  76·5

  69·1

  5·5

  5·0

  18·0

  25·9

  Powys

  65·5

  64·5

  10·7

  10·6

  23·8

  24·9

  South Glamorgan

  40·0

  36·5

  14·2

  13·6

  45·8

  49·9

  West Glamorgan

  73·0

  69·0

  6·5

  7·1

  20·4

  23·9

  1 As at 31 March·

  Welsh Language Board
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to make a statement on the work of the Welsh Language Board.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend will respond to the Welsh Language Board's findings as they emerge.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the extent to which Mr. Edward Rea's membership of the Welsh Language Board is compatible with his current membership of and recent position as council member of the Economic League; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  None.

  Sewage Treatment Works
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for the Welsh Water Authority the

  Building (Ceredigion)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he can make an estimate of the acreage of land available with planning consent for building homes in Ceredigion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action is being taken in the current year to build nursery factories in Ceredigion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Development Board for Rural Wales' factory construction programme for 1988–89 includes plans for the construction of four 1,500 sq. ft. units in Cardigan and six 750 sq. ft. units in Aberystwyth. The board has offered grant assistance to Ceredigion district council to provide a workshop of 1,500 sq. ft. in Cardigan.

  Elderly People (Residential Care)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of continuing care residential places are provided for the elderly(a) by local authorities, (b) by voluntary organisations and (c) by the private sector in each health authority for (i) the year 1987 and (ii) the year 1988.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  number of sewage treatment works serving populations of less than 1,000 which are eligible to apply for consent variation, following his letters to the chairman of 21 November 1988, and the number which have applied.

  Mr. Grist
  The Authority has not advised any intention to seek consent variations in respect of works of this size.

THE ARTS

  Museum and Gallery Attendances
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts, pursuant to his written answer to the hon. Member for Warley, East on 24 January,Official Report, column 486, which figures of museum and gallery attendances during 1988 in his answer were actual and which were estimated.
  349
  Mr. Luce
  The term "estimated" allows for a margin of error at those institutions where the number of visitors is counted manually. In such cases figures are usually regarded as being accurate to within 5 per cent.

  Libraries
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts why his Department failed to include the Library Association in the organisations consulted about the European Community's proposed programme on "A European Space for the Book" which includes specific recommendations relating to libraries.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: No European Community proposals for "A European Space for the Book" have yet been put forward for discussion, although some preliminary ideas are in circulation, including those of the current Presidency of the Community. The Library Association will be among those organisations consulted if proposals are put forward with a library component.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Inflation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his estimates of future rates of inflation for(a) the next five and (b) the next 10 years; and what assumptions were made in their calculation.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Treasury does not publish such forecasts.

  Personal Borrowing
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to what levels of personal borrowing are attributable to(a) bank credit cards, (b) store credit cards, (c) mortgages, (d) bank loans and (e) other forms of credit.

  Mr. Lilley
  The table is adapted from figures in table 9.3 of the January edition of Financial Statistics.

  Outstanding Stock of Personal Sector Borrowing, September 1988

  £ billion

  Percentage of total

  Total of which:

  286

  100

  Bank credit cards

  6

  2

  Non-bank credit, including store credit cards

  7

  3

  Mortgages

  215

  75

  Other bank loans1

  57

  20

  Other credit (with insurance companies)

  1

  —

  1 Includes some borrowing by unincorporated businesses.

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to what percentage of bank credit card holders on average repay in full each month, for each year since 1984.

  Mr. Lilley
  Data are not collected centrally in the form requested.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his practice when answering questions by 350
  reference to previous written answers which have been published in the Official Report to attach the answer so referred to.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No; to copy extracts from the Official Report for hon. Members would be an inappropriate use of resources.

  Community Charge Tribunals
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with whom he consulted before imposing a pay settlement, without negotiations, on staff of the new community charge tribunals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply. The Department has not imposed a settlement. An offer increasing the pay of local valuation panel staff has been tabled, which the Society of Clerks and NALGO are considering.

ENVIRONMENT

  Whitehall Car Services
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure continued security of the Whitehall parcel delivery and self-drive car service subsequent on its contracting out.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will take whatever steps are necessary.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to implement his Department's proposals to enable the site licensing authority to take into account the previous performance of an applicant for a waste disposal site licence.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a full list of the waste disposal authorities in England, indicating those that have not yet completed their waste disposal plans and deposited them with his Department.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Following is a list of waste disposal authorities in England grouped according to the current status of their disposal plans:

  England

  January 1989

  1. Completed plans

  Bedfordshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Cleveland

  Derbyshire

  Devon

  Dorset

  Durham

  Gloucestershire

  Hereford and Worcester

  Hertfordshire1

  Humberside

  351

  Kent

  Norfolk1

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  Somerset

  Staffordshire

  Surrey

  West Sussex

  Wiltshire

  Warwickshire

  Total plans: 23

  Total authorities: 23

  2. Plans prepared in draft and copied to the Department

  Avon

  Cumbria

  East Sussex

  Isle of Wight

  Lancashire1

  Merseyside WDA

  North Yorkshire

  Suffolk1

  Tyne and Wear WDJC2

  (Gateshead MDC

  Newcastle upon Tyne MDC

  North Tyneside MDC

  South Tyneside MDC

  Sunderland MDC)

  Total plans: 9

  Total authorities: 13

  3. Uncompleted plans

  a. County Councils

  Berkshire

  Cornwall

  Essex

  Hampshire

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Shropshire

  b. London Authorities

  East London WA

  North London WA

  West London WA

  Western Riverside WA

  City of London

  City of Westminster

  LB of Tower Hamlets

  South East London WDJC2

  (LB of Greenwich

  LB of Lewisham

  LB of Southwark)

  LB of Bexley

  South London WDJC2

  (LB of Bromley

  LB of Croydon

  LB of Kingston upon Thames

  LB of Merton

  LB of Sutton)

  c. Other Authorities

  Greater Manchester WDA

  Wigan MDC

  West Yorkshire WMJC2

  (Bradford MDC

  Calderdale MDC

  Kirklees MDC

  Leeds MDC

  Wakefield MDC)

  Barnsley MDC

  Doncaster MDC

  Rotherham MDC

  Sheffield MDC

  352
  West Midlands JC2

  (Birmingham MDC

  Coventry MDC

  Dudley MDC

  Sandwell MDC

  Solihull MDC

  Walsall MDC

  Wolverhampton MDC)

  Total Plans: 27

  Total Authorities: 43

  ABBREVIATIONS

  LB London Borough

  RB Royal Borough (London Borough)

  MDC Metropolitan District Councils

  WA Waste Authority

  WDJC Waste Disposal Joint Committee

  1 Submitted to the Department for determination under section 2(5) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  2 In these metropolitan areas the joint committee is required to produce a plan covering its constituent authorities (these are shown in parentheses).

  Disclosure of Information
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what guidance he issues on the circumstances in which information used for the maintenance of the community charge registers may be disclosed to(a) other Departments of Government, (b) the police and (c) public utilities;

  (2) what guidance he issues on the use of the personal data collected by the community charge officer for community charge purposes as a general information resource for the charging authority to use for other purposes; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have made no provision for personal data to be disclosed for the purposes or to the organisations mentioned by the hon. Member. Guidance has been issued to registration officers on the disclosure of information in practice notes entitled "The Community Charges Register" and "Data Protection and the Community Charge". Copies of both practice notes are available in the Library.

  Housing Defects
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance his Department is able to offer to tenants of precast reinforced concrete houses designated under the Housing Defects Act 1984 whose local authorities are unable to afford to repair, or who are unable to secure a mortgage to cover buying or selling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Tenants of properties designated under the housing defects legislation have the right to buy their homes. They will be eligible for discount in the normal way and have a right to a mortgage from their local authority. If the property is unrepaired we advise tenants to get a survey, to establish the structural condition of the property including how soon works might be needed; and to satisfy themselves that the valuation properly reflects this. If tenants are unhappy with the authority's valuation they can seek an independent one from the district valuer.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to exempt from the 1988
  353
  Budget changes on tax relief for home improvement those living in precast reinforced concrete houses designated under the Housing Defects Act 1984.

  Mr. Trippier
  Changes to the tax system are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of houses seriously defective, or defective, as defined by statute, in each local housing authority and standard region.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information on the numbers and distribution, by local authority and region, of properties designated under the housing defects legislation is available in the House Library. This is based on survey material obtained in 1983 and updated in 1986 and again in 1988.

  Housing Repossessions
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 25 January to the hon. Member for Leeds, West, he will give the number of properties repossessed by mortgagors for each six month period from January 1982 to June 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is published in table 17 of the BSA bulletin Nos. 49 and 56 copies of which are in the Library.

  Improvement Grants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to make a statement on any changes to the home improvement grant entitlement regime.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Local Government and Housing Bill, published today, contains provisions introducing a new system of home improvement grants to replace those in part XV of the Housing Act 1985. Entitlement for grant will depend on an applicant's financial resources.

  Improvement Grants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the number of home improvement grants made in each year from 1983 to 1988; and what is his estimate for 1988–89(a) nationally, (b) for each local housing authority and (c) by standard region;

  (2) what was the expenditure in current and standard prices on home improvement grants in each year since 1983 and estimated for 1988–89 (a) nationally, (b) for each local housing authority and (c) by standard region.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested has been laid in the House of Commons Library. The figures, including the advance estimates for 1988–89, are those provided by local authorities on their HIP2 returns.

  Warrington and Runcorn Development Corporation
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will hold a public inquiry on section 7(1) submissions from Warrington and Runcorn development corporation affecting Appleton Cross and Graffenhall Hays.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have yet to receive these submissions. Local inquiries into submissions under section 7(1) of the New Towns Act 1987 are exceptional, but are held when necessary.

  Land (Hounslow)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Housing Corporation will purchase the freehold of the land in Hounslow on which the Beaver estate is situated and of which the United Kingdom Housing Trust is the leaseholder.

  Mr. Trippier
  This is a matter for the Housing Corporation, but I understand that it is not its intention to purchase the freehold.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the policy of his Department concerning the ability of established housing associations to manage property for temporary letting to homeless people; and whether the Government will facilitate the transfer of council housing to such associations;

  (2) if he will explain the policy of his Department concerning cheaper alternatives to bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless households in housing association property.

  Mr. Trippier
  Housing associations can help provide temporary accommodation for homeless people through lettings both of their own stock and of short life property leased from local authorities. These leasing arrangements work well and I am not aware that any special action is required to facilitate associations' access to council housing.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the reasons for the delay of 347 days before his Department replied to the request of 27 November 1987 by the London borough of Ealing to enter into agreements with Shepherd's Bush housing association and others to manage properties for temporary letting to homeless people, under section 10 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986; and if he will give a date for a reply to this request.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department has written to, or telephoned, officers of the London borough of Ealing on eight occasions since the council's application was received in November 1987. We hope that, when they have replied to the latest letter of 29 December 1988, it will be possible to make a final decision.

  Superannuation Fund (Norfolk)
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to grant the Norfolk local authorities' superannuation fund a sanction under section 19(1) of the Local Government Act 1982 in the even that the legality of the adjustment of contributions, as proposed at the superannuation committee of 26 July 1988, were challenged.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Water Industry
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make it his policy that the Director General of Water Services designate will play a role in fixing the cost of water to the consumer;

  (2) whom he will be meeting to discuss the value of K, prior to flotation of the water industry.
  355
  Mr. Howard
  The setting of the initial charges limit applying to water undertakings on their appointment is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In order to promote consistency of procedures on matters such as consultation with those that the director general is likely to follow in subsequent reviews of the charges limit, he will hold discussions with the director general designate when his/her appointment has been made.

  Water Authorities (Sewage Treatment Works)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list for the Southern water authority the number of sewage treatment works serving populations of less than 1,000 which are eligible to apply for consent variation, following his letter to the chairman of 21 November 1988, and the number which have applied;

  (2) if he will list for Wessex water authority the number of sewage treatment works serving populations of less than 1,000 which are eligible to apply for consent variation, following his letter to the chairman of 21 November 1988, and the number which have applied;

  (3) if he will list for the Severn-Trent water authority the number of sewage treatment works serving populations of less than 1,000 which are eligible to apply for consent variation, following his letter to the chairman of 21 November 1988, and the number which have applied;

  (4) if he will list for the Northumbria water authority the number of sewage treatment works serving populations of less than 1,000 which are eligible to apply for consent variation, following his letter to the chairman of 21 November 1988, and the number which have applied;

  (5) if he will list for the Anglian water authority the number of sewage treatment works serving populations of less than 1,000 which are eligible to apply for consent variation, following his letter to the chairman of 21 November 1988, and the number which have applied;

  (6) if he will list for the South West water authority the number of sewage treatment works serving populations of less than 1,000 which are eligible to apply for consent variation, following his letter to the chairman of 21 November 1988, and the number which have applied;

  (7) if he will list for the North West water authority the number of sewage treatment works serving populations of less than 1,000 which are eligible to apply for consent variation, following his letter to the chairman of 21 November 1988, and the number which have applied;

  (8) if he will list for the Thames water authority the number of sewage treatment works serving populations of less than 1,000 which are eligible to apply for consent variation, following his letter to the chairman of 21 November 1988, and the number which have applied;

  (9) if he will list for the Yorkshire water authority the number of sewage treatment works serving populations of less than 1,000 which are eligible to apply for consent variation, following his letter to the chairman of 21 November 1988, and the number which have applied.

  Mr. Howard
  The information is not held centrally. No applications from water authorities for variations in the consent conditions for small works serving populations of less than 1,000 have yet been received by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Yorkshire Water Authority
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the locations of the 63 sewage treatment works in the Yorkshire water authority area which exceeded their discharge consents in 1987.

  Mr. Howard
  Seventy-four sewage treatment works in the Yorkshire water authority area exceeded their discharge consents in 1987. Copies of the returns submitted by Yorkshire water authority were placed in the Libraries of both Houses in June last year. The works are identified by name.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further developments have taken place since his announcement in December 1988 of the proposed maximum rate limits for rate capped authorities in 1989–90.

  Mr. Ridley
  Of the seven rate-capped authorities, Tower Hamlets has accepted the proposed rate limit within the statutory period.

  The remaining six authorities have not accepted the proposed limits. I have carefully considered all the representations made by these authorities, including their proposals to agree a different limit with me, and all other relevant information and representations.

  In the case of Camden, I am now seeking from the council further information in relation to certain factual matters it has raised during its representations.

  For the remaining five authorities I am now proposing:

  (a) in the case of three of these authorities—Greenwich, Lewisham and Thamesdown—no increase in the proposed rate limit;

  (b) in the case of Hackney and Southwark a higher limit, on which I am seeking agreement as follows:

  Hackney 113p (10.83p above the proposed limit)

  Southwark 97p (3o55p above the proposed limit)

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

  Local Authority Business (Conduct)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Government have reviewed the proposals on the conduct of local authority business set out in the White Paper Cm 433.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have considered very carefully the many views that have been expressed since the publication of Cm 433. On a number of points they are convinced that the legislation should be adapted to take account of these points. The Local Government and Housing Bill, presented yesterday, is accordingly drafted to give effect to these changes.

  The points where the Bill differs from the proposals in the White Paper are as follows:
  a. The White Paper proposed that restrictions on public political activity should apply to chief executives of local authorities, chief officers and their deputies, and to the holders of posts which each local authority would be under a duty to designate on the basis of statutory criteria.
  The Government have decided that the restrictions on public political activity should also apply, in the first instance, to all local authority staff to whom the Widdicombe committee recommended that they should apply, that is, staff in the grade of principal officer and above.

  357
  Such staff would, however, be able to apply to an independent adjudicator for exemption from the restrictions, which would be given if their posts were, in the adjudicator's opinion, ones which could properly be so exempted. The adjudicator would be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultations with representatives of local government.
  b. The White Paper proposed that local authorities should be required to designate an officer with duties to advise on the management of the authority's service, and an officer to advise on questions of legality and propriety—the "monitoring officer". It was to be left to the authority whether the chief executive, if there was one, should hold either or both of these posts, except that the chief finance officer could not also be the monitoring officer.
  The Government are now persuaded that each local authority should be required to designate one officer as head of their paid service, and that that officer should have the duties to advise on management questions. It would still be left to each authority whether those duties should be combined with those of the monitoring officer or the chief finance officer; the combination of the two latter offices would still not be permitted.
  c. The White Paper proposed that there should be a ban on the appointment of advisers to political groups on councils. The Government have decided, in the light of the representations that they have received, that local authorities should be permitted to appoint a very limited number of assitants to political groups, to help councillors in those groups with their duties as councillors. A council will not be required to make such appointments, but where they decide to do so, each of the three largest political groups will be able to make one such appointment, provided that the group contains at least one tenth of the membership of the council. The terms of such appointment will broadly parallel the terms of appointment of special advisers in central Government: they will not be able to discharge functions on behalf of the council; they will not be permitted to manage other council staff: they will not be permitted to be paid at a rate of more than £13,500 a year; and they will be subject to the main restrictions on public political activity. Political groups will decide on their own choices, and will be expressly permitted to take the political views of candidates into account.
  d. As an additional safeguard on the appointment of senior local authority officers, the Government have decided that the monitoring officer should be required to report to the authority, in every case in which an appointment is made by the full council, a committee or a subcommittee, either that, in his opinion, the appointment can be made consistently with enactments and standing orders and without taking into account any matter which could not properly be taken into account, or the reasons why he cannot so certify.

  Local Authority Capital Finance
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he received to his consultation paper on local authority capital finance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The consultation paper "Capital Expenditure and Finance" was published on 7 July 1988. Four hundred and fifty two responses were received by my right hon. Friend and a further 17 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. My right hon. Friends are grateful to all those who set out their views.

  The consultation paper proposed, in light of the accountability that will be brought about by the community charge, a switch from controlling capital expenditure as such to controlling the use of credit to pay for it. That proposal appears to have generally been welcomed and the majority of the responses related to individual features of the new system as outlined in the consultation paper, and in particular the method of equal instalments of principal by which it was proposed that provision should be made from revenue accounts to meet existing and future credit liabilities.
  358
  Part IV of the Local Government and Housing Bill provides for a new local authority capital finance system broadly on the lines set out in the consultation paper. But, in light of the comments made by respondents, the Bill specifies that revenue account provision for credit liabilities should normally be made by the reducing balance method, though it will be possible for other methods to be specified in regulations.

  Under the Bill, local authorities would be able to finance capital expenditure:

  a. by credit up to the level specified in credit approvals to be issued by Government departments;

  b. without restriction from the usable balance of their capital receipts after part has been set aside to reduce their indebtedness; and

  c. without restriction from revenue contributions.

  To assist them with their planning, a letter setting out details of part IV is being sent to the local authorities to which it will apply. I am placing a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  "Local Authorities' Interests in Companies"
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions he has reached as a result of the consultative paper "Local Authorities' Interests in Companies" issued in June 1988.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales have considered the responses received to the consultation paper and have decided to make a number of amendments to the proposals which are set out in the document which I have today placed in the Library of the House.

  The amendments are:

  (i) the addition of mutual companies, combined heat and power companies and waste disposal companies to the categories of companies in which local authorities are permitted to have a minority interest;

  (ii) the exemption of bodies funded by grants under section 56(9)) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 which are deducted from the aggregate amount available for block grant; other exemptions will be considered case by case where companies are, in effect, dependent on central Government grant, since their activities can then be monitored in other ways.

  (iii) the relaxation of the proposed rule that companies controlled by local authorities at arm's length should not have any local authority members or officers on the board of the company.

  (iv) the spouses of officers of a local authority will no longer be a category of persons whose involvement in a company would establish a link with a local authority.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what a typical ward sister would pay(a) in rates, (b) in community charge and (c) in a system of capital value rates plus local income tax paid in the proportions of 80:20, respectively, if she lived in a typical one-bedroom flat in Walthamstow.

  Mr. Gummer
  A ward sister earning £15,000, living in a flat in Walthamstow worth £55,000 with a rateable value of £300, would pay a rates bill of £634, a community charge of £269, disregarding the transitional safety net, and £665 under a system of capital value rates plus local income tax.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer to the hon.
  359
  Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), Official Report, 12 January 1989, column 742, updating table F5 of the Green Paper, "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714), he will publish a table (a) showing for each band of equivalent net income what percentage of all households fall into that band, and what percentage of adults live in households falling in that band, (b) on the same basis as Table F5 in the Green Paper, but with the bands of equivalent net income adjusted so that 10 percentage of households fall into each band, and showing what

  Distribution of household income and community charges in 1988–89

  £ per week

  Under 75

  75–100

  100–150

  150–200

  200–250

  250–300

  300–350

  350–400

  400–500

  500+

  Table A

  Net Income Range

  Pecentage of households in each range

  17

  11

  18

  16

  13

  9

  6

  4

  4

  3

  Percentage of adults in each range

  10

  9

  16

  16

  15

  11

  8

  5

  6

  4

  Percentage of households with higher net community charge than net rates falling into each range

  10

  10

  18

  19

  15

  10

  7

  4

  4

  2

  Table B

  Equivalent Net Income Range

  Percentage of households in each range

  7

  19

  29

  18

  12

  7

  4

  2

  2

  1

  Percentage of adults in each range

  6

  17

  29

  20

  13

  7

  4

  2

  2

  1

  Percentage of households with higher net community charge than net rates falling into each range

  8

  17

  32

  21

  12

  5

  3

  1

  1

  0

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish a table showing the number of gainers and losers and the amount of gain or loss, broken down by family type and net equivalent income hands, from the introduction of the community charge;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the number of (a) couples with children and (b) one-parent families who gain or lose from the introduction of the community charge and how much they gain or lose, broken down into net equivalent income bands.

  Impact of the full community charge with no safety nets (England: 1988–89 prices) Thousands of gainers and losers and average gain-loss by household type and range of actual net income

  Actual net income range (£pw)

  Household types

  Under 75

  75–100

  150–250

  250+

  All

  Single pensioner

  Number of gainers (000's)

  1,740

  590

  110

  1—

  2,485

  Average gain (£pw)

  1·01

  3·87

  6·88

  1—

  2·10

  Number of losers (000's)

  385

  100

  1—

  1—

  490

  Average loss (£pw)

  0·42

  1·37

  1—

  1—

  0·63

  Other single adult

  Number of gainers (000's)

  585

  1,020

  570

  170

  2,350

  Average gain (£pw)

  0·95

  2·71

  4·55

  6·09

  2·96

  Number of losers (000's)

  275

  365

  130

  1—

  795

  Average loss (£pw)

  0·87

  1·86

  2·03

  1—

  1·58

  Two adults

  Number of gainers (000's)

  70

  1,565

  1,885

  2,180

  5,700

  360
  proportion of those households whose net community charge is projected to be higher than their net rates, fall into each income band.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 January 1989]: Table A shows the percentage of households, the percentage of adults, and the percentage of households whose illustrative net community charge for 1988–89 would have been higher than net rates, in each band of net household income. Table B shows the same information in bands of equivalent net household income. Figures on a decile basis are not available.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 January 1989]: The information requested for household and tax unit types is given in the tables below in ranges of equivalent net income and actual net income. The figures have been calculated in the same manner as those I placed in the Library on 15 December exemplifying the distributional impact of the community charge.

  The figures show that 83 per cent. of single pensioner households and 75 per cent. of other single adult households would gain from the introduction of the community charge. Similarly 79 per cent. of lone parent families and 57 per cent. of couples with children would gain.
  361

  Actual net income range (£pw)

  Household types

  Under 75

  75–100

  150–250

  250+

  All

  Average gain (£pw)

  1·19

  1·62

  2·67

  5·00

  3·26

  Number of losers (000's)

  165

  1,730

  2,090

  865

  4,855

  Average loss (£pw)

  1·03

  1·65

  2·85

  3·02

  2·39

  Three or more adults

  Number of gainers (000's)

  —

  100

  150

  365

  615

  Average gain (£pw)

  —

  2·11

  1·97

  4·43

  3·45

  Number of losers (000's)

  —

  55

  540

  1,235

  1,825

  Average loss (£pw)

  —

  1·94

  3·89

  6·39

  5·52

  Impact of the full community charge with no safety nets (England: 1988–89 prices) Thousands of gainers and losers and average gain/loss by household type and range of equivalent net income

  Household types

  Equivalent net income range (£pw)

  All

  Under 75

  75–150

  150–250

  250+

  Single pensioner

  Number of gainers (000's)

  205

  1,880

  265

  140

  2,485

  Average gain (£pw)

  0·85

  1·41

  5·01

  7·70

  2·10

  Number of losers (000's)

  80

  360

  1—

  1—

  490

  Average loss (£pw)

  0·29

  0·56

  1—

  1—

  0·63

  Other single adult

  Number of gainers (000's)

  185

  970

  620

  575

  2,350

  Average gain (£pw)

  0·83

  1·70

  3·83

  4·82

  2·96

  Number of losers (000's)

  85

  305

  265

  135

  795

  Average loss (£pw)

  0·61

  1·03

  2·22

  2·18

  1·58

  Two adults

  Number of gainers (000's)

  225

  2,220

  1,930

  1,320

  5,700

  Average gain (£pw)

  1·49

  1·89

  3·47

  5·54

  3·26

  Number of losers (000's)

  415

  2,440

  1,505

  495

  4,855

  Average loss (£pw)

  0·84

  2·10

  3·04

  3·16

  2·39

  Three or more adults

  Number of gainers (000's)

  65

  220

  205

  125

  615

  Average gain (£pw)

  2·18

  2·13

  3·55

  6·31

  3·45

  Number of losers (000's)

  1—

  775

  845

  165

  1,825

  Average loss (£pw)

  1—

  4·68

  6·28

  6·43

  5·52

  Impact of the full community charge with no safety nets (England: 1988–89 prices) Thousands of gainers and losers and average gain/loss for families with children in ranges of actual net income

  Actual net income range (£pw)

  Tax unit type

  Under 75

  75–150

  150–250

  250+

  All

  (a) Couples with children

  Number of gainers (000's)

  1—

  430

  1,115

  1,310

  2,855

  Average gain (£pw)

  1—

  1·62

  2·63

  5·22

  3·67

  Number of losers (000's)

  1—

  620

  1,160

  380

  2,175

  Average loss (£pw)

  1—

  1·58

  2·83

  2·86

  2·47

  (b) One parent families

  Number of gainers (000's)

  85

  435

  105

  1—

  655

  Average gain (£pw)

  1·97

  1·81

  4·97

  1—

  2·61

  Number of losers (000's)

  80

  75

  1—

  1—

  170

  Average loss (£pw)

  0·78

  1·57

  1—

  1—

  1·35

  Impact of the full community charge with no safety nets (England: 1988–89 prices)

  Thousands of gainers and losers and average gain-loss for families with children in ranges of equivalent net income.

  Equivalent net income range (£pw)

  Tax unit type

  Under 75

  75–150

  150–250

  250+

  All

  (a) Couples with children

  Number of gainers (000's)

  110

  1,070

  1,190

  490

  2,855

  Average gain (£pw)

  1·44

  2·24

  3·90

  6·70

  3·67

  Numbers of losers (000's)

  255

  1,235

  600

  85

  2,175

  Average loss (£pw)

  0·76

  2·57

  2·91

  3·12

  2·47

  (b) One parent families

  Number of gainers (000's)

  85

  460

  85

  1—

  655

  Average gain (£pw)

  1·59

  2·04

  5·16

  1—

  2·61

  Number of losers (000's)

  60

  90

  1—

  1—

  170

  Average loss (£pw)

  0·56

  1·28

  1—

  1—

  1·35

  1 No reliable estimates available.

  Oil Spillages
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to prevent future oil spillages in the English channel to protect the south coast from pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships 1973, and its protocol, no oil or oily mixtures may be discarded within prescribed distances from land; and ships are required to be so designed, equipped and operated that when a discharge is permitted the oil content has to be kept to the minimum specified. We have taken a number of positive measures to enforce the convention. Ships in the United Kingdom port are inspected to check that their pollution prevention equipment and operational practices are satisfactory. Reception facilities are made available to receive oil residues retained on board. At sea, as from April last year surveillance aircraft have been employed by the United Kingdom to undertake regular patrols over the shipping lanes around the United Kingdom to detect and deter ships discharging oil in contravention of the convention.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicles (Accidents)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will advise how many pedestrians were involved in accidents caused by reversing vehicles during 1988, 1987, 1986, 1985, 1984 and 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department does not collect causes of accidents. These are often disputed, or unclear, at the time of the accident.

  The following table shows the total number of pedestrians injured, and the numbers injured by a vehicle reversing, for the years 1983 to 1987.

  Pedestrian casualties, and those injured by reversing vehicles: Great Britain 1983–1987

  Year

  Total pedestrian casualties

  Total involving reversing vehicle

  1983

  61,674

  1,928

  1984

  63,474

  1,937

  1985

  61,390

  2,005

  1986

  60,875

  2,100

  1987

  57,453

  2,152

  The full figures for 1988 are not yet available. However, among the accidents reported to date, there were 41,905 pedestrian casualties, of which 1,616 occurred while a vehicle was reversing.

  Because of the obvious risks, the highway code contains clear advice to drivers to be especially careful when reversing, and not to reverse vehicles for longer than is necessary.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to remove from the United Kingdom register fishing vessels that do not comply with part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988.
  364
  Mr. Portillo
  The Merchant Shipping (Registration of Fishing Vessels) regulations which came into force on 1 December 1988 set a four-month transitional period before closure of the old fishing vessel registers. In order for their vessels to be accepted for the new register owners are required to confirm ownership particulars and submit a signed declaration of British character. These are then checked against the criteria in section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 before new certificates of registry are issued.

  Vehicle Licence Holders
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many heavy goods vehicle and public service vehicle licence holders in the United Kingdom have had their licences revoked or have had a non-renewal on health grounds for each of the years from 1985–1988;

  (2) what is the total number of heavy goods vehicle and public service vehicle licence holders operating within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The figures for Great Britain are as follows:

  April to March

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  PSV licences revoked on medical grounds

  502

  734

  865

  880

  HGV licences revoked on medical and other grounds

  2,281

  2,772

  3,066

  3.249

  No separate figures are available for revocations of HGV licences on medical grounds.

  The figures for Northern Ireland are as follows:

  January—December

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  PSV licences revoked on medical grounds

  50

  56

  65

  73

  80

  April—March

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  HGV licences revoked on medical grounds

  4

  6

  10

  15

  Figures are not held for the number of vocational licence holders operating within the United Kingdom. The number of heavy goods vehicle and public service vehicle drivers' licences issued annually are as follows:

  April—March

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Great Britain

  HGV licence issues Provisional licences

  57,041

  60,632

  69,401

  75,931

  First full licences

  25,036

  27,426

  28,823

  33,209

  Renewals

  258,735

  263,043

  261,918

  271,882

  PSV licences

  12,360

  13,612

  57,218

  65,883

  365

  April—March

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Northern Ireland

  HGV licence issues Provisional licences

  2,139

  1,917

  2,053

  2,463

  First full licences and renewals

  6,769

  8,084

  8,358

  7,352

  January—December

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  PSV licences

  2,010

  3,513

  1,665

  1,055

  2,381

  Foreign Aircraft (Compensation)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number and geographical location of cases where United Kingdom citizens who have been killed in the United Kingdom by foreign aircraft have failed to obtain any compensation from the foreign owner, operator or pilot in the past five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Road Accidents (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accidents have taken place in the county of Derbyshire in every year since 1979; and what are the figures for the number of(a) fatal and (b) serious injuries for each year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The figures requested are shown below. They show personal injury accidents and the casualties resulting from those accidents.

  Accidents and casualties in Derbyshire: 1979 to 1987

  Accidents

  Casualties

  Fatal

  Serious

  1979

  4,079

  111

  1,423

  1980

  4,152

  92

  1,397

  1981

  4,075

  115

  1,362

  1982

  4,138

  119

  1,278

  1983

  3,743

  113

  1,092

  1984

  3,453

  109

  1,025

  1985

  3,306

  78

  817

  1986

  3,334

  97

  902

  1987

  3,331

  82

  846

  Vehicle Speeds (Motorways)
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the proportion of cars exceeding the 70 mph speed limit on motorways continues to fall as it did between 1983 and 1987.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is not yet possible to determine whether car speeds on motorways have fallen since the last of the periodic national speed surveys in 1987. The 1983 and 1987 surveys were conducted using video technology at 54 sites on two days in the months of July and August. In future, vehicle speeds will be collected continuously at about 200 sites using automatic vehicle detectors. At present, data are available from ten of these sites. As only one is on a motorway, proper comparisons cannot be made with the earlier surveys.

  Automatic Weighbridges
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 465, which are the main ferry ports to be equipped with automatic weighbridges; when each will come into use; and whether their use will be compulsory for all commercial vehicles entering the United Kingdom through these ports.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  During the next three months we intend to install automatic weighing equipment on a trial basis in the ports of Dover, Newhaven, Ramsgate, Poole and Felixstowe. Subject to the outcome of the trial, we will consider further installations in other ports. Under existing legislation there is no provision to make the use of the equipment compulsory but it will be capable of weighing all commercial vehicles using the ports.

  Road Haulage
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to deregulate road haulage throughout the European Community.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The EC Council agreed in June last year to abolish all quantitative controls on road haulage within the Community from the end of 1992. The conditions under which non resident operators may carry out road haulage wholly within another member state are under discussion. We are also still discussing the qualitative criteria for access to the profession of road haulage.

  Domestic haulage in the United Kingdom itself was effectively deregulated in 1968.

  Road and Footpath Surfaces
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to implement the recommendations of the Horne Report relating to the reinstatement of road and footpath surfaces following works done by statutory undertakings.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. I refer my hon. Friend to the fuller answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) on 19 January, column 292.

  Dial-a-Ride
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trips were provided by London dial-a-ride in 1988; what proportion of registered disabled used this service each week; how many new buses were provided; how many drivers are currently employed; and what constraints were placed upon the service.

  Mr. Portillo
  London dial-a-ride services are run by local voluntary management committees and funded by grant which is allocated by London Regional Transport. Membership, staffing, use of other resources, and operating procedures are matters for them and LRT. Government grant for dial-a-ride services in 1987–88 totals £6·27 million which is a 50 per cent. increase on the 1985–86 figure.

  Manchester Airport (Accident)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to publish the report on the Manchester airport disaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We expect the report to be published on 13 March.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he proposes to initiate any hearings in Cardiff, Newport, Swansea and other locations in South Wales on the proposals to raise Severn bridge tolls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The inquiry will be held at Thornbury, near Bristol. If the inspector is satisfied that there are objectors who cannot get to Thornbury, and providing a suitable venue can be found, the hearing may continue in south Wales for a limited period.

  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the value of the opening tolls on the Severn bridge in current prices.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In 1966 the tolls charged for all types of vehicle crossing the Severn bridge was 2/6d (12½p). The equivalent, at current prices, is 90p.

  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what levels the debt at the Severn bridge will reach if(a) there is no increase in tolls or (b) the current proposal to increase tolls to £1 for cars and £2 for lorries is implemented.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  If tolls are not increased, our forecasts show that debt would rise indefinitely, so that at the end of the toll period in 2006 it would have reached almost £400 million.

  If the proposed tolls are introduced debt will reach a peak of £127 million in 1991, declining thereafter so that tolls would cease by 2006.

  The latest figure for the Severn bridge debt is £85·5 million.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will place in the Library copies of his Department's statement of case for increasing the tolls on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I am placing copies in the Library today.

  Coastguard
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report the total amount of overtime worked at each Scottish coastguard rescue centre in 1988, indicating the total cost of such payment.

  Mr. Portillo
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 January 1989]: The total number of overtime hours worked at each Scottish coastguard rescue station in 1988 was:

  Station

  Hours

  Aberdeen

  3,776

  Forth

  4,871

  Shetland

  4,267

  368

  Station

  Hours

  Pentland

  5,127

  Moray

  6,600

  Clyde

  6,626

  Oban

  5,435

  Stornoway

  4,966

  Overtime costs are not recorded by individual station and consequently are not readily available.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits and Allowances
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, 16 December 1988,Official Report, column 751, what is the assumption on expected caseload for each of the social security benefits.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to table 15·6. page 7, of Cm 615 "The Government Expenditure Plans 1988–90 to 1991–92".

  Single Payments (Tooting)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amount has been paid out in single payments through his Department's office covering Tooting, in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The amounts paid in single payments by the Department's local offices covering Tooting are shown in the table.

  Amounts of single payments made by DSS local offices in the Tooting area during the period 1985–88

  Year1

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–882

  Office3

  £

  £

  £

  Balham

  779,197

  904,068

  551,139

  Wandsworth

  350,332

  428,375

  201,331

  1 The periods are from April to April each year.

  2 The figures for 1987–88 are provisional and subject to amendment.

  3 Tooting is covered partially by the two local offices shown.

  National Insurance Credits
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people had national insurance credits withdrawn in 1987–88 in the United Kingdom, the North West region and Warrington area, respectively; and for how long these credits were withdrawn on average.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is as follows:

  Unemployment benefit: Decisions of adjudication officers on contribution credits

  Number of fresh or renewable claims disallowed 1987–881

  Number

  Great Britain

  42,274

  North West Region

  4,399

  1 Year ending 30 June 1988.

  Information shows the number of persons disallowed contribution credits because they were disallowed

  369
  unemployment benefit. Statistics on disallowance of sickness benefit credits are not available. No statistics are available for Warrington, nor for the average length of time the credits were withdrawn.

  Invalidity Pensions
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people had their entitlement to invalidity pensions withdrawn during 1988; how many of these have lodged appeals; and, of those, how many have been(a) successful, (b) unsuccessful and (c) how many are still awaiting determination.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested on the number of cases where entitlement has been withdrawn is not readily available. The latest administrative statistics on social security appeal tribunals relate to appeals heard in the quarter ending 31 March 1988 and they are given in the table provided.

  Social Security Appeal Statistics—quarter ending 31 March 1988 Invalidity Benefit.

  Number

  Number of appeals lodged

  1,527

  Total number heard and decided

  1,241

  Number heard in claimant's favour

  529

  Number outstanding at end of quarter

  12,365

  1 Includes appeals outstanding from previous quarter.

  Social security expenditure in real terms1 1983–84 to 1991–92—Great Britain

  £ million

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 outturn2

  1989–90 Plans1

  1990–91 plans1

  1991–92 plans1

  Contributory benefits3

  Pension benefits

  Retirement pension basic element

  18,580

  18,561

  18,971

  19,588

  19,503

  18,904

  19,198

  19,800

  19,900

  additional pension

  77

  106

  163

  244

  311

  377

  474

  600

  700

  Christmas bonus

  131

  128

  121

  119

  114

  109

  105

  100

  100

  Widows' benefits, etc.

  basic element

  965

  928

  885

  876

  838

  838

  802

  800

  800

  additional pension

  19

  32

  38

  45

  53

  70

  84

  100

  100

  Unemployment, incapacity and other benefits

  Unemployment benefit

  1,911

  1,929

  1,833

  1,935

  1,560

  1,143

  920

  900

  1,000

  Sickness benefit

  338

  341

  318

  200

  205

  205

  196

  200

  200

  Invalidity benefit basic element

  2,304

  2,497

  2,564

  2,768

  2,876

  3,057

  3,347

  3,600

  3,800

  additional pension

  86

  122

  147

  215

  278

  353

  451

  600

  700

  Death grant

  22

  21

  21

  20

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Industrial injuries benefit

  Industrial disablement benefit

  471

  466

  470

  491

  482

  455

  450

  500

  500

  Industrial death benefit

  69

  67

  67

  68

  60

  57

  57

  100

  100

  Other industrial injuries benefits

  6

  6

  6

  4

  4

  4

  4

  —

  —

  Family benefits

  Maternity alowance

  180

  197

  189

  187

  54

  27

  28

  —

  —

  Guardian's allowance and child's special allowance

  3

  2

  1

  2

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Total contributory benefit expenditure

  25,162

  25,403

  25,793

  26,765

  26,343

  25,600

  26,116

  27,300

  27,900

  Non-contributory benefits4

  Pension benefits

  Non-contributory retirement pension

  52

  48

  47

  50

  39

  36

  36

  —

  —

  Christmas bonus

  8

  7

  8

  9

  9

  7

  8

  —

  —

  War pension

  669

  665

  670

  657

  636

  603

  592

  600

  600

  Disability benefits

  Attendance allowance

  632

  704

  791

  869

  953

  1,042

  1,140

  1,200

  1,300

  Invalid care allowance

  13

  13

  15

  116

  195

  160

  180

  200

  200

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of married women whose contributions to the national insurance fund would have entitled them to a pension less than the Category B married woman's pension in each of the last five years; and for each year what was the total amount paid in national insurance contributions by this group.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that these figures are not available.

  Hostel Charges
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has reached any conclusions on the "Help with Hostel Charges" proposals published in 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We expect to announce final decisions shortly.

  Expenditure Plans
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if will publish table 15·1 of Cm. 615 in constant 1988–89 prices.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the table.
  371

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 outturn2

  1989–90 plans1

  1990–91 plans1

  1991–92 plans1

  Non-contributory invalidity pension/ severe disablement allowance

  232

  289

  307

  318

  314

  308

  308

  300

  300

  Mobility allowance

  388

  435

  487

  574

  633

  665

  730

  800

  900

  RPI adjustments

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Supplementary benefit/income support

  Supplementary pension

  906

  1,088

  1,164

  1,315

  1,404

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Supplementary allowance

  6,232

  6,824

  7,427

  7,576

  7,050

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Income support

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,650

  7,400

  7,900

  8,500

  Social fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  31

  164

  139

  100

  100

  Family benefits

  Child benefit

  5,091

  5,228

  5,155

  5,036

  4,885

  4,522

  4,319

  4,400

  4,500

  One parent benefit

  137

  147

  155

  165

  173

  174

  183

  200

  200

  Family income supplement/family credit

  157

  154

  150

  180

  191

  422

  481

  500

  500

  Maternity grant

  22

  22

  20

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Housing benefit

  Rent rebate

  2,528

  2,623

  2,647

  2,702

  2,707

  2,726

  2,834

  3,000

  3,100

  Rent allowance

  684

  841

  963

  1,057

  1,103

  1,092

  1,562

  1,600

  1,700

  Total non-contributory benefit expenditure

  17,748

  19,089

  20,006

  20,641

  20,424

  19,573

  19,907

  21,000

  22,000

  Total benefit expenditure

  42,911

  44,492

  45,798

  47,406

  46,766

  45,173

  46,023

  48,200

  49,900

  Administration and miscellaneous services

  National Insurance Fund administration (collection of contributions and payment of contributory benefits)

  886

  988

  920

  811

  848

  857

  914

  930

  920

  Non-contributory benefit administration (payment of non-contributory benefits)

  956

  950

  959

  1,157

  1,307

  1,312

  1,416

  1,470

  1,430

  Housing benefit

  Local authority administration

  135

  170

  179

  194

  237

  246

  204

  200

  200

  Total administration

  1,978

  2,108

  2,057

  2,162

  2,391

  2,415

  2,534

  2,610

  2,550

  Total—Social Security

  44,888

  46,600

  47,856

  49,568

  49,157

  47,588

  48,557

  50,800

  52,400

  1 Using the GDP deflator at market prices.

  2 Estimated.

  3 ie those paid from the National Insurance Fund.

  4 ie those net from voted expenditure or paid by local authorities etc.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the total net income, including benefits, after tax and national insurance where appropriate, for a single mother aged 30 years with one child aged five years, living in privately rented accommodation at a cost of £56·62 per week rent plus

  Lone parent with one child aged 5

  Income support

  Earnings

  Rent

  Rates

  Housing benefit

  CHB

  FSM1

  Net income before housing costs

  (a) Not working

  41·85

  —

  56·62

  10·23

  64·80

  12·15

  2·55

  121·35

  —

  (b) Working under 24 hours—earnings £15

  41·85

  15

  56·62

  10·23

  64·80

  12·15

  2·55

  136·35

  —

  (c) Working under 24 hours—earning £301

  41·85

  30

  56·62

  10·23

  64·80

  12·15

  2·55

  136·35

  —

  1 Free school meals.

  Earnings

  Tax

  National Insurance

  Family credit

  Rent

  Rates

  Rent rebate

  Rate rebate

  CHB

  Net income before housing costs

  (d) Working over 24 hours—earning £50

  50

  0·00

  2·50

  38·15

  56·62

  10·23

  41·09

  3·40

  12·15

  142·29

  372
  £10·23 per week rates plus £2·31 per week water rates, with no capital and the following levels of earnings (a) Nil, (b) £15 per week, (c) £30 per week, (d) £50 per week, (e) £75 per week, (f) £100 per week, (g) £125 per week, (h) £150 per week and (i) £175 per week.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is set out in the tables.
  373

  Earnings

  Tax

  National Insurance

  Family credit

  Rent

  Rates

  Rent rebate

  Rate rebate

  CHB

  Net income before housing costs

  (e) Working over 24 hours—earning £75

  75

  0·00

  5·25

  25·34

  56·62

  10·23

  34·95

  1·52

  12·15

  143·71

  (f) Working over 24 hours—earning £100

  100

  5·31

  7·00

  12·78

  56·62

  10·23

  31·45

  0·00

  12·15

  144·07

  (g) Working over 24 hours—earning £125

  125

  11·56

  11·25

  2·63

  56·62

  10·23

  28·62

  0·00

  12·15

  145·59

  (h) Working over 24 hours—earning £150

  150

  17·81

  13·50

  0·00

  56·62

  10·23

  19·61

  0·00

  12·15

  150·45

  (i) Working over 24 hours—earning £175

  175

  24·06

  15·75

  0·00

  56·62

  10·23

  8·89

  0·00

  12·15

  156·23

  Note: Under Income Support water rates are treated like any other ordinary item of domestic expenditure and are paid by the claimant out of available income. There is no water rate rebate within Housing Benefit for claimants who are not on income support.

  (i). Income support would be reduced by the amount that the earnings exceed the £15 disregard.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total annual revenue received from employees' national insurance contributions paid by employees earning(a) less than £70 per week, (b) less than £105 per week and (c) less than £155 per week.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows

  Total annual revenue received from employees' national insurance contributions 1988–89

  Earnings of employees

  £ billion

  Less than £70 a week

  0·25

  Less than £105 a week

  0·85

  Less than £155 a week

  3·00

  All figures are net of contracted out rebate, and exclude the reduced rate contributions paid by some married women and widows.

  Single Homeless
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether his Department has received a copy of the report of the Nottingham university single homeless monitoring project and from agencies serving the homeless in the Nottingham area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department can trace no record of having received this report.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people live in hostels for the homeless in Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have been asked to reply.

  The only figures collected centrally are the latest estimates of households placed in hostels by English local authorities. They are given in table 7 of the publication "Local Authorities' Action under the Homelessness Provisions of the 1985 Housing Act; England. Results for Third Quarter 1988, Supplementary Tables" which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Local authorities provide quarterly estimates of the numbers of people accepted as homeless under the terms of the homeless provisions of the Housing Act 1985.

  An extract from table 7 of the Supplementary Tables Third Quarter 1988 reads as follows:
  374

  Number of households in temporary accommodation at the end of quarter

  Bed and breakfast

  Hostels1

  Others2

  Ashfield

  —

  4

  —

  Bassetlaw

  —

  —

  3245

  Broxtowe

  2

  1

  19

  Gedling

  —

  10

  —

  Mansfield

  —

  8

  16

  Newark and Sherwood

  —

  48

  —

  Nottingham

  1

  60

  21

  Rushcliffe

  1

  8

  9

  1 Including women's refuge.

  2 Including short-life dwellings.

  3 Bassetlaw often let temporary accommodation to homeless families and then rehouse them later.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Active Citizenship
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further initiatives he is taking to promote active citizenship.

  Mr. Hurd
  We are committed to encouraging active and responsible citizenship in people of all ages and from all sections of society. Much can be and is already being done through involvement in charitable work and voluntary groups—for example, through neighbourhood watch and victim support schemes. The Ministerial Group on the Voluntary Sector meets regularly to discuss promotion of volunteering. The Home Office's VSU—voluntary services unit—makes grants of £10 million to support voluntary organisations, many of which exist to promote voluntary activity and to support volunteers.

  The Government as a whole spend some £2 billion in helping to fund the voluntary sector.

  There is a need for even closer partnership between the public, private and voluntary sectors. I have been having and will continue to have discussions with representatives of all three sectors in order to identify and publicise ways in which people can turn concern into effective voluntary action.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further action his Department is taking to combat violent crime.
  375
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to combat violent crime.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government have already strengthened the police, increased maximum sentences and cracked down on the possession of knives and other offensive weapons. New measures this year will include a further addition to police manpower of 1,100 more officers. From yesterday, there exists a new right of appeal for the prosecution against an over-lenient sentence, in addition the private ownership of lethal firearms, like the Kalashnikov rifle, is banned. The Prevention of Terrorism Bill, now before Parliament, will give the police and the courts the special powers which they need to counter the violent terrorist threat.

  Chief Constables (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last had a meeting with the chief constables of police forces in Wales; and how frequently he holds such joint meetings.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In exercising his responsibilities for the police service in England and Wales my right hon. Friend frequently has meetings with chief constables. My right hon. Friend has not found it necessary to hold meetings with chief officers of police forces in Wales as a separate group.

  Airports (Security)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of police forces for security purposes at airports.

  Mr. Hurd
  Police are employed on work requiring police skills. Airport staff conduct other procedures such as screening of passengers and baggage. A working party has been examining those recommendations of the Transport Select Committee particularly directed to the police, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I have now asked the working party to consider whether they wish to make any further recommendations in the light of the Lockerbie disaster.

  Infant Life Preservation Act 1929
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the case for amending the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929.

  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the case for amending the Infant Life Preservation Act.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During the past year our records show one leter received in favour of amending the Act.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when was the last prosecution for child destruction under the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The last prosecution for which information is available centrally was 1987.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to set up a working party to look into the working of the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929.
  376
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  West Mercia Police
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in securing greater efficiency and value for money from the West Mercia police force.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend is advised by Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary about the efficiency of provincial police forces. The West Mercia police have improved the value for money they obtain from their resources by means such as the streamlining of administrative procedures and the introduction of operational support units; and the use of information technology for crime pattern analysis and fingerprint identification.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of progress in securing greater efficiency and value for money from the West Mercia police force in considering applications for increases in its establishment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend announced on 30 January his decision to approve an increase of 28 police posts for West Mercia constabulary with effect from 1 April 1989. Full account was taken of the force's commitment to a programme of civilianisation over recent years.

  Television (Scotland)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on his proposals for the future of television broadcasting from viewers in the Grampian, Scottish and Border television areas.

  Mr. Renton
  We have received a number of representations from viewers in Scotland, including a preliminary submission from Comunn Na Gaidhlig. We would welcome any further comments during the consultation period which ends on 28 February.

  Random Breath Tests
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in favour of random breath testing in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the introduction of random breath testing.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received representations both for and against random breath testing from a number of organisations, from hon. Members and from individual members of the public. On 1 February, my right hon. Friend announced a period of public consultation on possible changes to police powers to require breath tests.

  Crime (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had about the incidence of public disorder and crime in rural areas.
  377
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have had discussions within Government and with representatives of the police, the courts, and the licensed trade about the problems of hooliganism and alcohol-related disorder. Non-metropolitan disorder was considered by a working group comprising Home Office officials and representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the results of which my right hon. Friend announced in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 21 December.

  Radio
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking in advance of any future Broadcasting Bill to increase the choice available to radio listeners.

  Mrs. Gillian Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what he is doing in advance of any future Broadcasting Bill, to increase the choice available to radio listeners.

  Mr. Renton
  As I stated in my reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) on 26 January, at column 671, we have endorsed IBA proposals to award 20 contracts for community radio and a further contract for a station covering Heathrow and Gatwick. In addition, we have authorised BBC and independent local radio stations to provide separate programmes if they wish on each of their current frequencies.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to widen choice for radio listeners.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 26 January to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), at column 671.

  Prison Kitchens
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will request prison governors to liaise with local authority environmental health officers to ensure that the prison service inspections of prison kitchens are of the same standard as those of local authority environmental health officers in other establishments.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The existing internal arrangements in the prison service are considered to be sufficient to set and monitor standards equivalent to those that would be required by local authority environmental health officers.

  In addition, guidance has recently been issued which encourages governors, together with prison medical officers, to liaise with local authority environmental health officers. The liaison may include informal visits by these officers to prison in an advisory capacity.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were being held in police cells in England and Wales on 31 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On Tuesday 31 January, 349 prisoners were held in police cells in England and Wales.
  378
  Every effort is being made to reduce that number as quickly as possible in the face of the renewed growth of the inmate population.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the most recent figure for the number of prisoners housed in police cells.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At unlocking on Wednesday 1 February, 322 prisoners were held in police cells in England and Wales.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has had recent discussions with the Metropolitan police concerning conditions for remand prisoners in custody in police station cells in the Greater London area.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Problems arising from the accommodation of remand prisoners in police cells are often discussed at the meetings which my right hon. Friend holds regularly with the commissioner of the Metropolitan police. I am well aware that conditions for remand prisoners in police cells are often far from satisfactory although the police do all they can in difficult circumstances.

  Hooliganism
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with chief constables concerning the problems of hooliganism inside and outside football grounds.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Home Office is in regular contact with the Association of Chief Police Officers about these problems. The association was represented on the Minister for Sport's working party and will continue to be involved in discussions on the implementation of the Football Spectators Bill.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to deal with unruly behaviour outside football grounds.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Much has already been achieved by alcohol restrictions, the powers for the police and the courts under the Public Order Act 1986 and the advice which my right hon. Friend recently gave to the courts on the need for swift justice following incidents of hooliganism.

  The proposed football membership scheme, although designed primarily to prevent those intent on unruly behaviour from gaining admission to football grounds, is also intended to remove the football match as the central focus for the activities of hooligans. Those who know they are not going to be admitted to a match are unlikely to travel long distances to stand outside.

  I believe that the scheme will curb football-related hooliganism, both inside and away from grounds.

  Abortion
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to change the criteria used to decide whether it is in the public interest to order an inquest on babies born alive following abortions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.
  379
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received about his decision not to order an inquest on the baby of 21 weeks gestation aborted at the Carlisle city general hospital in July 1987.

  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many further representations he has received following his decision that it was not in the public interest to order an inquest on the baby of 21 weeks gestational age, aborted at the Carlisle city general hospital in July 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. I would refer to my reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on 15 December, column 711. We have received no further representations since then.

  Carriers Liability Act
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the receipts to date under the Carriers Liability Act; and what are the arrears.

  Mr. Renton
  Charges totalling £7·366 million had been incurred by carriers under the Act up to 31 December 1988. Of this sum, £3·539 million had been paid, leaving £3·827 million outstanding.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in response to his request for views on the reform of Sunday shopping.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in response to his request for views on the reform of Sunday shopping.

  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received from interested parties on ways to amend the Shops Act 1950.

  Mr. Renton
  I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave earlier to the question from the hon. Member for Normanton ( Mr. O'Brien).

  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from churches and other religious bodies concerning proposals to update the law on Sunday trading.

  Mr. Renton
  Since November 1986 we have received 66 written representations on behalf of a church or other religious body. Among the correspondents have been the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Hume, the Chief Rabbi and the Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council. I have also met the Bishop of Gloucester, chairman of the General Synod's Board for Social Responsibility, on three occasions, and the Bishop of London.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the administration of the magistrates courts.
  380
  Mr. John Patten
  It is because I see scope for improvements in the efficient management of the magistrates courts system that I have decided to set in hand a scrutiny as explained in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on 17 January, column 140.

  Broadcasting Standards Council
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Council; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Council as often as circumstances dictate in order to discuss the work of the council and other matters.

  Police Training
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives he is planning to improve police and police cadet training.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Police training is kept under constant review and a number of developments are in hand. A new modular training course for recruits is to be introduced later this year, a centrally developed training package for newly promoted sergeants has recently come into use and a new course for inspectors on promotion is in the final stages of development. Cadet training is carried out in the seven police forces which run cadet schemes.

  We have no plans to issue new guidance on this subject.

  Crime (North Yorkshire)
  Mr Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department is making towards reducing the level of crime in north Yorkshire.

  Mr. John Patten
  The total number of notifiable offences recorded by the police in north Yorkshire from January to September 1988 fell by 5 per cent. when compared with the same period in 1987. The national decrease was 3·7 per cent. In particular, burglaries in north Yorkshire decreased by 14·2 per cent. This coincides with an increase of over 250 good neighbour schemes in the area, bringing the total number of schemes there to 1,331, covering almost 32,000 households.

  British Nationality
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it now takes to process applications for British nationality.

  Mr. Renton
  The average time taken to complete applications for naturalisation and registration in December 1988 was 21 months and 14 months respectively.

  Guardian Angels
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the need to regulate the activities of guardian angels operating on London local authority housing estates; and if he will make a statement.
  381
  Mr. John Patten
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is aware of any so-called guardian angels operating on local authority housing estates in London. Members of the public who wish to support the police can most usefully do so through the special constabulary or active participation in neighbourhood watch schemes.

  Metropolitan Police (Precept)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations were made by London local authority associations on 17 January regarding the rise in the Metropolitan police precept for 1989–90; and what replies he gave them.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The representations of the London local authority associations were mainly concerned with the size of the proposed Metropolitan police precept for 1989–90, which they regarded as excessive. My right hon. Friend was able, with the assistance of my right hon. Friend and Minister of State for Local Government, to explain the reasons for the proposed increases and to describe the steps which are being taken to strengthen the force's arrangements for securing greater efficiency and value for money in the deployment of its resources.

  Tagging
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the Green Paper proposals for the use of electronic tags to monitor offenders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have received a number of representations, some commenting on the suggestion that electronic monitoring might be used to enforce a curfew as part of the new court order proposed in the Green Paper. We shall consider the future use of electronic monitoring in the light of these comments and the pilot studies—monitoring defendants remanded on bail—which will begin later this year.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the technology for the tracking tag, as opposed to the curfew tag, to be demonstrably effective; and if he will then introduce it into pilot schemes on tagging throughout England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that some companies are working on monitoring devices which allow the wearer to be tracked. This technology is still at the development stage and I do not expect its effectiveness to be reliably demonstrated in time for the forthcoming pilot studies.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the past 12 months police officers have been used to arrest persons seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  Under the Immigration Act 1971 a constable or immigration officer may arrest or detain certain persons in breach of the Act. Information about the number of occasions when police officers have exercised those powers is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. An application for political asylum is a separate issue which is considered entirely on its merits.

  Police Surgeons
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many doctors are retained by police on a part-time basis to act as police surgeons attending to victims of crime and scenes of crime; and what was the position three and five years ago.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Police surgeons are appointed by police authorities and no central record is maintained.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on present arrangements for the work of police surgeons.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to alter the arrangements under which general practitioners work as part-time police surgeons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Police surgeons are appointed by police authorities. The joint negotiating committee for the fees of doctors assisting local authorities issues national guidance about their conditions of service. But the onus rests with individual police authorities to ensure that suitable arrangements are made to secure the necessary coverage by police surgeons within the force area.

  Firearms Licences
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are to prohibit the granting of a firearms licence to those under a certain age.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under section 22(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 it is an offence for a person under the age of 14 to have in his possession any firearm or ammunition to which section 1 of the Act applies, except in the limited circumstances specified where a firearm certificate is not required anyway. These include target practice at an approved club and shooting at a miniature rifle range. Accordingly, firearm certificates are issued only to those over 14 years of age. We have no proposals to change the law in this respect.

  With regard to shotgun certificates, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller).

  Mr. Roberto Fiore
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with the further consideraton of the case of Mr. Roberto Fiore; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply by my right hon. Friend to a question from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 15 December, column 721. No further request has been received from the Italian Government—the possibility of deportation is being considered. Representations against such action have been lodged.

  Mr. Viraj Mendis
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from citizens of Manchester in respect of the extradition of Viraj Mendis; and if he will make a statement.
  383
  Mr. Renton
  Up to 23 January 1989, 115 letters had been received from the Manchester area about the case of Mr. Mendis, of which 40 were in support of him. About 150 campaign postcards from the Manchester area and a number of petitions, some of which were signed by residents of Manchester, had also been received.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the case of Viraj Mendis.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration he has given to the case of Viraj Mendis.

  Mr. Renton
  I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on 26 January, column 672.

  Franchise
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to produce proposals to widen the franchise for Britons living abroad.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We attach considerable importance to extension of the franchise for British citizens living overseas and intend to bring forward legislation in this Parliament.

  Prisoners (Escapes)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners escaped from custody in 1988; and what crimes were they originally convicted of.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information held centrally shows that, during 1988, 267 inmates escaped from within closed prison service establishments in England and Wales or from outside escorts. This figure includes both convicted and unconvicted inmates. The offences of which they had been convicted, or with which they had been charged, are categorised in the table. Multiple offences or charges are categorised according to the most serious offence.

  Offence categories (including attempts)

  Number

  Murder or Manslaughter

  6

  Sexual offences

  3

  Other offences against the person

  24

  Burglary

  120

  Robbery

  29

  Theft, forgery and related offences

  37

  Others

  48

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of progress in securing greater efficiency and value for money from the West Midlands police force in considering applications for increases in its establishment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend announced on 30 January his decision to approve an increase of 62 police posts for west midlands police with effect from 1 April 1989. Full account was taken of the progress which the force has made in recent times in obtaining police officers in considerable numbers through civilianisation.

  Chief Charity Commissioners
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chief charity commissioner, Mr. Robin Guthrie; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend will be meeting the chief charity commissioner shortly to discuss the proposals the Government will be putting forward in the forthcoming White Paper on charities. My right hon. and noble friend has met the chief charity commissioner on seven occasions in the past year to discuss a wide range of matters concerning charities and the work of the commission.

  Vietnamese Refugees
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of Vietnamese refugees accepted to settle in the United Kingdom to date; and whether provision for Vietnamese refugees will be increased.

  Mr. Renton
  Between 1979 and the end of the third quarter of 1988 some 20,400 Vietnamese refugees were admitted for settlement in the United Kingdom. For the future, I refer to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) on 22 December, columns 588 and 589.

  Tackling Crime (European Co-operation)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department is doing to promote greater European co-operation against crime.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department is doing to promote greater European co-operation against crime.

  Mr. John Patten
  We attach great importance to closer European co-operation to tackle crime and have actively sought to strengthen bilateral links; my right hon. Friend recently signed an agreement with Italy to combat terrorism, drug trafficking and organised crime. Further action is in hand to improve bilateral and multilateral co-operation in a number of areas including mutual legal assistance and extradition arrangements, the exchange of drugs intelligence and the confiscation of drug traffickers' assets.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made towards a Council of Europe convention on broadcasting.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from him on 23 January, column 393.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to discuss the White Paper on the future of broadcasting.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend met Mr. Russell on 10 January and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met him on 17 January to discuss our recent White Paper
  385
  on broadcasting. My right hon. Friend keeps in regular touch with the chairmen of the BBC and IBA on a wide range of broadcasting matters.

  Football Matches (Policing)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether steps are being taken to reduce the cost of policing football matches.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The aim of the national football membership scheme envisaged in part I of the Football Spectators Bill[Lords] is to break the link between football and hooliganism by disqualifying troublemakers from attendance at all League grounds. In the longer term, the scheme should reduce considerably the heavy police commitment required to maintain order at football matches.

  Burglaries
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the latest figures for burglary in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  Burglary fell by 8 per cent. in the 12 months to September 1988 compared with the previous 12 months. This information is published in table 4 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 36/88, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Right of Silence
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make a statement on his conclusions concerning the right of silence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend is awaiting the report of the working group which was set up last year to consider what changes in the law are necessary. We expect to receive its report around Easter.

  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received relating to the possible abolition of the right of silence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of letters from right hon. and hon. Members, including one from the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. Randall) on behalf of the Opposition, and from members of the public. I understand that the working group on the right of silence which my right hon. Friend set up to consider this issue has received responses to its consultation document from a wide range of interested bodies.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to promote greater efficiency in the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in securing greater value for money from the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in securing greater value for money from the Metropolitan police.
  386
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Measures have been introduced on a number of fronts to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and economic use of Metropolitan police resources and to ensure value for money of Metropolitan police expenditure. Changes were made last year to the systems of estimating, monitoring and controlling expenditure and to the composition of the cash limit in order to strengthen the controls on running costs and other current expenditure. An estimate screening process has been introduced to concentrate attention on the relative priorities of competing demands, increasing value for money in the use of resources and identifying policies or projects which require more detailed examination. Work is being done on the improvement of financial management information and pilot schemes to assess the effectiveness of divisional budgets. There is a programme of civilianisation to release police officers for operational duties and to ensure that functions are carried out in the most economic way. Independent inspections by Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary will augment the internal system of inspections in measuring the efficiency of the force.

  Other initiatives aimed at improving greater Efficiency and value for money include a continuing programme of scrutinies and reviews, contracting out of services, and the wider use of output measures and performance indicators.

  Some recent achievements include: 218 headquarters posts abolished through reorganisation in the last three years; 1,300 posts devolved from headquarters to areas in the last three years; 322 posts civilianised since March 1986; 500 cleaning posts contracted out; hours spent on street duty in 1988 up by some 7·5 per cent. over the previous year; a reduction of 10 per cent. in real terms in the overtime budget; a 7 per cent. improvement in arrest rates; and a 6 per cent. improvement in clear-up rates.

  Police Forensic Service
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to establish a full-time police forensic service.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Home Office forensic science service provides forensic science facilities to police forces outside London through its six regional laboratories. The Metropolitan police and the City of London police are served by the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory.

  It would not be economical, or effective, for each provincial police force to establish its own laboratory.

  Prison Sentences (Remission)
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent remission of prison sentences is based on the severity of the crime.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Remission may be earned on all prison sentences of more than five days. Those not exceeding a total term of 12 months may be reduced by up to half; longer sentences may be reduced by a third. The maximum amount of remission will, thus, reflect the length of sentence or sentences imposed on a prisoner, which is determined by a number of other factors in addition to the severity of the offence.

  Drugs
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in securing greater international co-operation against the illegal drug trade.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier this afternoon to a similar Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey).

  Prisoners
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison at the most recent count.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On Friday 27 January 48,867 prisoners were held in prison service establishments in England and Wales. A further 298 prisoners were held in police cells.

  Police Efficiency
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to implement the recommendations of the Audit Commission on police efficiency.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Audit Commission recommendations contain valuable guidelines for improved value for money in the use of police resources. The Home Office and Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary will fully support and encourage chief officers of police and police authorities in implementing the recommendations.

  Italy (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his recent visit to Italy.

  Mr. Hurd
  I visited Italy from 11 to 14 January at the invitation of Signor Antonio Gava, the Italian Minister of the Interior. During the visit I had talks with Signor Gava and his officials about matters of common interest, and I signed a joint arrangement for co-operation between our two Governments on developing measures against terrorism, organised crime and drug trafficking. Copies of this arrangement have been placed in the Library.

  I called on a number of parliamentarians in Rome, and visited Turin and Milan where I met local officials and members of the business community, and visited a drug rehabilitation project.

  Prisons (HIV Testing)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to introduce compulsory HIV testing in all prisons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. Practice in prisons follows Government policy for the general community. A test is carried out only with informed consent.

  South Yorkshire Police
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to increase the current manning levels in the South Yorkshire police.
  388
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend announced on 30 January, column 6, that he had approved an increase of 16 police posts for South Yorkshire and that he was prepared to approve a further 11 posts for stage II probationer training if the police authority made formal application for them.

  Shops Act 1950
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to seek the views of the local government authorities on ways of amending the Shops Act 1950; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I have met with the Association of District Councils on 14 July, 21 September and 13 December 1988 to exchange views on Sunday trading and have received the proposals which it published on 30 December.

  Intoxicating Liquor
  Mr. John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to introduce legislation to amend the present definition of intoxicating liquor in the Licensing Act 1964; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are considering, in consultation with other Departments, whether it would be desirable to amend the definition of intoxicating liquor in the 1964 Act to relax restrictions on the sale of low alcohol products now becoming available. In particular, we are concerned to assess any possible effect on children and young persons of unrestricted access to low alcohol drinks.

  Reparation and Mediation Schemes
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the results of his Department's research into the experimental reparation and mediation schemes will be published.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the spring.

  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance is provided to police authorities on the provision of neighbourhood watch signs.

  Mr. John Patten
  There is no central guidance on the provision of neighbourhood watch signs. The permission of the highway authority—usually the county council or the London borough council—is needed when a sign is to be erected on highway land, and some authorities use this as a means of achieving standardisation of signs.

  Child Abductions
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many United Kingdom children have been abducted overseas in defiance of orders from British courts over the most recent period for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  I regret that the information requested is not collected centrally.

  Football League Matches
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 January,Official Report, column 492, regarding events at Football League matches for the first part of the 1988–89 season, if he will give a further breakdown of the figure of 543 arrests at fourth division matches up to 31 October 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Following my reply of 10 January, ACPO was informed of a substantial error in the return from one police force and the provisional total for division 4 has now been amended to 248.

  At the end of each football season the Association of Chief Police Officers carefully reviews the returns from 43 individual forces relating to the number of arrests made at matches of the 92 Football League clubs. One part of a season is not comparable with another and where interim figures have been collected they have not been subjected to the same scrutiny. Since the provisional totals to 31 October 1988 have not been given a full end of season check, it would be inappropriate to publish a detailed breakdown, club by club, across the Football League or any division as a whole.

  Prisoners (AIDS)
  Mr. Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy for the reception of an inmate into prison who is known or thought to be suffering from AIDS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All prisoners are questioned about their medical history and are medically examined on reception. Where AIDS is diagnosed the prison medical officer will devise a clinical management plan appropriate to the individual case. Facilities for the care and support of prisoners with AIDS, AIDS-related illness and other infectious conditions are being developed on a contingency basis.

  Mr. Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women known to be suffering from AIDS were in prisons in England and Wales on 1 January.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There was no reported case of AIDS. Fifty male prisoners and seven females were known to be HIV antibody-positive.

  Prison (Woolwich)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will be responsible for the naming of the new prison at Woolwich; when a final decision will be announced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Responsibility for the naming of new prisons rests with the Secretary of State. In accordance with usual practice the local authority—the London borough of Greenwich—has been invited to suggest a name for the new prison at Woolwich. A decision will be taken as soon as possible after its response is received.

  Buckingham Palace Security
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on Buckingham Palace security; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Arrangements for security at Buckingham Palace are regularly tested and kept under constant review.

  A routine exercise, restricted in scope and using limited resources, was conducted by the royalty and diplomatic protection department of the Metropolitan police to test the security systems at Buckingham Palace on the evening of 17 January. The exercise met its objectives, and I understand that the commissioner is satisfied with the results.

  Kerb Crawlers (Electronic Tagging)
  Mrs. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of electronic tagging in relation to kerb crawlers.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans as yet to introduce the use of electronic monitoring for convicted offenders. We shall review the use of electronic monitoring in the light of the forthcoming pilot studies monitoring defendants on bail.

  English Folk Dance and Song Society
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Charity Commission as to why it refused to look into allegations of ballot rigging in the affairs of the English Folk Dance and Song Society.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. The propriety of the Society's recent election is a matter for the society itself and ultimately for the courts.

  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a report from the Association of Chief Police Officers regarding its recent emergency exercises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  A report on COMTEST '89 is being prepared by the Association of Chief Police Officers. Any conclusions on operational matters will be for chief constables to consider, but we are following developments closely.

SCOTLAND

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for levels of manufacturing investment in Scotland, both in cash and real terms; and what are the annual figures for each of the previous 10 years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The latest available figures relate to 1986. The volume estimates have been estimated using the United Kingdom deflator for manufacturing investment.
  391

  Manufacturing investment in Scotland Gross domestic fixed capital formation

  £ million at current prices

  £ million at 1985 prices

  £ per employee at 1985 prices

  1977

  491

  950

  1,540

  1978

  523

  908

  1,515

  1979

  561

  873

  1,513

  1980

  644

  871

  1,634

  1981

  585

  723

  1,517

  1982

  541

  627

  1,400

  1983

  470

  515

  1,227

  1984

  596

  631

  1,589

  1985

  861

  861

  2,195

  1986

  788

  757

  1,984

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all those beaches in Scotland which failed to meet the European Community directive on bathing water quality standards in the last year for which data is available, when it is planned for each of these beaches to meet these standards; and what is the estimated cost in each case.

  Unemployed claimants in Scottish parliamentary constituencies

  Constituency

  December 1986

  As percentage of December 1985

  December 1987

  As percentage of December 1986

  December 1988

  As percentage of December 1987

  Aberdeen North

  4,691

  130·3

  4,169

  88·9

  3,276

  78·6

  Aberdeen South

  4,280

  141·2

  3,521

  82·3

  2,700

  76·7

  Angus East

  4,509

  117·8

  3,839

  85·1

  2,905

  75·7

  Argyll and Bute

  4,302

  106·6

  3,777

  87·8

  3,156

  83·6

  Ayr

  5,223

  103·4

  4,504

  86·2

  3,507

  77·9

  Banff and Buchan

  3,968

  125·6

  3,340

  84·2

  2,634

  78·9

  Caithness and Sutherland

  2,575

  103·1

  2,435

  94·6

  2,181

  89·6

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  6,751

  102·2

  6,138

  90·9

  4,956

  80·7

  Central Fife

  5,656

  99·4

  5,229

  92·5

  4,085

  78·1

  Clackmannan

  4,742

  102·5

  4,212

  88·8

  3,363

  79·8

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  4,703

  102·9

  4,417

  93·9

  3,537

  80·1

  Clydesdale

  5,179

  103·8

  4,423

  85·4

  3,409

  77·1

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  4,793

  103·0

  4,017

  83·8

  3,148

  78·4

  Cunninghame North

  5,649

  102·8

  5,032

  89·1

  3,777

  75·1

  Cunninghame South

  6,213

  98·6

  5,546

  89·3

  4,200

  75·7

  Dumbarton

  5,605

  94·9

  5,388

  96·1

  4,422

  82·1

  Dumfries

  4,055

  101·6

  3,442

  84·9

  2,742

  79·7

  Dundee East

  7,748

  94·0

  7,004

  90·4

  5,630

  80·4

  Dundee West

  6,363

  95·6

  5,655

  88·9

  4,712

  83·3

  Dunfermline East

  5,021

  102·7

  4,489

  89·4

  3,642

  81·1

  Dunfermline West

  3,796

  106·1

  3,388

  89·3

  2,788

  82·3

  East Kilbride

  5,108

  101·3

  4,239

  83·0

  3,391

  80·0

  East Lothian

  4,156

  109·9

  3,878

  93·3

  3,211

  82·8

  Eastwood

  3,397

  103·1

  3,013

  88·7

  2,358

  78·3

  Edinburgh Central

  5,584

  111·9

  5,136

  92·0

  4,148

  80·8

  Edinburgh East

  4,590

  99·3

  4,341

  94·6

  3,323

  76·5

  Edinburgh Leith

  6,974

  106·9

  6,469

  92·8

  5,044

  78·0

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  3,535

  95·8

  3,237

  91·6

  2,524

  78·0

  Edinburgh South

  4,323

  106·1

  4,096

  94·7

  3,129

  76·4

  Edinburgh West

  2,611

  108·1

  2,196

  84·1

  1,709

  77·8

  Falkirk East

  5,316

  97·5

  4,675

  87·9

  3,444

  73·7

  Falkirk West

  4,650

  98·4

  3,811

  82·0

  2,895

  76·0

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  4,231

  104·9

  3,569

  84·4

  3,360

  94·1

  Glasgow Cathcart

  4,451

  100·6

  3,911

  87·9

  3,264

  83·5

  Glasgow Central

  7,567

  103·6

  7,255

  95·9

  6,096

  84·0

  Glasgow Garscadden

  6,214

  98·0

  5,485

  88·3

  4,904

  89·4

  Glasgow Govan

  6,065

  98·2

  5,634

  92·9

  4,975

  88·3

  Glasgow Hillhead

  5,829

  106·9

  5,370

  92·1

  4,660

  86·8

  Glasgow Maryhill

  7,994

  101·8

  7,494

  93·7

  6,483

  86·5

  Glasgow Pollok

  7,480

  96·9

  6,856

  91·7

  5,789

  84·4

  Glasgow Provan

  8,706

  95·4

  7,539

  86·6

  6,671

  88·5

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  6,887

  98·9

  5,955

  86·5

  5,079

  85·3

  Glasgow Shettleston

  6,732

  104·6

  6,086

  90·4

  5,429

  89·2

  Glasgow Springburn

  8,616

  99·1

  7,825

  90·8

  6,820

  87·2

  392
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on results for 1987, the latest year available, was given in my answers on 5 May at column 536, and 29 June 1988 at column 247, to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir Ff. Monro). A copy of the report "Bathing Waters in Scotland, Results of Monitoring: 1986 and 1987" is available in the Library.

  The information on the quality of Scottish bathing waters during the 1988 bathing season is being collated a t present. I expect to announce the results before the start of the 1989 bathing season. Discussions are currently taking place with the authorities concerned about plans and programmes of improvement for those bathing waters which did not meet the directive's standards in 1987.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the unemployment figures for each constituency in Scotland for each of the last three years; and if he will express the figures as a percentage of the previous year.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  393

  Constituency

  December 1986

  As percentage of December 1985

  December 1987

  As percentage of December 1986

  December 1988

  As percentage of December 1987

  Gordon

  3,365

  160·2

  2,595

  77·1

  1,795

  69·2

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  8,612

  98·2

  7,835

  910

  6,427

  820

  Hamilton

  6,566

  104·4

  5,680

  86·5

  4,298

  75·7

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  6,967

  106·9

  6,026

  86·5

  4,998

  82·9

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  5,579

  98·5

  5,032

  90·2

  4,191

  83·3

  Kincardine and Deeside

  3,143

  1685

  2,483

  790

  1,825

  73·5

  Kirkcaldy

  5,074

  103·5

  4,628

  91·2

  3,882

  82·8

  Linlithgow

  5,716

  973

  4,580

  801

  3,443

  75·2

  Livingston

  5,236

  99·4

  4,412

  84·3

  3,255

  73·8

  Midlothian

  4,495

  1021

  4,146

  92·2

  3,364

  811

  Monklands East

  6,283

  105 5

  5,450

  86·7

  4,320

  79·3

  Monklands West

  5,050

  103·3

  4,519

  89·5

  3,495

  77·3

  Moray

  4,258

  1071

  3,663

  860

  3,159

  86·2

  Motherwell North

  6,597

  103·6

  5,545

  841

  4,373

  78·9

  Motherwell South

  5,432

  100 1

  4,571

  841

  3,853

  84·3

  North East Fife

  2,707

  1025

  2,450

  90·5

  1,914

  78·1

  North Tayside

  3,305

  110 1

  2,796

  84·6

  2,098

  750

  Orkney and Shetland

  1,849

  1163

  1,583

  85·6

  1,355

  85·6

  Paisley North

  5,424

  97·8

  5,095

  93·9

  4,097

  80·4

  Paisley South

  5,451

  97·7

  4,787

  87·8

  3,944

  82·4

  Perth and Kinross

  4,246

  1100

  3,507

  826

  2,724

  77·7

  Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  3,764

  100·5

  3,407

  90·5

  2,563

  75·2

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  5,275

  104·3

  4,994

  94·7

  3,948

  791

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  2,038

  105·8

  1,799

  88·3

  1,350

  750

  Stirling

  4,073

  96·8

  3,614

  88·7

  2,875

  79·6

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  3,661

  98·7

  3,183

  86·9

  2,492

  78·3

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1859

  1071

  1,499

  80·6

  1,268

  84·6

  Western Isles

  2,354

  127·8

  2,093

  88·9

  2,157

  1031

  Due to changes which have taken place in the compilation of the statistics during the period these figures are not directly comparable.

  Crofters' Commission
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conclusions he has drawn following his review of the Crofters' Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has accepted the main recommendation that the commission should remain in being as consituted. Most of the other recommendations were addressed to the commission which is now considering them. Consideration is also being given to those concerning the relationship between the commission and the Scottish Office and their respective responsibilities.

  Turnhouse Airport (Transport Interchange)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what study his Department has made of the proposal put forward by Bridgehead 2000 for a central Scotland transport interchange to be located at Turnhouse airport, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ritkind
  The proposals by Bridgehead 2000 raise in the first instance matters for consideration by BAA plc, as owners of the airport, and the British Rail board.

  Drug Offences
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Scottish Law Commission last examined the law as it relates to drug offences.
  394
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Law Commission has never examined the law in relation to drug offences.

  Population
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the population of Scotland at present; and what projections there are for how this will change over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The registrar general's latest estimate of the population of Scotland, which relates to 30 June 1987, is 5,112,129. Projected populations based on this figure are given in the table.

  Year

  Projected population COOOs)

  1988

  5,104

  1989

  5,097

  1990

  5,091

  1991

  5,085

  1992

  5,081

  1993

  5,077

  1994

  5,073

  1995

  5,069

  1996

  5,064

  1997

  5,059

  1998

  5,053

  1999

  5,046

  Source: Government Actuary's Department.

  Pupils
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils there are in Scotland at present in both primary and secondary sectors; and how these figures are expected to change over the next decade.
  395
  Mr. Rifkind
  The provisional numbers of pupils in education authority primary and secondary schools at September 1988 were 432,500 and 311,900 respectively. The most recent projections of pupil numbers are based on actual pupil numbers at September 1987 and are set out in the table.

  Primary

  Secondary

  1989

  436,700

  296,800

  1990

  439,000

  289,800

  1991

  438,500

  289,200

  1992

  439,400

  291,900

  1993

  443,400

  296,700

  1994

  451,100

  299,600

  1995

  459,900

  300,300

  1996

  468,700

  299,400

  1997

  476,500

  298,300

  1998

  483,900

  298,200

  Students
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many full-time and part-time students there are in both further and higher education in Scotland; and what projections there are for changes in these figures over the next decade.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The latest available student numbers and projections for Scotland are given in the table.

  Higher education

  Vocational non-advanced further education

  Session

  Full-time and sandwich

  Part-time

  Full-time and sandwich

  Part-time

  Actual:

  1986–87

  81,600

  45,900

  30,200

  154,700

  Projections:

  1987–88

  83,400

  49,800

  n/a

  1988–89

  84,400

  52,800

  n/a

  1989–90

  84,800

  55,900

  n/a

  1990–91

  84,700

  58,600

  n/a

  1991–92

  83,400

  61,000

  n/a

  1992–93

  81,900

  63,100

  n/a

  1993–94

  81,000

  65,000

  n/a

  1994–95

  80,000

  66,700

  n/a

  1995–96

  78,600

  68,000

  n/a

  1996–97

  78,100

  69,100

  n/a

  Notes

  1. The higher education projections have been taken from the high variant published in statistical bulletin No. 7/JI /1988 "Higher Education Projects for Scotland" which is available in the House.

  2. Vocational non-advanced further education comprises various types of student, such as school leavers continuing education, adults returning to education, persons on government employment schemes, and employees undertaking training on a part-time basis. Projections of student numbers for the whole group of students are not available.

  3. Over the period shown the base population of 17-year-olds is projected to fall by 25 per cent.

  Percentage of residential places in homes for the elderly at 31 March 1987

  Region

  Total number of places

  Local authority

  Voluntary

  Private

  Borders

  566

  62

  23

  15

  Central

  743

  63

  25

  12

  Dumfries and Galloway

  534

  61

  23

  16

  Fife

  1,120

  62

  19

  19

  Grampian

  1,830

  54

  36

  10

  Highland

  734

  62

  24

  14

  Lothian

  2,538

  56

  34

  10

  Strathclyde

  6,012

  65

  24

  11

  Prisoners
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners there are in Scottish prisons; and what is the average number for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The number of persons held in Scottish penal establishments at lock-up on Friday 20 January 1989 was 4,997. The average daily penal population in 1987 and 1988 is provisionally estimated as 5,446 and 5,229 respectively. For earlier years, corresponding figures are given in appendix 2 of the annual report "Prisons in Scotland Report for 1986" (Cm. 223) copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners in Scotland are on remand; and what this is as a proportion of the total number of prisoners at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The number of persons held on remand in penal establishments at lock-up on Friday 20 January 1989 was 782–16 per cent. of the penal population at that time.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of Scotland's prisoners have been imprisoned for non-payment of fines; and what is the average amount of fine involved at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Rifkind
  During December 1988 a total of 4 per cent. of the average daily prison population in Scotland had been imprisoned for non-payment of fines. Information is not available on the average amount of fine involved.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions he has given to health boards concerning the procedures to be followed before issuing a press release on competitive tendering.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards copy press releases to the Scottish Home and Health Department as part of their routine progress reports on competitive tendering.

  Elderly People (Residential Care)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of continuing care residential places are provided for the elderly(a) by local authorities, (b) by voluntary organisations and (c) by the private sector in each health board for (i) the year 1987 and (ii) the year 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest information by local authority area is set out in the table.
  397

  Region

  Total number of places

  Local authority

  Voluntary

  Private

  Tayside

  2,295

  46

  29

  25

  Orkney

  82

  85

  0

  15

  Shetland

  86

  81

  19

  0

  Western Isles

  200

  98

  0

  2

  Scotland

  16,740

  60

  27

  14

  Note: Because of roundings, the national totals exceed 100 per cent.

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the survey undertaken by East Kilbride district council on the attitudes of the residents of East Kilbride district to the consultation document, "The Scottish New Towns, Maintaining the Momentum", a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Lang
  I welcome the findings of the survey as a constructive contribution to the consultation process and recognise the professional manner in which the survey was conducted.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the method by which he will consult tenants within the Scottish new towns on the consultation document, "The Scottish New Towns, Maintaining the Momentum".

  Mr. Lang
  I expect shortly to consider proposals from my officials regarding the conduct of a survey in the Scottish new towns. I intend that the results of that survey will be published to inform the debate on the future of the Scottish new towns.

  Mr. Ingram
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the timetable of the consultation process that he proposes to undertake involving new town tenants in relation to the consultation document, "The Scottish New Towns, Maintaining the Momentum".

  Mr. Lang
  I expect that the fieldwork element of the Government commissioned survey will be completed in April and that a full report on the findings should be published in the early summer.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to commission a survey into the attitudes of new town residents to the issues raised within the consultation document, "The Scottish New Towns, Maintaining the Momentum".

  Mr. Lang
  Yes.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations which have responded to the consultation document, "The Scottish New Towns, Maintaining the Momentum", identifying district councils as potential landlords on the wind-up of the new towns.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his previous question of yesterday's date. It has not yet been possible to analyse the detailed contents of the responses received to date. I shall write to the hon. Member once these details are available.

  NHS (Reorganisation)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will visit East Kilbride to explain to the residents the Government's proposed reorganisation of the National Health Service.
  398
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I do not have any plans to visit East Kilbride for this purpose. We have given wide publicity to the Government's proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients" and the Lanarkshire health board is making information available locally.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations his Department is having with the Federation of Highlands and Islands Fishermen to discuss stock conservation, licensing and fisheries management; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is in regular contact with the Federation of Highlands and Islands Fishermen and its constituent bodies on matters of mutual concern, including conservation, licensing and fisheries management.

  City Technology Colleges Trust
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any meetings have taken place with the City Technology Colleges Trust involving Ministers or civil servants.

  Mr. Micheal Forsyth
  Yes.

  Locate in Scotland
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of inward investment projects attributed to Scotland by Locate in Scotland in each of the years 1981–82 to 1987–88, including the number of jobs involved, and the volume of expenditure.

  Mr. Lang
  : The following table shows the number of decisions to locate inward investment projects in Scotland as announced in the years 1981–82 to 1987–88.

  Number of projects

  Planned jobs

  Planned investment £ million

  1987–88

  88

  11,852

  337

  1986–87

  50

  5,084

  427

  1985–86

  58

  8,217

  562

  1984–85

  69

  9,443

  689

  1983–84

  54

  6,900

  166

  1982–83

  46

  5,400

  186

  1981–82

  32

  7,000

  234

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions have taken place with the Scottish Development Agency about the future of Locate in Scotland.
  399
  Mr. Lang
  There have been no discussions with the Scottish Development Agency regarding the future of Locate in Scotland. We recognise the substantial benefits which flow to Scotland from its activities and no changes are foreseen to its present method of operation.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any meetings have taken place with the Grant Maintained Trust involving Ministers or civil servants.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will commission a special study of areas near Kinloch, Rannoch and Carstairs in Scotland of the exposure experience to radioactivity from fall-out from the Chernobyl accident.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Studies already commissioned by the Department of the Environment and by the Scottish Office to evaluate exposures in Scotland resulting from the Chernobyl accident have been in progress for some time. The areas covered include Kinloch, Rannoch and Carstairs.

  Teachers (Incentive Allowances)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what incentive allowances exist for teachers in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]Teachers in Scotland do not receive incentive allowances; these are paid to certain teachers in schools in England and Wales. The average salary of teachers in Scotland is higher than that of England and Wales—£14,250 against £13,600 based on current pay scales.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Potatoes
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of United Kingdom potato production was treated with tecnazene in 1988 and in any of the previous five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Ryder
  No figures are available for the 1988 crop. Figures available from the 1986 crop in Scotland indicate that some 20 per cent. of stored ware potatoes were treated with tecnazene. This proportion is likely to be similar in the rest of the United Kingdom. New potatoes and main crop potatoes which are sold to consumers without being stored will not have been treated with tecnazene.

  In 1982 the latest year to which figures are available for England and Wales, they indicate that some 5 per cent. of potatoes stored on farms were treated with tecnazene but no data is available for off-farm stores. A further survey of the current use of tecnazene is planned for the 1988 crop.

  Meat Products
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks are made on the meat content of meat products; and what is the number of cases of inaccurate labelling of meat content in each of the last two years.
  400
  Mr. Ryder
  Where there is a statutory requirement regarding the meat content of a meat product or where such information is declared on the label, the enforcement of the relevant food law is undertaken by local authorities who are food and drugs authorities. Information on infringements of these laws is not held centrally.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what standards exist to specify and require the contents of meat products including beefburgers, sausages, salami, saveloys, haslet, and white pudding; what measures are taken to enforce those standards; and what information he has as to standards for meat products in other countries of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Meat Products and Spreadable Fish, Products Regulations 1984 require most meat products to bear a declaration of their minimum meat content on the label. In addition, they contain minimum meat content requirements for a number of products, including burgers and sausages. White pudding is not regarded as a meal: product for the purposes of the regulations but, in common with all foodstuffs, is subject to the general provisions of the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 and the Food Act 1984. Enforcement of this food law is carried out by those local authorities which are food and drugs authorities.

  My Department does not keep detailed information on standards for meat products in other member states of the European Community.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to implement, following the European Community directive on nitrates in drinking, ground and sea water, to minimise the leeching of nitrates from agricultural land.

  Mr. Ryder
  The document referred to is only a proposal at this stage and will have to be examined in detail and agreed by the Council of Ministers before any question of implementation arises.

  Farmers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all those subsidies, grants, tax-allowance and schemes currently available to British farmers.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 26 January 1989] : Market support measures, provided under the CAP, vary according to commodity but generally include some or all of the following: intervention purchase, private storage aid, production aid, livestock premia, import levies and export refunds, and minimum prices.

  In addition, national schemes have been introduced under EC and United Kingdom legislation. These include capital and non-capital grant schemes, the farm diversification grant scheme, hill livestock compensatory allowances, environmentally sensitive areas, set-aside and the farm woodland scheme.

  Questions concerning tax allowances are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether there is any connection between the Central Electricity Generating Board's nuclear power stations and the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  There is no connection between the Central Electricity Generating Board's nuclear power stations and the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what system nuclear materials have been deemed to be civil or military after the co-processing of safeguarded and unsafeguarded spent Magnox nuclear fuel at BNFL Sellafield since May 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 11 March 1988 at column 362.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any changes to announce to his Department's cash limits or running costs limit for 1988–89.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the following changes will be made. The cash limit for Class VI, Vote 2 will be increased by £58,223,000 from £277,922,000 to £336,145,000. This is to cover restructuring costs relating to the fast reactor programme and outstanding liabilities of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to British Nuclear Fuel plc for decommissioning and radioactive waste management operations. This increase is partly offset by savings of £5,077,000 on this Vote. The net increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The cash limit for Class VI, Vote 3 is increased by £1,275,000 from £26,788,000 to £28,063,000. This is the net effect of higher than forecast costs arising from the Piper Alpha technical investigation and public inquiry and on departmental staff and supporting services, plus provision for an extra Minister and the transfer of £3,000 to Class XX, Vote 1 as a contribution towards the costs of the direct entry grade 7 competition 1988. Savings of £291,000 have also been taken into account. The net increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Department of Energy's running cost limit will be increased by £827,000 from £28,249,000 to £29,076,000.

  Electricity Supply Industry Employees
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the rights of those electricity supply industry employees and former employees currently enjoying concessionary electricity tariffs will be protected after privatisation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am pleased to be able to confirm that we have received an assurance from the electricity supply industry that benefits such as this will not be affected by the changes resulting from privatisation.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has anything to add to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, (Dr. Thomas)Official Report, column 157, 17 January, concerning the total export figure for plutonium.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In compiling figures for the earlier answer, officials made a simple clerical error in combining sub-totals. The underlying data were not affected.

DEFENCE

  Infantry Soldiers (Ulster)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional pay rate or leave entitlement is granted to an infantry soldier serving in Ulster to that granted to one in the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Neubert
  : In the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, soldiers of the rank of corporal and below are entitled to 30 days leave. (All leave includes weekend days). In order to reflect the special circumstances of service in Northern Ireland soldiers serving in the Province:

  (a) Receive Northern Ireland pay at a current rate of £2.75 a day (taxable) to compensate them for the abnormally long and unsocial hours which they are required to work there.

  (b) Are exempted from paying food and accommodation charges if living in single accommodation, or receive the equivalent financial compensation if living in married accommodation.

  (c) Have an additional leave entitlement of seven four-day long weekends, which must be taken outside Northern Ireland.

  (d) Receive a total of seven leave warrants annually, if single or six if married and accompanied; married and accompanied soldiers are able to use their warrants to enable their families to travel with them to Great Britain three times per year.

  A soldiers basic pay does not vary from one theatre to another. In the British Army of the Rhine a soldier is entitled to local overseas allowance (not taxable) to compensate for the higher costs of living in Germany and is entitled to 42 days leave per year. He is entitled to three leave warrants annually. When battalions are sent from BAOR to Northern Ireland on four-month unaccompanied tours, married soldiers are entitled to retain 75 per cent. of their local overseas allowance, and single soldiers to retain 40 per cent. This is to compensate them for continuing commitments which they may have in Germany.

  RAF Upper Heyford
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to visit RAF Upper Heyford.

  Mr. Neubert
  I expect to visit RAF Upper Heyford when the full study into the costs and implications of realigning the runway at the base has been completed.

  Low-flying Exercises (Accidents)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of accidents in the United Kingdom and abroad during low flying exercises in 1987
  403
  and 1988, for each of the three services; and what is the cost of damage to, or loss of, aircraft of each of those services, at 1989 prices.

  Mr. Neubert
  It would not be possible, without disproportionate cost and effort, to provide this information for all accidents—many of them extremely minor—affecting aircraft of the three services. Since 1980 it has been the practice of this Government to publish in the statement on the Defence Estimates a complete list of all major accidents to aircraft of the three services. The information sought for 1987 was set out in considerable detail by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), in his two leters to the hon. Member dated 23 March and 16 August 1988.

  The information for 1988 is as follows:

  Number

  Royal Navy

  1

  Army

  1

  Royal Air Force

  4

  As for the publication of information on unit costs of equipment, I refer the hon. Member to column 811 of the Official Report for 14 December 1987.

  Procurement Executive (Unfilled Posts)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many posts in the Procurement Executive remained unfilled in each grade at the most recent convenient date; what steps he is taking to fill vacancies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The latest figures available as at 1 September 1988 show that a total of around 1,100 posts for scientists or engineers, and around 400 posts for administrative/clerical staff, were unfilled in the procurement executive, there were negligible numbers of vacant posts in the service grades and industrial grades. These unfilled posts are out of a total of some 35,000 posts, which include the research establishments, quality assurance, project management and procurement executive headquarters.

  A wide range of initiatives is in hand to make good these manpower shortfalls such as new pay arrangements and special pay additions to assist with recruitment and retention, national recruitment campaigns, changes in work patterns to introduce more flexibility, job sharing and short service contracts. Looking further ahead, relocation of major parts of the procurement executive away from the south-east is being considered, which should assist in recruitment and retention.

  Pilots (Voluntary Retirement)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many trained fast-jet pilots took premature voluntary retirement in(a) 1979, (b) 1980, (c) 1981, (d) 1982, (e) 1983, (f) 1984, (g) 1985, (h) 1986 and (i)

  Groupings of Trades

  Armaments

  Mechanical

  Electrical

  Electronic

  1988

  Total trained outflow

  170

  1,005

  310

  808

  Numbers who failed to complete engagement

  107

  517

  164

  436

  404
  Mr. Neubert
  The numbers of trained fast-jet pilots who took premature voluntary release are recorded within financial years; since 1979–80 the numbers are as follows :

  Number

  1979–80

  20

  1980–81

  21

  1981–82

  21

  1982–83

  15

  1983–84

  12

  1984–85

  28

  1985–86

  32

  1986–87

  24

  1987–88

  33

  11988–89

  31

  1 To January 1989.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many trained fast-jet pilots requested premature voluntary retirement in(a) 1979, (b) 1980, (c) 1981, (d) 1982, (e) 1983, (f) 1984, (g) 1985, (h) 1986 and (i)

  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested was not separately maintained prior to 1 April 1985. Since that date the number of trained fast-jet pilots who have requested premature voluntary release have been recorded within financial years, as follows.

  Number

  1985–86

  56

  1987–87

  51

  1987–88

  39

  11988–89

  33

  1 To 1 January 1989.

  Airmen (Engineering)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Royal Air Force airmen currently serve in each of the following categories(a) armament engineering, (b) mechanical engineering, (c) electrical engineering and (d) electronic engineering;

  (2) how many Royal Air Force airmen became qualified in 1988 to serve in the following branches (a) armament engineering, (b) mechanical engineering, (c) electrical engineering and (d) electronic engineering;

  (3) how many Royal Air Force airmen left the Royal Air Force in 1988 in each of the following categories (a) armament engineering, (b) mechanical engineering, (c) electrical engineering and (d) electronic engineering; and how many of these failed to complete their engagement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The numbers of ground airmen (including airwomen) in each category in each of the specified' groupings of trades are as follows:
  405

  Armaments

  Mechanical

  Electrical

  Electronic

  Numbers who entered trained strength in year

  275

  572

  246

  381

  Total trained numbers serving at 1 January 1989

  3,390

  15,447

  4,372

  11,127

  Radioactivity (Holy Loch)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes),Official Report, 23 January, column 407, he will set out the methods used to monitor the Holy Loch for radioactivity since 1960; on how many occasions annually such monitoring has been done; and where the results have been published.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had carried out monitoring of radio-activity in environmental materials and gamma dose rates in air at. Holy Loch since 1961. The results have been published annually since 1975 in aquatic environment monitoring reports, which also explain the frequency and methods used. Copies of these reports are available in the Library of the House.

  The Ministry of Defence has carried out its own monitoring of Holy Loch since 1965, which has comprised gamma dose rate measurements and analysis of sediment and biological samples. The frequency of monitoring has varied: at present, dose rate measurements are taken monthly and combined with quarterly sample analyses.

  The results of the MOD's own monitoring are not published; they are, however, consistent with those produced by MAFF.

  Contour Mapping Programme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has access to data from the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration sea beam seafloor contour mapping programme.

  Mr. Neubert
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the hydrographic surveying and charting of the United States exclusive economic zone which the NOAA is currently conducting. My Department has not had reason to seek to acquire data from this exercise.

  Royal Naval Shipyards (Radioactivity)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost, in each year at 1989 prices, since the commencement of the Military Atomic Energy programme began, of cleaning up radioactive contamination from accidents, leaks or routine operation at(a) AWE Aldermaston, (b) AERE Harwell, (c) AWE Burghfield, (d) AWE Caerwent, (e) Royal Naval shipyard, Chatham, (f) Royal Naval shipyard Rosyth, (g) Royal Naval shipyard Coulport, (h) Royal Naval shipyard Devonport, and (i) Royal Naval shipyard Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement on present progress in the environmental clean-up programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There has never been an accident or leak at a United Kingdom naval or AWE establishment which has required a major remedial radioactive decontamination programme or has resulted in any need to decontaminate the public environment.
  406
  AERE Harwell is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

  United States (Nuclear Production Facilities)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to offer technical assistance to the United States Department of Energy in the remedial clean-up programme of its military nuclear production facilities.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Any decontamination of United States military nuclear production facilities would be a matter for the United States Government.

  Falkland Islands (Argentine Yacht)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the Argentine yacht which breached the Falkland Islands security cordon on 29 or 30 January obtained clearance to do so from the British security forces;

  (2) whether he will order an investigation into the alleged breaching of the Falkland Islands exclusion zone by an Argentine yacht on 29 or 30 January.

  Mr. Neubert
  An Argentine yacht entered Port Stanley harbour on 27 January with a damaged rudder. Following repairs, it was escorted out and sent on its way the next day. It did not obtain the permission of the British Government to be in the area. Security measures in the Falklands are kept under review, and this episode will be taken into account in that process.

  Low Hying
  Mr. Rogers
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the average decibel level created at ground level by (a) Tornado aircraft, (b) Buccaneer aircraft, (c) Harrier aircraft, (d) Jaguar aircraft, (e) Phantom aircraft and (f) Hawk aircraft when flying at 450 mph and at a height of 250 ft;

  (2) what is the average decibel level created at ground level by (a) Tornado aircraft, (b) Buccaneer aircraft, (c) Harrier aircraft, (d) Jaguar aircraft, (e) Phantom aircraft and (f) Hawk aircraft when flying at 450 mph and at a height of 100 ft.

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

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of low-flying training carried out by the Royal Air Force was undertaken in the United States of America and Canada in each year from 1974 to 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  My Department does not keep records of the proportion of the Royal Air Force's training at low level conducted in the countries listed, and it would require disproportionate effort to cull this information from available statistics.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-level sorties were flown by United States Air Force aircraft in the United Kingdom in each year since 1980.
  407
  Mr. Neubert
  Records of low-level sorties by the United States Air Force in the United Kingdom were not kept prior to 1985. They flew 25,157 sorties in 1985, 25,217 in 1986 and 21,869 in 1987. The total statistics for 1988 are not yet available.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-level sorties were flown by British military aircraft in the United Kingdom in 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  Statistics for 1988 are not yet available.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the rate of major accidents for Royal Air Force aircraft which occurred during low-level operations in 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on 22 December 1988 at col.371 –72.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many major accidents have occurred to:(a) Tornado aircraft, (b) Buccaneer aircraft, (c) Harrier aircraft, (d) Jaguar aircraft, (e) Phantom aircraft and (f) Hawk aircraft during the low-flying operations in each year since 1980.

  Mr Neubert
  Since 16 August 1988, the following aircraft suffered major damage during low flying operations:

  Date

  Gazelle

  19 October 1988

  Jaguar

  7 September 1988

  Information on previous such accidents is contained in a letter dated 16 August 1988 from my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Cash Limits
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he proposes to make any changes to the defence cash limits and running costs limit for 1988–89.

  Mr. Younger
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary spring Supplementary Estimates the following changes are being made:

  Defence Cash Limits

  Class and Vote

  Current Cash Limit

  Increase/Decrease

  £'000s

  Revised Cash Limit

  I, 1

  7,775,660

  +72,434

  72,447 transferred from I, 3, I, 4 and I, 5, less 13 transferred to XX, 1

  7,848,094

  I, 3

  1,101,516

  -12,447

  Transferred to I, 1

  1,089,069

  I, 4

  1,581,212

  -30,000

  Transferred to I, 1

  1,551,212

  I, 5

  471,789

  -30,000

  Transferred to I, 1

  441,789

  These changes allow for transfers within the Ministry of Defence's block cash limit to reflect the pattern of expenditure now expected, and a decrease of £13,000 to offset a corresponding increase in the limit of the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (class XX, vote 1) for the transfer of costs for recruitment under the direct entry grade 7 competition 1988. These changes will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure. Running Costs Limit

  This limit is being increased by a net £3,221,000 to £5,411,054,000. It reflects an increase of £8,033,000 in respect of the running costs element of the restructuring costs of the PSA as it moves towards untying in 1990; and a decrease of £4,799,000 to compensate for an overspend in 1987–88. This follows the normal practice of reducing the limit for one financial year by the amount of the previous year's overspend. In addition, a decrease of £13,000 is required to offset the transfer to class XX, vote I mentioned above.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having being read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Bank Holidays: Distribution
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to ensure that bank holidays are more evenly distributed throughout the year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Government are reviewing the position of the May Day bank holiday, but no decision has yet been taken. We are looking at a wide range of options.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Government are considering the curious concentration of three bank holidays in April and May, followed by a very long gap with only the August holiday between those holidays and Christmas? Will the Government announce a decision in the near future?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, clearly when we have a late Easter there is considerable bunching of bank holidays in mid-spring, and that is one factor of which we are taking account in this review. As to when an announcement will be made, I cannot help the House.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, can the Government not agree to leave May Day alone in view of its tradition in this country? After all, many people like innocent amusements such as dancing round the maypole and attending May Day rallies, even if noble Lords opposite do not. Is there not a case for leaving matters as they are for the time being and perhaps considering more holidays in line with the Continent, where they have far more holidays than we have in this country?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government are well aware, and I am equally aware, that there is no consensus on this matter. However, there is no doubt that some people's attitudes follow the 1970s popular song which goes something like:
"Got along without you before I knew you, gonna get along without you now".
However, I must say that the Government have not yet formed that view and may never do so.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is it not strange that in a period of 11 weeks we shall have five holidays and then a long gap from the end of May until the end of August when the weather is normally somewhat better? We raise this matter every year. We cannot
1206
wait for the Church for ever. We defy the Church often enough. Can we not defy it on this matter?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, because of the date of Easter, the problem is not so severe this year, but it will be severe in 1990 and 1992.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that an Act exists dated 1928 which provides for a fixed date for Easter? It only requires an Order in Council for that to be implemented. Does the noble Lord realise that that would probably be greatly welcomed by the Christian community and would put us alongside the Synod of Whitby and St. Hilda?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I believe that the right reverend Prelate refers to the Easter Act 1928. My understanding is that that can only be implemented with the agreement of all the Churches. Some branches of the Orthodox Church remain opposed and therefore the prospects of that reform are somewhat remote.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not well known that dancing round the maypole is a well-known fertility rite and that the accompanying amusements are anything but innocent?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in another part of my work in government 1 am concerned with the birth rate, but I do not think that the two subjects necessarily go together.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, arising from that question, may we be informed when the Opposition Front Bench may be seen dancing round the maypole?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I very often have difficulty in walking and I do not think that your Lordships will see me dancing just yet.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that it is necessary to fix a date for Easter before the problem which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is settled?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no. Because of the difficulty in fixing a date for Easter to which I have already referred, it will be necessary to change other bank holidays in that period rather than Easter Monday.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, will the Minister have another look at the Easter Act 1928 to find out whether it says that the Churches must agree or whether it says that the Churches must be consulted, which are two very different things?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I know from previous experience of this House that the noble Lord has much more experience of the Easter Act than I have. I shall undertake to look at the matter again, but I referred to my understanding of it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while no one wishes to inhibit the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, from dancing round the maypole to her heart's content, is my noble friend aware that May Day only very occasionally coincides with the May Day holiday because of the provision that it has to be on a Monday?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes; I am well aware of that. There is no reason why one should not dance round a maypole on a Sunday or any other day of the week.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, in view of the British weather being so important to us, might not Her Majesty's Government consider St. Swithun's Day, 15th July, as suitable for a public holiday?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes. All suggestions are gratefully received. Many people do not want the bunching, as has been underlined by the various comments made as a result of my noble friend's Question today.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in view of what was said by the noble Lord about the intentions of the Opposition in this matter, may we be informed where we can find a maypole?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I understand that maypoles are objects of interest of a very temporary nature. Therefore, one will not necessarily find them in the same place each year.

Water Privatisation: Consumer Protection
2.38 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
What protection there will be for consumers who receive poor service from water companies after privatisation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Water Bill provides important new safeguards to protect customers from poor service. We are maintaining and introducing new statutory rights for customers. The new Director General of Water Services has a responsibility to ensure that the quality of service is maintained and where appropriate improved.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very helpful reply. Will compensation be paid to water consumers who make an appointment for somebody from the water board to call to look at the meter who in fact does not come when the consumer has waited all day for him? Will that be covered?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the number of hoped for improvements are quite substantial. That is why I confined my original Answer. However, I assure my noble friend Lady Strange that there will be something called the guaranteed standards scheme
1208
which will provide the sort of protection for which she asks. It will particularly involve such matters as appointments being kept on a day notified, and if they are not kept on the day notified, there will be a fine.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in regard to the provision of water after privatisation and the rights of people to make complaints, can the noble Lord confirm whether people will also have the right to protest at the use of the land involved—much of it some of the most beautiful parts of the nation—or if it is sold, possibly to foreign organisations as well as representatives of foreign governments? That is irking many people. Will our right to complain on all those scores remain?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I feel that that question is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is it true that water charges are likely to rise by 13 per cent., as reported in the press this morning?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, again, I feel that that question is wide of the Question on the Order Paper which specifically refers to services and the rights of consumers after privatisation.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, referring to the Question, poor service from water companies also includes the quality of the water? In yesterday's debate I gave two examples from Luton and Dunstable of polluted water. Can the Minister tell the House who will be responsible, after privatisation, for cleaning up the water that is drunk by the citizens of this country and what provision will be made to ensure that the instances I gave yesterday are dealt with promptly and efficiently?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, will be aware that, sadly, I was unable to be here to listen to his speech yesterday but I hope that I can provide a satisfactory answer. The Bill will provide a new and strengthened legal basis for drinking water quality standards. Under the Bill regulations will reflect the requirements of the European Community drinking water directive, and a general duty on all water undertakers to supply only water which is wholesome will be enforced by the Secretary of State. Moreover, it will become a criminal offence to supply water that is unfit for human consumption.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is increasing concern among consumers about their position under the privatised system, bearing in mind that the privatised companies will still be monopolies? A great deal of reassurance will be required, if the legislation is to go through, to show that consumers will not be worse off.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I give an example to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, of where I hope the consumer will be better off. The existing consumer consultative committees are appointed by the water authorities.

1209
The chairman and vice-chairman are normally members of the authority. The new customer services committees will be independent of the new companies and will be appointed by the director-general.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Question Time in this House is too valuable to be used for Second Reading debates on legislation which has not yet come before us?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in congratulating the noble Lord on his appointment to the Department of the Environment, may I ask him to reconsider his answer to my noble friend Lord Strabolgi? Surely price is part of the service and if the price becomes excessive the consumer is getting a poorer service. Secondly, will the Minister confirm that the controls to be exercised by the director-general of water supplies apply only to water supply and sewerage and not to the other activities of the new water companies?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his kind words. In answer to the first part of his question, I will be more than happy to reply to his noble friend Lord Strabolgi if he puts down a Question concerning price. The Question on the Order Paper clearly refers to the services received and the protection thereafter.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord prepared to consider that Britain's rambling associations and horse riding clubs are also, to a degree, consumers of land which will ultimately be privatised?
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will their views be taken into account?

Hong Kong Chinese: EC Passports
3.15 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements they propose to make for the issue of EC passports to Hong Kong Chinese British dependent territory citizens comparable to those made by the Portuguese authorities for Macau Chinese citizens.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, Hong Kong British dependent territory citizens and British nationals overseas will in due course be issued with British passports in Hong Kong which are similar to the EC common format passport but without the Community references. Neither these arrangements nor those being made by the Portuguese authorities in Macau will affect the immigration and nationality status of those concerned under existing legislation.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider this matter again? I understand very
1210
well why Sir Geoffrey Howe has great confidence in the agreement made with the Chinese Government for what goes on after 1997, but the greatest confidence would be shown if people in Hong Kong were able to have EC passports or their equivalent and vote with their feet if a subsequent Chinese Government did not honour the agreement. It is also the case that very few Hong Kong Chinese would come here because they do not like the climate or our penal taxation system. On the contrary, Britain stands seventh in favourite countries to which to emigrate. It is unlikely that many such passports would ever be used.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think that it will be possible to think again because we are committed to the Joint Declaration and to working for the continued stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. I should have thought that what: the noble Lord proposes would work the opposite way to that which he intends.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it the case that 100,000 Portuguese citizens of Macau are holding EC passports and the right to settle in this country, whereas holders of British passports resident in Hong Kong have no such right? Is not that a serious anomaly? To what extent have Her Majesty's Government discussed this with other governments in the Community to see whether the anomaly can be corrected?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. That possibility has been apparent for many years, as the noble Lord is aware, and the present British nationality law reflects views expressed by Parliament during the passage of the British Nationality Act 1981 and, indeed, in earlier nationality and immigration Acts. We are seeking to create conditions in which people will want to stay in Hong Kong. They are, of course, free to leave and they are also at liberty to return as, indeed, many do. Concerning contacts with other governments, I can certainly say that there has been no recent contact with the Portuguese Government on this matter.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us are scared to death at the thought of over 100,000 people, who have nothing whatever to do with Britain but who nevertheless have such passports, coming to live here? It frightens the life out of me.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I said, it is important to build where we can on the conditions which will make Hong Kong an attractive place in which people can live, work and plan their lives.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Chinese Government made no objection to the issuing of EC passports by the Portuguese? There is considerable evidence that they would raise no objection to this country doing the same for the Hong Kong Chinese. The greatest confidence that could be shown by the Peking Government is that people could go away if that Government did not honour the agreement after 1997. The noble Lord is standing confidence on its

1211
head. It is the Peking Government which must have confidence in the willingness of Hong Kong residents to stay, not the other way round.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord's argument is flawed because it is difficult to see how the Chinese would welcome a move which could be used as a sanction against violation by them of the Joint Declaration. The noble Lord's argument is muddled.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Derwent: My Lords, although I sympathise with the problems of my noble friend the Minister, is he aware that this single issue is now causing a great deal of resentment against Britain, even among those Chinese in Hong Kong who do not wish to come here or have a passport? In the interests of Britain, it is not wise to antagonise the smaller businessmen and executives with whom all British trade will have to take place after 1997.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is confusing the general issue that was discussed during the passage of the British Nationality Act with the matter of others who might, for one reason or another, want to come here. There are cases where those who wish to come to invest in this country can come under the rules that my noble friend knows.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have read—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford:—the entire draft agreement and nothing—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I believe that the reason why noble Lords are calling "Order!" is that Question Time is supposed to be an opportunity to ask for information. Some of us get the impression that on this occasion he is giving rather than asking for information.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, if the Government cannot match what the Portuguese Government have done, will they consider reviewing the operation of Section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act, which applies to a comparatively restricted number of Hong Kong people?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, Section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act is a matter for the Home Secretary's discretion. It was made perfectly plain during the passage of that Act that the use to be made of that section would be very sparing.

BBC Overseas Service Funding
3.21 p.m.
Lord Gridley Lord Gridley asked Her Majesty's Government:
How funding for the BBC Overseas Service has altered in real terms since 1979.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, including this financial year, the annual funding of the BBC World Service has increased by some 46 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which might be considered fairly reasonable as far as it goes. But does it really cover a huge concern like the Overseas Service of the BBC? In particular, has he seen the comments made by the director general, Michael Checkland, in the BBC annual report for 1987-–88 in which he states that in order to bolster the power and safety of the BBC in the coming decade it will be necessary to establish a TV world service, as well as providing the ordinary BBC broadcasting service that goes out! Those remarks were echoed—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Gridley:—by some of his directors. If this service is unable to be funded, can my noble friend say what is to be done? I understand that funds have been created but the Government are unable to use them.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Government considered very carefully the BBC request for public funds in order to start up a world television news service. We noted that a commercial world television news service started without public funds and we concluded that the provision of public funds to the BBC for this purpose was not justified.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the Government confirm that the foreign language services of the BBC will not be reduced, as these services are broadcast in 36 languages to over 100 million people?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there are no plans to reduce them. The output in terms of hours has increased from 711 to 768 a week.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that though the funding of the overseas service has been more stable in recent years, nevertheless the increases that he has just mentioned have mainly gone into capital expenditure and that it needs a considerable amount of operating expenditure to work the new transmitters? Does he agree that, if one considers the general level of inflation over the next two years, there is going to be a decrease in the amount of money available for the BBC to operate these services in real terms?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that will be looked at when we come to consider the next triennia. These matters are fixed three years at a time, so that will be decided in the 1990 public expenditure round.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the money actually available for the making of programmes and their broadcasting looks like falling by as much as 2·5 per cent. in real terms in two years' time, assuming inflation at 6 per cent? If that is the case—and I shall be glad to be told that is wrong because it is very disappointing—can my noble friend say whether the Government will consider topping up the grant-in-aid for current expenditure as opposed to capital expenditure, between which he made no distinction in reply to the main Question?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot confirm that the figure of 2.5 per cent. which my noble friend quotes is correct. It is worth putting this matter in context. The total of £89.4 million for current expenditure in 1988–89 amounts to roughly what it costs to run all British embassies and consulates in Eastern and Western Europe and the Middle East. It is also 50 per cent. more than the Foreign and Commonwealth Office spends worldwide on export promotion. It is also over 50 per cent. more than the British Council diplomatic wing fundings. So in total it is a very significant amount.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord has just said, is it not the fact that the money for actual programmes is being squeezed for reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has given and for other reasons as well? For example, has not the BBC taken over three relay stations owned by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Will the noble Lord be good enough to convey these facts to his right honourable and learned friend so that this remarkable service can be treated fairly?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, while it is understandable that the service should be worried that its recurrent expenditure might be diminished to some extent because of the importance of carrying out the capital works, that work is the most important part of the operation. If the programmes cannot be heard, it is not going to do anyone any good at all. As regards the three transmitters, the grant-in-aid was topped up to take account of the cost of running those three transmitters.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, can the Minister say on what basis a new service in Korea was turned down by the Government and whether it was a decision reached purely on a financial basis? Can he also say whether there were any other reasons and whether the industrial importance of the area was borne in mind?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, all these matters are carefully considered. There have to be priorities. The current priorities are to improve audibility in the subcontinent and in southern Africa.
Lord Morris: My Lords, we all enjoy playing these creative accounting games, but will my noble friend ensure that Her Majesty's Government restate their full support for the programme-making and the ability to transmit programmes from Bush House, as they have done in the past? Can he also say that the
1214
Government will try hard to support the revenue cost of Bush House?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can certainly confirm to my noble friend that the standard of broadcasts from Bush House is universally respected wherever one goes in the world.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House where the British Overseas Service stands now in the league table of output per hours compared to where it stood in relation to such services as "The Voice of America" in 1979?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot give comparative figures with "The Voice of America" in output per hours. The BBC is estimated to have 120 million regular listeners abroad, excluding China, which is the largest of any external broadcaster. The figure is roughly divided into 20 million listeners in English and 100 million in vernacular languages.

Children Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 13,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 14 to 25,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 26 to 35,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 36 to 48,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 49 to 52,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 53 to 55,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 56 to 60,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 61 to 78,

Schedules 8 to 11,

The Title.—[The Lord Chancellor.]

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Atomic Energy Bill [H.L.]
3.29 p.m.
Report received.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 22, at end insert—
("(6A) If at any time Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom calls for assistance under paragraph I of Article 2 of the Convention, the Secretary of State shall take such steps as are necessary to make public the fact that a call for assistance has been made, the nature of the assistance called for and the reasons for making the call.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if in moving

1215
Amendment No. 1 I speak also to Amendment No. 2.
In Committee last week we debated the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, requiring the Secretary of State to inform the public in the event of a call for assistance by Her Majesty's Government under the terms of the Mutual Assistance Convention. As I made clear then, we do not believe that such a duty is strictly necessary since in the very unlikely event of a nuclear accident of radiological safety significance in this country, the fullest information would be given to the public under existing national arrangements. Bulletins would be very frequent indeed, particularly in the case of a major accident, and it is really only in connection with an accident of this kind of significance that we can envisage making a call for assistance from outside the United Kingdom. Nevertheless there was clearly strong support in the Committee for the argument that if there was no difference between us as to the need for full public information, we should give expression to that in the Bill. The proposed amendment to Clause 5 is a response to that view and is no different in substance from the amendment put down by the noble Lord in Committee.
Amendment No. 2 to the Long Title of the Bill is a consequence of the amendment to Clause 5, the remainder of which is concerned with matters necessary for giving effect to the convention. The amendment brings the new provision about public information within the Long Title of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Baroness for taking into account our feelings in Committee and for bringing forward this amendment which satisfies us as regards the amendment I moved in Committee. I never like to look a gift-horse in the mouth—certainly, the noble Baroness cannot be described in those terms—but our discussion in Committee ranged somewhat beyond the admittedly narrow scope of my amendment. It moved to nuclear incidents falling within the terms of the convention which happen outside the United Kingdom.
Perhaps I may refer the noble Baroness to what she said at col. 847 of the Official Report of 26th January. In response to my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, she said:
"The Government have no quarrel at all with the principle that the public should be kept fully informed in the event of a nuclear accident of radiological safety significance, whether it occurs in this country or abroad".
While I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tracking my amendment, I wonder whether she would care to comment—she knows that 1 gave her notice of this point—on the possibility that at Third Reading there might be an extension of the amendment to make sure that if the Government either call for or are called on for assistance, then within reasonable parameters it should be made public.
1216
I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to comment on what I have said. In the meantime, I express my gratitude for what she has done already.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, as I took part in the Committee stage last week I should like to add my thanks to those of my noble friend Lord Williams for the understanding shown by the noble Baroness to the arguments that were put forward a week ago. Like my noble friend, I am a little disappointed at the narrowness of the terms of her amendment.
In what I said last week I gave an instance of the effects and the continuing effects of Chernobyl, which is outside the United Kingdom. What the Government presumably want, as we do, is that the British public should be fully aware, and be made fully aware, of the consequences of any nuclear accident whether it takes place in the United Kingdom or outside. Such an accident could well affect the people of the United Kingdom even if the accident did not take place within the United Kingdom. Like my noble friend, I hope that the noble Baroness will again show an empathy with the feeling of the House and at Third Reading extend the amendment or introduce another amendment so that the force of the amendment is not confined to accidents within the United Kingdom but applies to nuclear accidents wherever they may take place.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, described the concession made by the noble Baroness as a gift-horse. I regard it as somewhat of a sop to Cerberus. I hope that Cerberus in his various forms will accept it and that the noble Baroness will stick to her guns at Third Reading.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, on these Benches we are pleased to see the amendment and fully support it. There is substance in the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. As we have seen from Chernobyl and other experiences of that kind, if such an event were to occur, publicity would immediately arise anyway. Nevertheless, it would be useful if we were to know whether an approach had been made to the Government to help in those circumstances. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will see her way to making that further amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am grateful for the amendment. Unlike my noble friend Lord Hatch I am not disappointed with it. The amendment goes nearly as far as we want it to go. However, I hope that in her wisdom, and in the wisdom of her department, the noble Baroness will listen to what has been said. As we saw after Chernobyl, nuclear accidents cause worldwide problems and we need worldwide attention to deal with them. If she could go a little further noble Lords on all sides of the House would be extremely grateful. The British people and other peoples could then sleep just a little more quietly in their beds.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I recognise that the discussion in Committee was more wide-ranging in its scope than the amendment then on the Order Paper warranted. I shall of course read what has been

1217
said to ensure that I fully take on board the points made. 1 can confirm that the Government have no quarrel with the principle that the public should be kept fully informed in the event of a nuclear accident of radiological significance whether it occurs in this country or abroad.
As I said at Second Reading, the Mutual Assistance Convention was drawn up as a consequence of the lessons learnt from Chernobyl. Your Lordships may wish to be reminded of the example of the request for assistance from Brazil in September 1987 following the release of radiation from a disused medical source in Goiania, to which the Government responded and which was made known to the public in the way that noble Lords would wish.
I can understand from his explanation this afternoon that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, desires to go as far as possible with this amendment within the terms of the convention. But there is a difference in relation to calls for assistance from abroad from the situation covered by the noble Lord's amendment in Committee and the amendment before us now. In the case of calls for assistance from abroad we must have regard to Article 6(2) of the convention. I quote:
"The assisting party shall make every effort to co-ordinate with the requesting state before releasing information to the public on the assistance provided in connection with a nuclear accident or radiological emergency".
Clearly we would make every effort and I am sure that the noble Lord and others accept that. But there are practical considerations of co-ordination which have to he taken into account.
So we are not in exactly the same position to impose duties in relation to situations where we have been called upon for assistance as we are when we are calling for assistance. I believe that the amendment as it stands goes as far as we can go and responds to the concerns expressed in Committee. I trust that your Lordships will find it acceptable. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 2:
Line 6, leave out ("give effect to") and insert ("make provision in connection with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is now beginning its progress through Parliament in your Lordships' House. It has already generated a good deal of interest and I know that many noble Lords have expressed a wish to speak today. We look forward to hearing the debate. The Bill's purpose is to deal with the problems of hooliganism associated with football, in this country and abroad, in so far as they involve English and
1218
Welsh people. Its main provisions are in two parts. Part I provides for a statutory framework for a national membership scheme for football spectators. Part II gives the courts powers to impose restriction orders on convicted hooligans to prevent them from travelling to English matches abroad.
Your Lordships will recall the immediate background to the Government's decision to legislate on this subject. Serious incidents at the end of the domestic season in May last year were followed by the disgraceful scenes involving so-called English football supporters in West Germany during the European championships in June. On 6th July my right honourable friend the Prime Minister met the football authorities to discuss these problems. She invited them to establish a national membership scheme on a voluntary basis. It is worth recalling that they refused and that she said that the Government would therefore bring forward legislation to require the establishment of such a scheme.
There is one point which I should clarify at the outset of the debate. The Bill is not concerned with the idea of a national identity card. It proposes that people who wish to go to a designated football match should have to obtain a membership card first. If they behave like hooligans, the card will be withdrawn. The concept is entirely different from that of a national identity card that someone could carry all the time, either on a voluntary or a compulsory basis.
Hooliganism has long been associated with football. There were incidents before the First World War and between the wars. But the problem has been endemic since the 1960s and during that period support for the game has fallen dramatically—from a total attendance at league and cup matches of 35 million in 1967–68 to 21 million last season. Of course, hooliganism is not the only reason for the decline in support; but it is a major factor.
We regard the Bill as part of the package of measures that have been taken to deal with the problem in recent years by government, police, and football authorities. The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol) Act 1985 imposed restrictions on the sale of alcohol at football grounds. The Public Order Act 1986 empowered the courts to impose exclusion orders on convicted hooligans, banning them from attending football matches. Police intelligence and co-ordination both nationally and internationally have been strengthened. Football clubs have also taken action, some with more commitment than others, and, I am afraid, largely as a result of continuing pressure from public opinion and from the Government. Those include effective segregation of rival groups of supporters, closer co-operation between the clubs and the local police forces and, most important, the installation of closed-circuit television; the last largely thanks to the financial support of the Football Trust.
The Government welcome those measures. Unfortunately, they have not been enough. More is needed inside football grounds. The effect has been to keep the lid on the problem, not to cure it. At too many matches, violence remains just below the surface. Rival supporters have to be kept apart by physical barriers and by the employment of large

1219
numbers of police. When there is a slip in those separation arrangements, violence follows.
We also have a serious problem outside football grounds. The behaviour of rival gangs can make life intolerable both for law-abiding football supporters and for people who live or trade near football grounds or wish to travel by train on the same day as a football match.
On the whole, the police manage to keep that threat of violence in check. But the cost is very high. On one weekend in November last year, more than 5,000 police officers, together with dogs and horses as necessary, were deployed to keep order among football crowds. The same exercise is repeated every weekend throughout the season and the ratepayer and the taxpayer have to foot most of the bill. Unfortunately, football has become a focus for hooligans and for violent behaviour in a way that other sports have not. There have been occasional problems elsewhere, but not on remotely the same scale or frequency as football. This Bill deals only with football.
Part I of the Bill provides a statutory framework for a national membership scheme for football spectators and for the licensing of football grounds in relation to the scheme. It is an enabling measure, not because the Government wish to keep the details of the scheme to themselves but because we want the football authorities to work up the details of the scheme in consultation with the Government, the police and other interested parties. The scheme must satisfy the requirements of the Bill but it will be for football to run it. I welcome the early indications we have received from the president of the Football League and the chairman of the Football Association that they accept this approach.
Clause 1 is the interpretation clause. It also provides for the Secretary of State to designate, by order, those matches to which the membership scheme would apply. The Government's present intention is that the Secretary of State should designate all matches between Football League clubs, in league and cup competitions. There will need to be special arrangements within the scheme for matches between league and non-league clubs and for international matches. The Secretary of State for the Environment would designate matches in England; the Secretary of State for Wales matches in Wales.
Clause 2 of the Bill proposes that it should be an offence for anyone to attend or to attempt to attend a designated match, except as an authorised spectator. An authorised spectator is either a member of the scheme or someone allowed for by a specific exemption within the scheme. Those who attend matches for professional reasons other than simply to watch the game—for example, club employees, caterers, ambulancemen, policemen and reporters—are exempted by the Bill itself.
Clauses 3 to 5 deal with the appointment of the body to run the scheme and with its contents. It will be for this body, which we refer to as the Football Membership Authority, to submit the scheme to the Secretary of State for approval. He will of course take an interest in the constitution and membership of the
1220
authority itself. Clause 5 of the Bill spells out the requirements which the scheme will have to satisfy but it does not prescribe the details of how they are to be satisfied; for example, what technology is to be used. That will be for the FMA to consider in the scheme it submits to the Secretary of State.
The scheme will provide for the Football Membership Authority to disqualify from membership those who misbehave. If a criminal offence is involved, Clause 6 and Schedule 1 come into play. Anyone convicted of a relevant offence would be disqualified for a period of two or five years, depending on the severity of the sentence. The Football Membership Authority will also have discretion to ban others who misbehave.
I know that some concern has already been expressed, not least by the National Council for Civil Liberties, about the provisions for discretionary bans. We must not forget that it is already open to clubs to ban people if they wish. Indeed, they do so. The Bill will make the situation different in that it will ensure that hooligans banned from one club cannot simply go to another to cause trouble. That is one of the great advantages which it offers.
The scheme will need to contain clear rules and criteria by which the Football Membership Authority is to exercise its discretion, covering the circumstances in which membership will be withdrawn and for how long. The Government have said that they intend that the maximum length of a discretionary ban should be two years. There will also he an independent appeals procedure for those who are disqualified.
There is a further provision in Clause 5 which should reassure those who are worried about the civil liberties aspects of the Bill. Members of the scheme will have the full protection of the Data Protection Act 1984, in terms of access to information held about them and in relation to the use to which such information can be put. If they do not want their names to appear on mailing lists when the clubs develop the commercial opportunities of the scheme, it is our intention that they should be able to say so. It would also be an offence for anyone applying to join the scheme knowingly to use false or misleading information in support of his application.
Clauses 7 to 10 provide for the licensing of football grounds. Clause 7 proposes that it should be an offence for a club, or anyone else, to admit spectators to a designated match on an unlicensed ground. Licences will be granted by the Secretary of State or by a body appointed by him.
The main point of the licensing system will he to ensure that clubs have the equipment and are following the procedures they need to follow to enable the national membership scheme to work. The scheme will allow for occasional breakdowns of machinery but, if a club deliberately ignores the conditions of its licence, it will run the risk of conviction for a criminal offence. If it is seriously or persistently in breach of its licence, the Bill provides for a licence to be suspended or revoked.
I should also say something about the implementation and the costs of the scheme. When the report of the Minister for Sport's working party

1221
on the scheme was published on 9th November, he said that the Government's target date for implementation was the spring of 1990, subject to the will of Parliament and to the availability of the appropriate technology. That remains our target, but we must be confident that the technology will work when the scheme begins.
The costs of the scheme will be for football to find. There is no good reason to believe that it will drive the smaller clubs out of business, any more than the Safety at Sports Grounds Act did, despite cries of alarm that were voiced at the time. Several companies have already come forward with offers to introduce the scheme free of charge to football and supporters. Others envisage an annual fee for a card less than the average cost of attending just one match at most clubs. If the clubs take a positive approach to the commercial opportunities of the scheme, they can benefit from it.
I turn now to Part II of the Bill, which deals directly with the problem of English football hooligans abroad. We have all been appalled at the behaviour of some so-called English supporters abroad. They have brought about the banning of English clubs from European competitions; they brought disgrace on the English national team in West Germany last June—and on the country as a whole.
Clauses 11 to 15 provide that when someone is convicted of a relevant offence, as defined in the Bill, the court may also impose a restriction order requiring him, or her, to report to an agency when certain matches take place abroad. Restriction orders will run for the same periods as automatic disqualification from membership of the scheme in this country—two years or five depending on the severity of the sentence. In any case, the court must be satisfied that a restriction order would help to prevent or reduce violence or disorder at matches abroad.
Clauses 16 to 18 govern the operation of reporting agencies. The reporting agency will set the time at which someone subject to an order must attend, so as to ensure that he cannot attend the match. Offenders will have rights of appeal against the court's decision to impose restriction orders. But once the order is made, failure to report when required will be itself a criminal offence.
Clause 19 allows for an application to be made for a restriction order in cases where someone resident here has been convicted of a relevant offence outside England and Wales. It is not entirely straightforward to establish just which offences are relevant in countries which have different legal systems from our own. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will specify in advance which countries and which offences are to be relevant for this part of the Bill. It will then be up to other countries to let us have evidence of relevant convictions.
I recognise that there has been some concern about the Government's proposals from within the police force and from football itself. Some of the police are already convinced of the advantages. The Association of Chief Police Officers was represented on the Minister of Sport's working party and
1222
welcomed its findings; the Police Superintendents' Association has come out in support. We shall be discussing the Bill with the Police Federation next week. I hope that in time the Police Federation will see how useful the scheme can be to its members.
As for the clubs, it is natural that they should be concerned about the impact of the scheme; but a number of them are beginning to take a positive approach. I hope that more will do so, because we believe it to be in the interests of football that we should work together in devising an effective scheme.
It used to be said that strikes were the English disease. Thankfully, there are relatively few strikes these days. The phrase "the English disease" has more recently been used to conjure up images of football hooligans. The Bill offers the prospect that that association will be broken as well, both in this country and abroad. In this country, hooligans will know that they will not be allowed into football matches. Violence can be brought to an end not only inside grounds but outside grounds as well. The thugs will have no reason to travel to football matches and the link between football and hooliganism can be broken. Football will cease to be a focus for violence. When the England team plays abroad convicted hooligans will not be able to go with them and disgrace the name of this country.
The Bill is in the interests of football and of the country as a whole. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
3.55 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the Minister for the care that he has taken to explain the Bill in detail. I am conscious that we are privileged to have first bite at the cherry in this House. I represent the views of my party and I shall also represent the views of millions of men and women, young and old, who share my party's view that the Bill is a bad Bill, a sad Bill, an unnecessary Bill.
Last week, many in your Lordships' House listened to, and were impressed by, the views of highly respected voices in football—Mr. Irving Scholar of Tottenham Hotspur, Mr. Jack Dunnett of the Football League and other football administrators. All are agreed that hooliganism besmirches football and must be fought with might and main. The Bill will not do that. It is an affront to millions of football fans for whom the game is the beginning and end of their joy, their dream, and, yes, their very lives. When someone remarked to the late, great, much loved Bill Shankley of Liverpool that football was a matter of life and death he said that it was much more important than that. There are millions of people who share that view.
My noble friend Lord Wallace of Coslany told us recently how proud he was to be the president of the Capital Canaries. He follows Norwich City, and he will have enjoyed the Millwall/Norwich match recently, as did millions of others watching on television. I attended that match, and I can tell the Minister that his blunt instrument of a Bill is deeply

1223
resented in clubs such as Millwall. For the Minister, the clock stopped at some point in time which conveniently showed the ugly face of football, yes, at Millwall and at other clubs. In recent years, that club has thrown out of the window the shoddy image that it, along with others, had gained. In addition to crowd segregation, closed circuit television, extra police and improved communications, Millwall has in its own phrase:
"given the club back to the community".
Ties with its community are strengthened, which is why I am proud to stand in your Lordships' House wearing a Millwall Football Club tie.
What the Government refuse to acknowledge is that the League and the Association, the Football Trust, led by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the clubs, the fans, the players and the police have been working together for the good of football, patiently but successfully, for a considerable time. That is why the authorities, the clubs, the supporters, the players and the police deeply resent the way that those efforts have been ignored.
No one has condoned or excused the behaviour of some fans and clubs over the years. The Government are right. There is a problem. The catalyst to which we all refer was the Heysel Stadium disaster of three years ago. Before that event, many elements had begun to take the problem seriously, perhaps late, perhaps inadequately, but nevertheless, based on a deep knowledge and love of the game. What they resent as much as anything is the arrogance of those who, like many of us, but no more and no less, were deeply shocked by those dreadful scenes. "Something must be done" became the watchword; the identity card has become the passport. Their contacts with and knowledge of the game come mainly from an annual seat at Wembley to watch the Cup Final, if that, unlike the experience of those summoned to No. 10 Downing Street for a series of meetings. Let me tell the House, from the report of the ministerial working party, what those experienced, knowledgeable men told the Prime Minister:
"The Presidents of the Football League and the Football Association told the Prime Minister that they disputed strongly the necessity for an identity card scheme. They argued that over the past season there have been few incidents of crowd disorder within football grounds. The football authorities said they had co-operated fully with the Government on the measures to curb hooliganism contained in the agreement following meetings with Government Ministers in 1985 and 1986."
Let us hear no more that the football authorities are behind the identity card scheme. They are not. They never have been but they will, as law abiding citizens, obey the law passed by Parliament. But please do not saddle them with this hare-brained scheme. Of course I exclude the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, from any charge of ignorance of football because in his Answer to a Question I put to him last week he told the House that he was an ex-director of a club. I can tell the noble Lord how that club, Northampton Town, feel about the identity card scheme. The directors and supporters have already told me that they are opposed to it.
Soccer-related violence and smashing the link between soccer and violence has become the prime
1224
justification by Ministers for this Bill. The evidence for such a draconian measure is scant and getting less as every season goes by. But why has soccer been singled out? The Minister for Sport attended a championship boxing match last year when a CS gas canister was thrown into the crowd. Last year a man attending a horse race meeting at York was killed in a fight. There were 1,700 arrests at race meetings last year, 600 of them during Royal Ascot week; 290 people were arrested at the Oxford and Cambridge boat race; 140 were arrested during Henley Regatta week.
If we are concerned about crime in sport, how is it that Wimbledon has escaped the beady eye of the Prime Minister. The answer is that there are so-called hooligans who are pests, not just at football matches, not just at other sporting events but in society generally, in urban areas, but increasingly in rural areas too. Places and events previously free of trouble are now in trouble. The stark truth is that we do not have a football hooligan problem, we have a society hooligan problem. It is no answer for the Government to duck their prime responsibility to solve the problem in our communities by picking on football as an easily identifiable cop out.
Much play is made by supporters of the Bill that an identity card scheme will aid the apprehension of trouble-makers. If every person inside a ground can be identified by his or her card we shall be able to deal with the trouble-makers. Never mind that 9,999 out of every 10,000 card carriers will be innocent. A blanket, all-embracing scheme will suffice. The curiosity is that there is no such slapdash approach for fans travelling abroad. They will be pre-identified, tagged and excluded. Part 11 of the Bill has much to commend it; so it can be here in Britain. Clubs know their troublemakers; lists arc compiled and circulated. The police are getting better and better at winkling out potential troublemakers. Why not help them to get better still?
Hooliganism associated with soccer is but a small part of the national picture. Alcohol and its effects attract far more offenders. Therefore is it not perfectly logical to draw a parallel with the proposed soccer card scheme and to oblige all drinkers to carry a similar card which must be presented by the holder seeking either to purchase or consume alcohol in any establishment licensed to sell it?
What are we to make of the approach by the Minister for Sport in his use of statistics? He circulated an account of a Millwall-Newcastle match and told us that there were 53 ejections from the ground; the police have confirmed that there were 34. He said that there were 20 arrests; the police confirmed that there were 18. He has subsequently had to retract that statement. He published a league table of so-called soccer-related violence. It showed that at the Leicester City ground of Filbert Street there were 81 arrests. The Leicester police have stated that there were not 81 arrests; there were 31 arrests.There are other incorrectly stated, so-called statistics. The Minister for Sport has breathed life into the old adage that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. He has used these statistics like a drunken man uses a lamppost—more for support than for illumination.

1225
Faced with the order to produce a case to support an identity card scheme, he has searched and found a global figure of 6,147 arrests, at what he euphemistically describes as "football related incidents". That total is now discredited. Far better to use exclusion orders made by magistrates. That figure is 1,089, and not 6,147.
One of the cardinal principles of any statistical comparison is to compare like with like. He castigates English football by reference to arrests. Yet he knows, we all know now, that Scottish statistics relate to arrests within grounds while English and Welsh statistics relate to both inside and outside grounds. Comparing like with like, the English and Welsh figures are at least as good as those for Scotland. Perhaps we shall be told during the course of the debate why there is this vendetta against English fans with their improving record of behaviour.
What is the attitude of the Police Federation? This is what it has said:
"Think again, Mr. Moynihan. The report of Sports Minister, Colin Moynihan's, Working Party on a national membership scheme for football has come in for almost universal condemnation. Sadly, the strictures are deserved, for this is an extraordinary mishmash of good intentions and half baked nostrums. If the Government insists on using its majority to steamroller this scheme through Parliament, the results could be disastrous.
"When the scheme breaks down, it will do so on match days and give rise to the threat of even worse disorder than it seeks to suppress".
That is the voice of the police.
Even when it does not break down, there are all the makings of chaos and violence in the build-up to kick-off time in the congested streets surrounding many grounds. Luton Town Football Club has become the blue-eyed boy of the Minister for Sport. I wonder why. Like many other clubs, Luton has suffered from football-related violence and, in the light of its own experience, banned away fans and introduced an identity card system. That solution, for Luton, is its decision which I respect. However, the Minister projects Luton as some kind of a paragon with increased, safer attendances and peaceful town centres.
What are the real facts? Last season Luton won the Littlewoods Cup, reached Wembley three times and finished ninth in the League—the most successful season in their history. Yet crowds at Kenilworth Road fell by 27 per cent.;20 per cent. of club members failed to renew their membership and the club made a loss of £327,000. More importantly, although arrests at the club fell, hooliganism was merely displaced, not defeated. Violent offences increased by 14 per cent. in 1987 in Luton—2 percent. above the national average and 5 per cent. higher than the rest of Bedfordshire. Identity cards are clearly not the answer.
With others in your Lordships' House, we on these Benches are considerably worried by the civil liberties implications. Law abiding citizens will have to register merely to go to matches. Supporters ejected from grounds, for whatever reason, or arrested but not convicted will face a loss of their identity card and thus the right to attend football. Police files and blacklist information too will be used to determine who does and who does not have the right to attend football.
1226
I again emphasise that the prime, irrefutable objection to the soccer card scheme that the Government propose is that it legislates against a section of the British people by obliging them to carry identity cards or to forfeit the right to follow the sport of their choice. No similar action is proposed against the freedom of the public at large.
Home Office figures show that arrests related to football are low. During 1987, 1·3 million arrests were made in society at large—3·9 per cent. of the adult population. That statistic is 100 times greater than the arrests inside and outside football grounds quoted by the Minister for Sport. Total arrests at football increased by 11 per cent. last season. But the latest Home Office crime figures show a 13 per cent. increase in violent assaults in society at large. We know arrests were up on the previous season and we know why. It was because of better police methods, closer surveillance of potential troublemakers and improved links between clubs and the police—not because of rising violence. Those arrests at so-called soccer-related incidents included payment dodgers, pickpockets, illegal parkers, illegal traders and drug arrests. If we want to see the flash points of criminal violence these days we do not look towards the Kop or the Den or the Shed or the Stretford End. We read about Bracknell and Woking, Bedhampton, Caterham and Bournemouth. Last week it was Knutsford.
Last year more than 1,000 police officers were rendered unfit for service as a result of assaults in rural areas in England and Wales. Identity cards will do nothing to stop that. But shall I tell the Minister what makes me more angry than anything else about this senseless Bill? It is that that most precious of parliamentary commodities, time, will be lavished on it both here and in another place.
Hour after hour we will be locked in dispute. Meanwhile the horrendous problems on the desks of the Ministers at the Department of the Environment and at the Home Office will fester and grow. What about the wretchedness of the homeless? That can wait. What about pollution, environmental damage, drugs, prisons, and violence in the wider community? All that must wait while the problems brought by one out of every 10,000 football fans receive the full attention of Ministers, civil servants, MPs and your Lordships, not to mention the time and money called for from the football fraternity. I tell the Government that if they find time running out in the months ahead for the major Bills they will get short shrift from me for the absolute waste of parliamentary time they have connived at by bringing this senseless Bill before us today.
As we go about the business of this House, which is to revise and improve Bills sent to us from the elected Chamber, we shall examine this Bill in a new light. It has not come to us from the other House, it did not appear in an election manifesto. It will be imposed on authorities, on clubs, on supporters and on police. if it is implemented, it will increase and not decrease violence in the streets and communities around football grounds.
Money which could be used to continue the coordinated successful fightback by clubs to defeat violence will be spent on the senseless bureaucracy of

1227
this bad Bill. We shall not oppose the Bill today. We shall seek to make this bad Bill better with sensible amendments. But I tell the House with all candour that all that is required for a bad Bill to become the law of the land is for good people to do nothing. All that is required to make this bad Bill a better Bill is for noble Lords all round the House to listen to the arguments and to vote accordingly, regardless of party pressures.
I have much hope that this House will do its duty. The conventions tell us that Bills which begin their parliamentary passage in your Lordships' House are deemed to be non-controversial. Nevertheless, that was not the case with the Shops Bill on Sunday trading some three years ago. Your Lordships scrutinised that Bill so effectively and exposed its blemishes so ruthlessly that when it reached another place, despite a government majority of 100 it was rejected on Second Reading.
I can assure the Minister in charge of this Bill that there are men and women—in front, but also behind him—who will work together to expose this Bill for what it truly is—an unnecessary, expensive gesture by a Government determined to take some action, whatever that may entail. We can leave to the other House the opportunity to emulate that action of three years ago. In the meantime, your Lordships' House has a duty to perform and we intend to do it with all the argument and passion at our command.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the measure we are debating today is a public order Bill. Curiously enough it is sponsored not by the Home Office but by a junior Minister in the Department of the Environment. Its principal stated purpose is to reduce the amount of disorder in and around football grounds in England and Wales. Its method, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has told us, is to establish a national membership scheme.
In addition, there is a second part to the Bill to which the noble Earl referred. That gives the courts power to prevent convicted football hooligans from travelling to matches abroad. Certainly speaking for myself, and I suspect for many others, there will be little doubt that the general objective in this part of the Bill is acceptable to the House.
I now turn to the principal part of the Bill—the compulsory national membership scheme. I propose to divide my speech into four parts. First, I shall deal with the scale of the problem; secondly, the action that has already been taken by clubs to deal with that problem, and, thirdly, the practical consequences for spectators, clubs and the police as regards this proposal. Finally, I shall deal with the point that was touched on by the noble Lord who has just sat down; namely, the manner in which the Government have chosen to legislate.
First, I shall deal with the scale of the problem. Of course, there has been a significant amount of football hooliganism in this country. That is undeniable. It has justified public concern. Some of the incidents involved were extremely unpleasant. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton,
1228
reminded us, a substantial number of those offences took place outside grounds rather than within them. Probably two out of every three offences fall into that category. We are probably talking about one person in every 10,000 who attends a football match committing an offence within a football ground.
As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, pointed out, we cannot discuss football in isolation, as the noble Earl did in his speech. That is quite absurd. We must look at the pressures and tensions within society and the amount of violence within society. Last Thursday night in this House we discussed violence on the London Underground. The number of robberies has doubled in the past two years. There has been a substantial increase in the number of cases of grievous bodily harm and sexual assault. But here there was no speedy response by the Government. It required two well-publicised murders before they agreed to take any significant action whatsoever. Even then, it was inadequate.
Let us examine this general question of serious crime elsewhere in our society. Last year, the Association of Chief Police Officers published a survey on violence in small towns and rural areas of England and Wales. The association said the following:
"From Petersfield to Penrith. from Barnstaple to Bridlington, come reports of unprovoked attacks on property, public and police, with an inadequate police presence one of the factors".
The association said that spontaneous disorder was no longer confined to inner cities and large towns. Groups of usually young and often drunk people gathered together regularly to fight each other in communities where this would have been a rarity 10 years ago. The association referred to 251 separate incidents in which 36,000 members of the public were involved and over 2,000 arrests were made.
Let us remember those figures: 36,000 members of the public were involved and over 2,000 arrests were made. At Tottenham Hotspur's ground last season over 600,000 people attended as spectators. There were precisely 74 arrests, both inside and outside the ground. That number of arrests included those of ticket touts.
Whenever large numbers of young people gather together, be it at a pop festival, the Notting Hill carnival or a big football match, there will be some arrests. Some of them will be as a result of drink-related violence. Some will be as a result of vandalism and some, unhappily, will be as a result of drug dealing. In such circumstances 74 arrests out of well over 600,000 people who attended the match is an extraordinarily modest number.
Tottenham's record is not significantly dissimilar to that of other clubs in the first and second divisions in the English league. But we must remember that this Bill does not just affect the first and second divisions; it also affects fourth division clubs. It affects small clubs like Scunthorpe and Crewe, Hartlepool and Halifax. The crowds at those games are normally tiny. They consist of a few thousand people at best. Even according to the Minister's own figures, the levels of violence are trivial. Let us take one example—York City. On 2nd January this year York City played Lincoln City at home. The attendance

1229
was 3,589 and not a single person was arrested inside or outside the ground. Yet the Government are going to make York City and other clubs—most of which are involved in a desperate struggle for survival—enter the national membership scheme. In the case of York, a club which lost £15,000 last season and whose shareholders have been warned that the news this year will be still worse, the chairman of the club has said he believes that the cost of the scheme will be in the region of £100,000.
I believe there is little doubt that the scheme could do grievous damage to clubs in the third and fourth divisions. The chairman of Torquay has said he believes that if this Bill becomes law it could effectively wipe out the fourth division altogether. I believe that that would be an act of senseless vandalism: senseless because the level of serious disorder at those matches is modest or non-existent; an act of vandalism because it threatens to damage or destroy some fine old football clubs with close links with their local communities.
I should like to turn briefly to the action that has already been taken by the clubs to deal with the problem. The matter was touched on, albeit rather briefly, by the noble Earl when he spoke. The Government suggest that the reason for the legislation is the refusal of clubs to co-operate. What they mean is not that the clubs will not co-operate but that the clubs are refusing to support this particular scheme, which has become an obsession with a number of members of the Government.
As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, in the last two seasons a number of clubs in the league have introduced closed-circuit television cameras. That has led to the identification and arrest of a substantial number of troublemakers who have been barred from the grounds by the courts—and quite right too. They have segregated rival supporters; they have introduced family areas; they have adopted local plans, agreed both with the police and with local authorities, for dealing with the crowd problem.
I believe that there is therefore no justification whatever to suggest that the clubs have been wilfully unco-operative. I have been told by many police officers of their excellent relations with their local football clubs. Quite apart from that, the ban on the sale of alcohol at football matches has had a very substantial effect. I believe that that is one reason crowds are beginning to go back to football matches on Saturday afternoons in increasing numbers.
I turn now to my third point—the practical consequences of the legislation on spectators, clubs and police. As I have already demonstrated, there is little doubt that the cost of the scheme to the clubs could be very substantial indeed. They will be compelled to invest in technology which, in terms of its application to football, is still entirely unproven. As the study by Arthur Young has demonstrated, it is still unknown whether
"the scheme will work in real life".
Quite apart from the cost of the technology there is the likelihood that up to 20 per cent. of casual supporters will not go to the bother of applying for membership of the scheme. Again, the effect would be substantial for clubs in the first and second divisions,
1230
and for those in the third and fourth divisions it could have catastrophic consequences for their financial viability.
I come now to an even more important issue—public order. I have recently had the opportunity of discussing this matter with six senior police officers of the rank of superintendent and chief superintendent. All are currently, or have been within the past 12 months, in charge of police operations at football grounds. One of them told me that he thought the effect of this legislation might be neutral: there might be less trouble inside the ground balanced by more trouble in the streets outside. The other five senior officers agreed that the consequences of this legislation would be damaging.
Perhaps I may set out their anxieties. First, the turnstiles at two of the grounds concerned directly abut main roads. Any delay encountered by people entering the ground could lead to large, jostling crowds spilling onto the highway, bringing traffic to a standstill and causing serious difficulties for the police commander. All the police officers believed that any significant hold-up at the turnstiles could lead to disorder, particularly in the few minutes before the match was due to begin. The delay could be caused by a spectator presenting an invalid card. There could be a breakdown in the computer system. The police would then be faced with the choice of either ignoring an Act of Parliament and letting everyone in whether or not they were members of the scheme or allowing what could prove to be very serious public disorder to ensue.
Finally, all those officers believed that the majority of the hard core of hooligans who would be barred from the membership scheme would still turn up on a Saturday afternoon or—which would be more difficult—a dark winter's evening. Some would borrow other people's membership cards, others would obtain them illicitly and the remainder, they feared, would gather in the streets outside to make trouble. In short, on the basis of the judgment of those senior police officers, the beneficial effects of this legislation will be marginal or non-existent. The consequences of its enactment could in the circumstances I have described lead to serious public disorder.
I now come to the final issue which I want to raise today; that is, the manner in which the Government have chosen to legislate. The Bill sets out a number of new criminal offences and penalties. It gives the Secretary of State the power to appoint an administrator of the scheme, and to dismiss him. Apart from Part II of the Bill, that is that. I do not believe that this is a Bill in the normal sense of the term. It is an empty shell. The scheme is to be negotiated between the administrator and the Minister and Parliament is not even to be asked to give its approval. It was only a few years ago that we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, about an elected dictatorship. If this is not the act of an elected dictatorship I do not know what is.
In addition, we are told by Mr. Moynihan that some people will be excluded from the provisions of the scheme and will not have to join the national membership scheme. Who will they be? We have

1231
heard some examples attributed to Mr. Moynihan. Others have been attributed—or not attributed—to his spokesman at the Department of the Environment. The Bill is silent on the matter. Are the disabled to be made to join the national membership scheme? We do not know. Are old-age pensioners to be excluded from the scheme? If not, why not? Do the Government solemnly suggest that we are faced with the prospect of rioting old-age pensioners? Are young children to be excluded; or, again, is it to be suggested that we face a peril from violent nine year-olds?
Will the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, whom I believe is to reply, help us with a further problem? The scheme is not to apply to Scotland; yet one of the incidents which caused the Prime Minister the most serious concern was last year's England versus Scotland football match at Wembley. I should be very grateful for some help from the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, on that question. What happens at Wembley when the scheme is brought into effect? The Scots will not be members of the national membership scheme, for reasons that have not yet been explained. The English and Welsh will have to be members of the scheme. Will there be a large notice saying "Scots enter here"? It would be very helpful if we could have an explanation from the noble Lord as to exactly how that is to be administered.
It is particularly important for him to answer that question because the idea that based on past form the only people who cause trouble at Wembley are England supporters is a little far from the truth. Last year's statistics showed that of 112 people arrested, 39 were English and 73 were Scots. I have great respect for the Scottish nation but it seems to me mildly surprising that in the aftermath of that football match, on an occasion such as this, the Scots are being totally excluded from the scheme.
Many other fascinating questions arise. What is the position of an Englishman who lives in Scotland? Does he have to join the English membership scheme or not? If I may say so, these are hardly unimportant issues, for as a consequence of the scheme if anyone attempts to enter a ground without being a member he commits a criminal offence.
Lastly, what is the position of foreigners? Does the Italian visitor who wants to support his team have to belong to the scheme before he can enter a football ground? I have seen suggestions made in the press which may or may not emanate from Mr.Moynihan—and as always there is nothing about it in the Bill—that all that people who are in that position have to do is show their passports. They can then enter the ground. If that is the case, I should be grateful for some help as regards the position of residents and nationals of the Irish Republic. Hundreds if not thousands of them come over to this country every weekend to support either Liverpool or Manchester United. Are they to get in on the basis of a passport? What about the Irishman who lives in Manchester who providentially has an Irish passport? Can he get into the ground by showing it? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will be
1232
eager to answer those questions when he comes to reply.
One has only to ask questions of that kind to realise why the Government have decided to legislate in the manner they have chosen. They realise that to have set out the details of their scheme before Parliament would have caused a chorus of derision. Ministers would have found it quite impossible to justify their scheme even to their most loyal supporters. That is why we have this empty shell. That is why Government are determined not to give Parliament the opportunity of debating the provisions of the final scheme before it is introduced.
1 can think of no occasion on which a government of any party on an issue affecting the civil liberties of so many of their citizens have behaved in such a high-handed and foolish fashion. The Minister of Sport has even issued his peremptory orders to the president of the Football League. In his letter of 17th January he said:
"Let me have a clear timetable and programme for the establishment of the authority and for the presentation of the scheme".
That has all to be done by the end of January. That instruction, given with all the finesse and delicacy of a regimental sergeant major, is directed at a man who is totally opposed to the scheme. It is a scheme that has not received the support of either House of Parliament. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, this Bill will cost £2·5 million to introduce, and no doubt as always in estimates of this kind that figure is probably on the low side.
I wonder how many people involved in the criminal justice system of this country believe that £2·5 million spent in that way—and given absolute priority over all other forms of public expenditure in the area of criminal justice policy—is a sensible order of priorities. We have a situation in which the Metropolitan Police, with an inadequate establishment, are now being called upon to run Wandsworth Prison as well as being asked to act as gaolers for Home Office remand prisoners. In some parts of the country the Crown Prosecution Service is still 20 per cent. below establishment. There is demoralisation in the forensic science service because of cutbacks in public expenditure. There is severe undermanning in the Serious Fraud Office and the magistrates' court system is facing a crisis with courts closed and delays worsening because their professional staff is leaving in droves.
Yet faced with that situation the Government's response is to give absolute public expenditure priority to this silly little Bill. What a remarkable order of priorities the Ministers have chosen!
However, I believe that the situation is even worse. In my view this Bill is rather more than silly. The issues that it raises are fundamental. If enacted, this legislation will make us the only Western democracy in which people will not have the right to enter a sportsground on the purchase of a ticket. Nowhere in Western Europe or in the United States has there been any prohibitions of the kind set out in this Bill. None of their legislatures would have accepted such a fundamental attack on their citizens' civil liberties.
In order to deal with a limited public order problem the Government have chosen to adopt this

1233
scheme which is likely to lead not to less public disorder but a great deal more. The Bill is authoritarian, nasty and irrelevant. I hope Parliament will ensure that it never reaches the statute book.
4.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I share the purpose set before us by the noble Earl: we should bring thoroughly to an end the ugly face of football-related violence. I should declare an interest—an ecumenical interest one might say—in that I support both Liverpool and Everton.
Football is carrying the can for all of us in an important area of our national life. Other sports do not hear the same kind of burdens, though some of them have not been wholly free from trouble. In recent years my own sport of cricket has had to face with great anxiety the issue of pitch invasions. But it has not been entirely a recent phenomenon, as those who know the history of that sport are aware. There is a very famous cartoon of the first tour run by the MCC in 1903–04— Plum-Warner's tour no less—which shows the two umpires on the Sydney cricket ground, in each case protected by large cages, while missiles came flying all around them. The umpire Crockett had given a decision that the crowd did not like and for a long time it chanted, "Crock, Crock, Crock" and bombarded the field with anything portable.
But of course in England cricket and indeed most other sports have never had to handle comparable crowds or from the same sections of society. Football bears some burdens for all of us. More than any other agency it offers excitement, identity and pride to young men who too often have dismissed everything about their lives as boring. Allowing their lives to be boring is an important measure in the responsibility of all of us who are concerned with education, youth provision or the possibility of a demanding job. But many people let off steam at football matches when they are in large crowds. It can be a very healthy and helpful contribution to the whole life of our community.
As I reflected on this Bill I asked myself whether there was such a thing as a theology of following football. I do not mean the kind of theology which asks whether God cares if England has a goal-scoring striker, or even a successful pair of opening batsmen, important though such questions may be to some of us. My question goes a little deeper and is, I think, more serious. Some years ago when I was talking to the rector of a parish in the South Bronx in New York city, which is as bleak and shot-to-pieces a part of a city as I have ever seen, we wondered what Christian message there was for people who lived, moved and had their being in the South Bronx or any other such district. Was it that the suffering Christ was present with them in the deprivations they faced? Certainly Good Friday has a message about it, telling people that God understands their sufferings; and Easter promises future hope. But the rector said to me, "That's all very well. We want to see some resurrection now". I have always remembered his phrase.
1234
Many people feel very alone. In other centuries or cultures the large extended family, the tribe or village had and has its celebrations and excitements. Many people have little sense of belonging, of counting, or of identity. I do not wish to exaggerate, but following a football team gives one many of those experiences: it is something to be proud of; it is a success that is yours to share in. Indeed, sometimes laps of honour and bringing the cup home have the feel of a liturgy of resurrection. All that is worth having and perhaps more significant than we sometimes think.
I am immensely thankful for what our two football clubs, Liverpool and Everton, contribute to the life of Merseyside. Our proper pride in the discipline, skill and commitment of those teams and their influence for unity and not division made the tragedy of Heysel Stadium all the more unbearable. There was no bad record of crowd trouble associated with the Liverpool Football Club. The chief constable has told me this week that there is very little trouble, although there is a large crowd every Saturday at one ground or the other. But that shameful disaster at the Heysel Stadium is of course the sharpest reminder that there are dangerous feelings just below the surface which can explode and escalate in a crowd. Tribalism can be very destructive. Substantial steps have to be taken to maintain public order. They have to be effective steps. That is the key around which our debate should centre.
What is the objective of the Bill? It must be to offer an effective means of reducing football related violence. Its objective should not be to be seen to be doing something in the face of serious and embarrassing difficulties. However much we understand and share in the wish to do something, that is not a sufficient reason for passing a Bill; nor is a sufficient reason for passing a Bill the wish to pin the blame on the football authorities. None of us should vote for this Bill unless we are satisfied that it will positively help the police and the foot ball crowds. If ever there was an area where we must work with the grain, it is one such as this.
I was not quite sure that I understood what the Minister was saying. He mentioned the number of police who have to be deployed. Was he suggesting that there is some way in which, if crowds remain as large as they are, those numbers of police could be significantly reduced? I have never heard such a suggestion made.
The clubs have taken action. Perhaps they could have acted more quickly and more vigorously. Closed circuit television in particular has brought about a definite improvement inside the grounds. I was assured this week, and it was confirmed, that all chairmen, bar I think one, in the Football League have remained, and remain today, opposed to the introduction of this Bill. This is an area in which we must work with the grain if it is to be effective. The football clubs do not believe that the first part of this Bill addresses the correct problem. They have not refused to act in this way out of unwillingness to deal with the problem. They have taken very great steps. They have a high degree of anxiety about the issues. They simply do not believe that it will be effective.
I am happy about the second part of the Bill. Restriction orders will very properly prevent

1235
offenders from attending matches abroad. The power which football authorities have to tackle the major problem—which is undoubtedly outside the grounds—is strictly limited. I understand that there was a study in some police authorities recently which showed the proportion of the problem outside to inside not as 2:1 but as 5:1. We have to ask whether this Bill will help or hinder the situations which police have to handle where trouble is most likely to happen. Anything which slows down the movement of very large crowds through the turnstiles adds to the difficulties outside.
The police want only one thing at the moment. It is for the crowds to get through the turnstiles with all possible dispatch. I understand that the Minister of Sport has said that people will know that they must arrive earlier at matches. Philip Carter, the Chairman of Everton, told me that last week he took some MPs down to watch the closed circuit television just before three o'clock to see what was happening outside the ground. It was a crowd of 30,000, which is the average at Everton each week. As the match started at 3 p.m., Gladys Street was still full of spectators queueing to get in. They had only just arrived or they were talking or whatever in their groups. He said that the last of them got into the ground at 3.17. They all knew, and have known for some years, that the match started at 3 p.m. However, all kinds of factors prevent a person on a day off arriving on the dot. Imagine the delay at a turnstile, perhaps for a technical fault, or because someone is being correctly turned away. The delay in handling that at a turnstile could make some people very annoyed.
The chief constable tells me that there are always 1,000 people outside the gates at kick-off time. It is a natural fear of the police that this number could become—let us make a very modest statement—2,000 and that levels of frustration could increase. None of that would help when trying to take effective steps to keep public order.
I hope that we shall put away any lurking wish to blame or punish football. To return to my earlier theme, the game offers a very important resource and safety valve in our society. The cause of most of the troubles lies not in football but in a confusing mix of factors altogether outside the game. Football would be seriously hurt if occasional spectators, who make up 20 per cent. of attendances, stayed away because of the inconvenience of obtaining, and their reluctance to subject themselves to obtaining, identity cards. We owe football and the police something better than this.
I hope that the Government will think again. I hope that they will pull back from the first part of the Bill so that there can be measures to enable police and football clubs to work together with a good will towards carrying through measures to bring about good public order.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, first of all I must apologise to the Minister and to the House. I have to return to Scotland this evening and shall not be able to remain to the conclusion of this interesting debate.
1236
Secondly, I wish to say to the Government and to the Minister concerned that I can readily understand the reasons for this piece of legislation. Anyone who has watched television and has seen the football crowds invading pitches and the appalling sights of the Heysel Stadium will readily recognise that there is a problem to be dealt with.
My daughter teaches at a school in Switzerland. Two years ago there was going to be a match between England and Switzerland. There was great excitement in the school. The teacher was being ribbed every day and the kids were looking forward to this great event. On the day a large number of louts arrived drunk, waving Union Jacks, breaking shop windows and causing disaster and trouble on the football ground. My daughter was ashamed to go to school the next day, although she made the obvious comment that she was Scots and therefore absolved from some of the shame for this behaviour.
I can well understand the feeling of people, knowing that it is their national game, seeing these sights and feeling that we must do something about it. My contention is that the Bill does not cure this problem. I want this afternoon to draw on Scottish experience in this regard. It has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and others. For some reason—and we are delighted with the implied compliment—we are excluded from the Bill.
Does that mean that the Scots who follow their national game, soccer, behave well? I call it our national game despite the great deeds that will be done at Twickenham on Saturday. Why are we excluded from the Bill? There is an implied compliment that we behave better. I do not believe that that is sustainable. It may be that the fortunes of the party opposite in Scotland are at such a low ebb that it would be very difficult to impose this kind of legislation on the Scottish people. It is a reverse role for the Scottish people. We are normally treated as the guinea-pigs in new legislation such as the poll tax. But on this occasion the English are the guinea-pigs and we shall watch their experience with great interest.
The Minister of State at the Scottish Office said:
"The Football Spectators Bill published today will not apply to Scotland. We will, however, keep the position under review and will not hesitate to introduce legislation if we think that necessary in the light of any deterioration in crowd behaviour in Scotland".
There is a threat in this legislation, that if we do not behave ourselves we will have the same dose as is being imposed in England.
I should like to feel that the Scottish experience in dealing with the problems of hooliganism at football matches is relevant to what we are talking about today. Why is Scotland excluded? I hope that one of the reasons is that we have made dramatic improvements in crowd behaviour in football grounds in Scotland. It is an interesting fact that Scottish teams, league as well as national teams, are welcome in Europe. Last year Dundee United was given a prize by UEFA because it had the best behaved supporters of all the teams playing in European football last year. Why did UEFA do that? Dundee United Football Supporters Club—this is self-discipline, not government imposed discipline

1237
—carried banners to the clubs they were visiting in the countries they visited saying who they were, "Dundee United Supporters Club. We are glad to be here. We hope we will have a good game", in the language of the country they were visting.
The Glasgow Rangers Football Club gives every supporter who travels abroad a card written in the language of the country visited, asking supporters to behave. It tells them that they should produce the card, if they are ever in trouble, to the local police force or to go to the local consulate for help if that is required. There was no trouble from visiting supporters of Glasgow Rangers, Dundee United or other Scottish clubs who are now welcomed in Europe.
One of the by-products of that is that the great players of English football are now signing for Scottish clubs so that they can enjoy the advantages of playing in Europe and the rewards that are implied. The centre-half and the goalkeeper of the English national team are now playing for Glasgow Rangers because they have the advantage of playing in Europe.
How is this done? The clubs have proper liaison with the supporters clubs. The clubs have taken great trouble to bring the supporters into the clubs and make them feel the responsibilities, not by imposing identity cards but simply by good communication. I shall give your Lordships some statistics. Attendances at Scottish football matches have increased by 50 per cent. since 1980. People are not disappearing from the football grounds because of trouble or hooliganism. They are attracted to the game because we have put our house in order by ourselves. I believe that is the key to the thing. I am sure that the Football League and the Football Association in England have fully recognised the problem and will be able to do something about it without necessarily imposing government legislation.
Last year 800 league games were played in Scotland. There was one arrest per game. Of those 800 arrests spread over all these games, more than half were not for hooliganism but for some other offence committed within the ground.
The Criminal Justice Act has been the greatest contributor to good behaviour in football grounds. The Rangers invariably play to a crowd of 40,000 every week. They have reduced the capacity of their ground from 60,000 to 40,000 to give spectators comfort. There is seating for everyone. After a recent game played before 40,000 people, the secretary went round the ground and could not find a single beer can. At a recent match 70,000 spectators were at an international game at Hampden Park. The collection of beer cans was contained in two plastic bags. I believe that is a very important contributory factor to reducing hooliganism. The Criminal Justice Act is certainly responsible for that improvement.
What has taken place in Scotland that has improved the environment for football? First, there is the design of the grounds: there has been improvement in comfort for the spectators. Secondly, as has been said already, there has been the provision of TV cameras that permits crowds to be controlled and identifies the trouble spots. Thirdly, there has
1238
been the acceptance of segregation of supporters. In addition there has been liaison with supporters clubs.
I mentioned putting the responsibility on supporters clubs and I pick out just one place where this is operating and working in an interesting way. I am told that on a recent occasion a Rangers bus was travelling in one direction and it encountered a Celtic bus coming to an away game on the same road. Someone from the Rangers bus threw a bottle at the minibus carrying the Celtic supporters. It was reported to the Rangers Football Club, which asked the supporters club to identify who had thrown that missile. Naturally the supporters rallied round their friend and said they could not say. They were told it was perfectly simple! "We are withdrawing all tickets from you for future games until you supply the name of the individual concerned". The man was identified within 24 hours and his right to attend future games was subsequently withdrawn.
The point I am trying to make is that some of the problems with which the Government are concerned can be dealt with by better liaison with the clubs, more concern about comfort in the grounds, better liaison with the police and bringing the supporters clubs more closely into the activities of the business, and by these means crowd or hooligan trouble has been reduced in Scottish football grounds. I do not say this in a gloating or superior manner but simply to give evidence that the problems can be dealt with other than by legislation of this kind. I hope that the experience that we have had in Scotland might be relevant to what is taking place or what is planned for England.
5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe; certainly 1 did. It is of course the case that he has a much better story to tell on this subject in respect of Scotland than have those of us who live in England. Indeed I very much wonder whether, if the degree of disorder which has existed at football grounds in England had been no higher than, according to him, it has been in Scotland, this Bill would have been necessary at all. But of course, as he himself said, it has been a very different story.
I think your Lordships must face this fact. Football, for one reason or another, has attracted violence and hooliganism to an infinitely greater degree than any other sport. It has reached the stage in respect of many grounds in this country that careful parents now refuse to take their children to watch a match because of the danger to which they feel those children would be exposed if they went to that ground. That is a very serious matter from every point of view.
And there is the point, which has not yet really been faced in this debate, of the damage that has been done to the good name of this country among our European friends. We used to be proud of the Englishman abroad. He was generally an acceptable figure and in so many countries there was a warm recollection of what his fellow countrymen had done to save Europe during the war. But now we have had not only the famous Heysel episode but in quite a

1239
number of other episodes we have seen really disgraceful action, hooligansim, by Englishmen accompanying our teams abroad, with the result that, as your Lordships know, the presence of English teams at matches is simply not acceptable in a great many European countries. That is an immensely serious matter.
The question that I should like to ask noble Lords opposite is whether if they were in government they would just do nothing about it. In the other speeches made so far in this debate—and I except the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—it has not been a suggestion that perhaps the emphasis of this legislation is in some respects wrong, that perhaps it could be improved in Committee, which is a very arguable point of view. There has been a strong attack—in some cases, such as the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, a violent attack—on the Bill as such and an attack on the Government for introducing it. Does the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, want to get up already?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, he only wants to inform the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in the absence of his noble friend, that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, made it very clear in his speech that he adopted Part II in principle. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is talking about Part II and therefore it is quite wrong to say that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, opposed the Bill hook, line and sinker.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, those of us who heard the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, while not using the rather archaic hook, line and sinker language which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, affects, will be left with the impression that the line that he was taking was that there should he no Bill at all on this subject and that the Government should do nothing about it. That is the clear impression which he gave. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, may remember that his noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton said that the Bill was an insult to the football clubs. That was his theme. His theme was quite clearly that we should do nothing about it.
What I want to elicit from the noble Lords opposite—I have, I trust, some hope of eliciting it from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, though sometimes such hope is disappointed—is whether noble Lords opposite are so content with the present position that they do not think there should be any legislation, or whether their attack is simply that certain aspects of the Bill, they think, could be drafted better. I do not think any government—and I say that to noble Lords opposite supposing that they were in government, however remote that contingency may seem at the moment—could simply leave the position as it stands and indeed—
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, may I just finish this sentence? If the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, really meant that we should leave this
1240
alone, I do not believe that any government from the party opposite would, in fact, do that. If this Government had done that we should have been reproached, undoubtedly, in this House with "Why are you standing by and doing nothing?" Now I will certainly give way to the right reverend Prelate.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, it is good of the noble Lord to give way. He said that all the speeches, with the exception of that of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, had not suggested that anything needed to be done. I certainly said that I agreed with the noble Earl in that there was a great need for things to be done to settle the public order of football-related violence. 1 believe that was said by each speaker who has spoken. The objection was, and my own question was: would it be effective? It is because the speeches of each of them have said it would not be effective that we have said this first part of the Bill is bad. That is not to be twisted to say that any one of the speakers so far has suggested the Government should do nothing. No such word has been said from any side.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am interested to hear the right reverend Prelate take that line. Is he saying that if he were responsible he would introduce a Bill?
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I am being asked a question. Introducing Bills is not the only way in which a government can act. I made a great deal of play with the importance of working with the grain and of working in co-operation with the police and with the football authorities. Certainly the Government have acted, can act and should act. Whether it should be a Bill in this particular shape is what your Lordships are discussing.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, working with the grain is one of those agreeable phrases which have the advantage of lacking precision and there is nothing whatever in the Government's action in introducing legislation to prevent them doing that, if it means what I think the right reverend Prelate means by it. Introduding legislation does not exclude other action. Indeed I understood my noble friend's speech to include some suggestion—I may be wrong about this—that the Government were concerned in all ways to try to deal with this problem. What the right reverend Prelate really cannot duck, despite the charming way in which he seeks to do so, is whether he is saying that there should be no legislation on this matter. Is he saying, when the Government are doing what is the major thing that any government can do—that is, legislating—that it is his view, as it seems to be of noble Lords opposite, that we should not introduce legislation at all on this matter?
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, at the moment I am having a duet with the right reverend Prelate. Would the noble Lord mind?
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Lord is pressing me. I am sure your Lordships are getting bored with the conversation. I entirely agree with the second part of the Bill. It is very important that there should be legislation which introduces a restriction on people. I entirely agree with the change in the law which makes it possible for the police to prosecute on the basis of what is recorded on closed circuit television. Those things are of the greatest importance and they are correctly in legislation and I am very glad.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that from the right reverend Prelate. I had not got the impression that he supported the Bill at all. I am glad to know that he does support certain—
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Lord is missing the point. if the noble Lord looks at the official record he will see the words.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I must finish the sentence. The right reverend Prelate is not in the pulpit now. I am glad to ascertain from him that he favours some legislation and indeed some parts of this Bill. He therefore plainly favours giving the Bill a Second Reading, which is after all the issue which your Lordships are at the moment discussing. Whether he agrees with the whole of it, whether any of us agree with all of it, is quite another matter to which we shall come at Committee stage. Is the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, still happy?
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I just want to say that the best thing I can do now is make my own speech and I will give the noble Lord an answer to everything that he has been saying.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I always look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Mellish. I shall look forward to it even more on this occasion.
May I come back to the point that I wish to leave with your Lordships? I suggest that no government—and I am glad to hear that I now have the right reverend Prelate with me on this—would leave the law as it is. Therefore we come to the question whether the measures contained in the Bill are precisely the best to do what the whole of the country, what everybody wants.
There we have a perfectly legitimate area of possible disagreement, certainly on detail. We are moving into a new area. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, criticised the Bill because it related only to soccer. The truth of the matter is that it is on the soccer grounds—not exclusively but predominantly—that this disorder has arisen.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Just a moment. My Lords, the Government would have been very much criticised if they had gone further, and because there was some trouble in some other sports—much less trouble—had extended the Bill to cover those sports. They have deliberately, and I suggest rightly, restricted it to the area where there is most trouble.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I did not criticise the Bill because it was restricted solely to football. The point I made—and the official record tomorrow will prove it—is that with the evidence of as much violence, or more, in other sports why have the Government picked on soccer? That is not to bring in others. It is to ask, why have a Bill dealing with football in.this way?
I believe that in my absence the noble Lord fairly drew attention to what he thought was my condemnation of the whole of the Bill. I did not do that. I said—and the record will show this—that much in Part II has something to commend it. If the Bill simply dealt with the so-called hooligans here in the way in which Part II deals with overseas hooligans, then we should be happy with it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am glad to find that the noble Lord, like the right reverend Prelate, actually finds that there are some good parts of the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord should listen more carefully.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord is not apparently objecting to legislating as a whole. But the noble Lord will recall when he says that he did not particularly criticise the confining of the Bill to soccer that he said in terms—and Hansard will show this in the morning—that the Bill was an insult to association football. I take it the noble Lord now withdraws that?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Not at all.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord admits, as I understand it, that this is the area of most trouble. It is for that reason that the Government rightly are legislating in that area. No government wish to extend this kind of legislation one inch further than is necessary and for which the case is made. It would be absurd, at any rate in the present circumstances, to extend the Bill beyond the one sport where there is really substantial disorder.
Here I come to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. He sought to suggest that in recent times the degree of disorder had not been very acute at a good many football grounds because the number of arrests of people for offences on the ground was quite small relative to the numbers attending. Of course that is the whole point. The point is that comparatively few arrests have been possible; that there has been much more disorder than the number of arrests indicates.
It is utterly fallacious to suggest, because the police have been able to arrest only a certain limited number of people, that therefore there has been only a limited amount of disorder. With great respect to the noble Lord, that is a fallacy, and a rather surprising one coming from a noble Lord who had a distinguished record as a Minister in the Home Office.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am grateful for the compliment of the noble Lord, but I must just put him right on this matter. Is he not aware that as a result of the introduction of closed-circuit television a substantial number of offenders have been arrested? I am telling the noble Lord now of the views of senior police officers responsible for operations at football grounds. The noble Lord really must accept that that is the position.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I accept that because of closed-circuit television some have been arrested who otherwise would not have been. That is the point in putting in the closed-circuit television. There is no dispute about that. But what the noble Lord cannot say is that because in great crowds (many in them some way away from any police officer at any time) there have not been more arrests, that therefore there has not been so substantial a degree of disorder. That is really a fallacious argument. I think when the noble Lord reflects on it he will realise that. I do not believe that he will take the view that there has not been quite serious disorder on football grounds. That brings me back to the point I wanted to make earlier, which is that any government that neglected dealing with this would be charged. and rightly charged, with neglecting their duty.
I am not a complete admirer of every clause of the Bill. I think there are real difficulties. I do not dispute that for a moment. I think in particular that there is a risk that under the system proposed—and I hope that my noble friend Lord Hesketh will deal with this—there will be attempts to snatch passes at or just outside the turnstiles. It will be necessary under this system to have a quite substantial police presence at the turnstiles to prevent these passes, which are crucial to the admission of people to the ground, from simply being snatched by hooligans. I hope that some thought is being given to that aspect of it.
Let me assure your Lordships that none of us accepts a change of this kind uncritically. 1 think none of us other than regrets it, because we regret the necessity for it. But having reached this situation—this unhappy situation—affecting in much greater degree this particular sport than any other, the Government are right to come forward with legislation, just as your Lordships are right to consider whether that legislation will act effectively. There will be parts of it that will no doubt require careful consideration from all quarters of the House at Committee stage. It is a good thing that your Lordships' House will have the opportunity to consider it in detail.
I come back to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I am sure that your Lordships will want to consider the example of Scotland. If I may say so in parenthesis, it is an example that is also highly pertinent to the different subject of Sunday trading. I admire the courage of the Government in coming forward with this legislation. I do not think that they should he abused for it. They may not have got it wholly right, I rather doubt whether they have. Like another noble Lord opposite, I am sorry that it involves the expenditure of 2·5 million of public money, which could be much more happily spent in other directions.
1244
Having said that, I must suggest to your Lordships that the right thing is to get the Bill through Second Reading and then to see whether the detailed criticisms—in particular the touchiness of certain points to which noble Lords have referred—are, or are not. justified. It would be then for your Lordships' House to consider how the Bill goes forward, and whether it is necessary, as it may well be, to amend it.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, as a lifelong active supporter of our national game of football I shall oppose this Bill, especially and particularly Part I. I shall oppose it on the grounds that that part is totally unnecessary; that it will be a damaging intrusion into the sport; that it will invade the privacy of its supporters and at great cost to the game and to the future of football; and that it will hardly make any advances in the present high standards of behaviour inside the football grounds.
Just a few years ago the Government called upon the Football Association to tackle the problem of unruly behaviour in its grounds. Consequently the authorities and the Football Trust spent £25 million on security measures, which included the better segregation of home and visiting supporters, the all-round fencing off of most of the football pitches, the establishing within the grounds of family areas—andmore families are going to football matches now than in recent years—and the introduction of closed-circuit television cameras constantly scanning the crowds. These measures have had a considerable effect and have helped the police more effectively and efficiently to control crowd behaviour inside the football grounds.
The result of that activity reveals that last season 1,089 spectators were excluded from football grounds out of a total of 18 million. Two thousand were arrested within the grounds during 2,000 games; that is, one spectator per game. However, many were not later excluded because they had committed such minor offences. The percentage of supporters excluded from football grounds last season was so small that it was hardly discernible; namely, 0.03 per cent. No other similar outside competitive sport could stand the same scrutiny and come up with such good results.
Just as security has improved, so have attendances. In the past three seasons they have risen by 9 per cent., as have league finances. That is all mainly due to better crowd behaviour. This Bill, with its planned introduction of a football spectator identification card scheme, is therefore an insult to the vast majority—indeed, 99.7 per cent.—of law-abiding citizens picked out because they follow and watch soccer. That is a diabolical imposition on our national game. It is authoritarian, bureaucratic and ridiculous in its effort to tackle one arrest per game among 18 million spectators, which is the size of the problem.
What of the proposed system? We have the legislation before us and so far no company or consortium has proved to the football authorities that it has available the proven foolproof technology, whether it be an ID card or a computerised smart

1245
card. Spectators will have to fill in a form giving details of name, address, telephone number, date of birth, height, sex, the name of the club and his national allegiance, plus two passport size photographs. There is also a box on the form where he can declare that he does not wish to receive mailshots, which is one moneyspinner for the firm which wins the contract. He must sign the form stating that the information is true and accurate. He then has to pay for his registration card as an authorised spectator.
It is important to note that anyone with a criminal record as long as your arm can have an ID card provided he has not been involved in a football-related incident and subject to an exclusion order. Even those who have been excluded in the past, will be enfranchised if the club, as distinct from the court, has not kept a register.
Some firms may offer their computer turnstile systems to the football authorities for nothing. Their return will be the freedom to use the information on the national computer, especially mailing lists. However, what will happen if the majority tick the refusal box? Will that still be worthwhile with card costs alone of £5 per card? If not, the costs will fall on the football authorities and the clubs.
It is estimated that the cost will be between £35 million and £70 million, depending on the system chosen, allied with lost crowd revenue, because so many will not take up their cards. If the simple card scheme is operated, it is doubtful whether it will be able to cope with the mass of spectators arriving 15 minutes before kick-off. The simple card scheme adds three seconds per person on top of paying time. In any case, there are bound to be computer hiccups. There are now hiccups in every known system. What chaos there will be when the demand is made to open the gates. If a club does that, it will be in default of the Act, having broken the rules. Therefore its licence could be withdrawn, or it could be fined £2,000 or forced to play in empty grounds.
What of the challenge to the computer hacker to delay the kick-off of one or more, or all, matches? Because there is no secret, or defence, or commercial-in-confidence nature in these computer operations, the temptation will be greater.
What of the gummed-up theory? What will happen if someone gums up the works by putting chewing gum or superglue into a card slot of the machine or if troublemakers purposely damage a card in the slot? What about a lost card problem at a turnstile? In the event of a breakdown or slowdown due to a fault, the police will have to cover most of the 3,500 turnstile units in operation on a Saturday afternoon.
What of the winter and its freezing temperatures affecting the turnstile computer? It will not then be in the correct temperature environment to suit its needs. Even with the computerised smart card, which enables quicker entry and is more foolproof, when a card registers that it is invalid on the computer, the spectator at the turnstile has to go through and be apprehended inside the ground; hence the necessity of a police officer standing by inside covering the turnstiles. The arrest will mean that interview and detention rooms will have to be built inside grounds.
1246
How will the system work? Each week every club—and there are 92 of them—will have to send to the football membership authority computer the names of those spectators who have been struck off and the new entrants. What about complications caused by mid-week matches or Sunday matches following the Saturday matches, with spectators on the move, including those struck off the previous day?
As the football authorities have said, they believe this to be bad law. It may work at huge financial cost and possible public disorder. My noble friend Lord Graham mentioned the Police Federation's view that this is an extraordinary mish-mash of good intentions and halfbaked nostrums and that if the Government insist on using their majority to steamroller this scheme through Parliament, the results could be disastrous.
Will it not also harm our national sport? I believe that it will. I doubt whether many casual supporters will bother to go through the rigmarole of registration and many others will refuse on civil liberty grounds. It is estimated that up to 20 per cent. of football supporters will not bother.
Lord Somers: My Lords, earlier on the noble Lord said that he considered that this was an insult to innocent spectators who go to watch matches. Perhaps he will consider a parallel case. Is it an insult to law abiding and responsible motor fists that we should have breath tests? I believe that anybody who is not likely to he caught does not object to them in the least.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I do not object to that at all, but I do not take it as a parallel. The Government, on a matter of very small significance, have decided to pick out one national sport and treat it entirely differently to the rest, when there are plenty of examples to prove that violence and disorder exist in many other competitive sports and are perhaps a lot worse than in football.
It is estimated that up to 20 per cent. of football supporters will not bother to register. If that is so, it will mean a loss of £34 million of football revenue.
What of the effect on the Third and Fourth Division clubs which average gates of 3,000 to 4,000? They are likely to go out of business. Even some Second Division clubs, like mine in Barnsley, cannot financially survive on the average attendances at home matches and will he in dire straits. They will only satisfy their bankers by constantly selling players. The support will then drop further. We cannot afford that 20 per cent. reduction in gates which will be caused by this system.
I believe that this unnecessary registration scheme will shatter the national make-up of our game. Small clubs dotted around our nation, many of them community cornerstones in small towns, will die, leading to the survival of the biggest and the richest. There will be a couple of superleagues and no more. I fear that that could be the trend. But even the big clubs are concerned at the effect on their guest supporters or visitors, covering thousands of guests who are invited into executive boxes by sponsoring firms as well as tourists and foreign guests. If they do not register, how will they be checked?

1247
If a casual supporter decides to visit a game he will have to appear at the club's ground in the morning to complete his registration before he can receive an entry card. He has to go through all the form filling, possibly with passport photographs, and hope to get clearance. He then has to hang around for the rest of the day until kick-off time. What will happen to First Division sponsored VIPs? Will they have to register likewise?
I have been impressed by the Manchester United established scheme of inviting youth associations to attend their matches, just like the families mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. These joint groups of youngsters who come from Northern Ireland and the Republic are a positive harmonisation policy. Will those efforts be frustrated by the Bill?
Likewise, many Irish spectators travel across to watch Liverpool and Everton, as has been mentioned. Will foreigners have to register for odd visits and show their passports? We must bear in mind that hundreds of casual supporters turn up on match days and will want to register. One can imagine the administrative difficulties that that will cause.
This Bill will not cure hooliganism outside the football grounds. Indeed, what worries me is that it may well bring serious disorder to the perimeter of the ground. If there is a match day breakdown of the system—say, even a clogged computer in freezing conditions—the scenes of angry frustrated fans may well frighten more supporters and families from the game.
In any case, hooligans are still likely to ambush the authorised spectators at railway stations and bus stations, well away from any of the football grounds. If they get their kicks from spoiling sport, they may well move into non-league football grounds or rugby football where registration is not necessary. What then? Will the Government have to introduce an authorised spectator scheme for all sports? This scheme will have no positive impact on incidents outside football grounds, so one must warn Wimbledon, Lord's, the Oval and Twickenham that because of this legislation they could be next.
The opinion of the Association of Chief Police Officers is that this membership scheme as an anti-hooligan tactic is probably marginal to the problem and involves many practical difficulties. The Minister mentioned the Association of Chief Police Officers and said that it did not object. The truth is that the chief police officers were presented with a fait accompli. The scheme is to be introduced with legislation and their co-operation is required. However, the South Yorkshire Police Authority, whose law and order responsibilities cover Sheffield Wednesday, Sheffield United, Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley, has placed its view on record:
"That the Police Authority record its view that it cannot support the proposals for the introduction of a compulsory Football Supporters Identity Card Scheme as, in the opinion of the Authority, the scheme will not be an effective solution to hooliganism; it will have no impact on the hooliganism which occurs outside of football grounds (except to exacerbate this particular problem) and will result in an even greater drain on police manpower and resources".
1248
That is a view with which I totally agree and it is a view which Ministers in this House cannot afford to ignore.
This is an ill-conceived scheme and is totally irrelevant in the light of progress that has been made. It may well be inoperable with the known weaknesses there will be in computer turnstile operations. Above all, to the soccer supporters it is a slur which demeans them to second-class sports followers. As a fervent supporter I object to being defined as such and that too is why I oppose this Bill.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it will be noted that on the list of speakers the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, figures next, but with his usual friendliness he has agreed to change places with me because I have an important engagement which means leaving the Chamber rather early. I am most grateful to the noble Lord and it is typical of the relationship that all of us have with him.
I was a willing and eager ally of the noble Lords, Lord Graham, and Lord Harris, in wishing to draw attention to the meaning behind this Bill before it came to the Floor of the House for Second Reading. However, I was very disappointed in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, spoke; and I want to clear this point out of the way to get the House, if I can, on to a more sensible track for dealing with the Bill.
For example, the noble Lord said that he was putting the Labour Party view on this matter. What is a party view? I do not see the point in doing that. The noble Lord referred to the Prime Minister's beady eye. What is the point of that? This is a Bill which is of importance in its own right. It has nothing whatever to do with liking or disliking the Prime Minister. Therefore, I was rather sad that the noble Lord, who is a very effective parliamentarian himself, should have put the Bill on that basis. I am still his friend but he made a mistake.
The reason why I draw attention to that is because I want to encourage many of my noble friends on this side of the House to pay attention to the arguments, to bring in amendments and to support other amendments which I hope will eventually improve the Bill. If the noble Lord puts in the minds of my noble friends that what I am asking them to approve is the party view of the Labour Party, with its record of what its view in the past has led us to do, they will not be encouraged to give the practical help that I believe is necessary on this Bill. Therefore, I was sad at the noble Lord's attitude.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, raised a helpful point that I believe should be pursued. It was a warning to my noble friends who have to carry this Bill through the Committee stage later, and they ought to take heed of it. The argument on this Bill is not on Second Reading where we are merely debating the principle; the real battle will be in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to Irish passports and asked what will happen in that respect. It is a good point. We want the answer to that. If I read the Bill correctly, a substantial amendment will have to be accepted by the Government in order to deal with the matter.

1249
I did not have the same sort of objection to the speech of the right reverend Prelate as did my noble friend. Much of the speech was pretty near the hone but he summed up what he wanted to say when he said, in effect "I want this Bill to be looked at on the basis of: will it help or will it hinder?" That is how I believe we should look at the Bill; not from a party point of view but as independent parliamentarians. That is our job here. As I understand it, we have already agreed to adhere to convention and give the Bill a Second Reading. Therefore, we know that any real wrecking that ought to be done will be done in the other place. That is up to the other place and it is not for us to tell them what to do. However, we have a job, constitutionally, to revise a Bill if we think it needs revision. That is our purpose in being here.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, many of us have been delighted to hear the last few sentences of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Is the noble Lord saying—I put this question seriously and in no mocking tone—that it is agreed on his Benches that there will be a free vote on all subsequent stages of the Bill?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord put that to me before. He knows perfectly well that I have no more right to speak for the Conservative Party than he has to speak for the Labour Party. In these matters we speak for ourselves. It is for the individual Members of Parliament using their experience both inside and outside of the House to get as good a Bill as they can that will eventually become legislation and to which the ordinary folk will have to adhere.
This is a Bill which I believe we can approach in that individual way because we are all agreed on the prime consideration behind it. Everyone wishes to minimise or eradicate hooliganism. There is no argument about that because it is generally accepted. It is also generally accepted that though it is not the only magnet that causes hooliganism, the football crowd has proved to be a magnet. Big or small it has proved itself to he a magnet somehow that has allowed those who wish to be hooligans to give vent to their hooliganism in a way that is distasteful to everybody.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that it is perfectly proper that any government of whatever complexion, in the face of what has occurred over recent years, would have to bring in a Bill of this kind. It need not necessarily be this Bill but a Bill to try to deal with hooliganism along these lines. We are agreed on that, and there is no need to extend it beyond those boundaries. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, made the point that Part I of this Bill as it stands will not interfere with hooliganism in other parts of the country. That is true and everyone knows that. But if we can deal with even a small segment which will improve the situation, however minuscule, to that extent we should do it. If we find that it works then the Government should bring in measures to try to deal with the other segments in other parts in order to see whether hooliganism can be eradicated. if the Government do not do so, then Parliament must get behind them.
1250
I wish to argue to my noble friends and to the House generally that we should use this Second Reading to let the noble Lord know who will be representing the Government when winding up. that we expect co-operation from the Front Bench in looking sensibly at the many amendments that we shall be tabling. At the moment this Bill is not acceptable in my view and we should try to get it to a point at which it can be acceptable. If that cannot be done, then we should try to get it as near to being acceptable as we can by the force of our arguments in this House so that the Bill goes to another place so much the better.
My approach is really summed up in the views expressed in a letter that was sent yesterday by Mr. Millichip, the chairman of the Football Association and Mr. Dunnett, the president of the Football League. This is not a leaked letter neither is it one that has been stolen in order to be passed on to me. It is a copy of a letter that they sent to me. The letter is addressed to the Minister in which they say that as regards the League and the Association:
"We both confirm again that we welcome the opportunity to participate in any scheme which will rid football of the hooligan element which has attached itself to the game".
There we have the leaders of football admitting that this magnet of which I speak is associated with football. They undertake to play their part in trying to implement any Bill that eventually becomes a statute. That is anything that has gone through the test of this House and another place. I have no doubt that it will be a very rigid test. As a consequence of that I hope that it will be a better Bill.
The only point I wish to make to my noble friend and which will be extended when we reach the Committee stage, is one that 1 hope he will treat seriously. When we reach the Committee stage, I hope that my noble friend will recognise the significance of it. I personally hold the view—and it is clear that other noble Lords do also—that this Bill is impractical. However good it may be as a theory, once it gets out of the realms of theory and having to be applied in practice, it will not achieve what the Government hope for it.
Even with the many amendments that I hope will be presented and accepted, I do not see that Part I of the Bill will be capable of being made as practical as we should like it. I hope that I and others who share that view will be wrong once this Bill has gone through its various stages. Having said that I hope we are wrong, what about if we are right? What if it is impractical though it has passed the theoretical argument and become a statute?
I want to deal with that aspect because my personal amendments will refer to it. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and I are tabling our amendments together. When the Bill has gone through the examination of both Houses and if it eventually becomes a statute, I want a provision accepted that will make it clear to the administrator and the committee that will have to organise it under the Act, that they are not to implement that Act over the whole field of football matches but that they will apply it gradually by segments. Perhaps it may be applied to the First Division, then the Second and the Third Division. Perhaps another idea can be produced. If our fears

1251
that the scheme cannot be worked prove to be the fact, then instead of imposing the problems that will flow from it over the whole of the country, one can allow the scheme to go through the testing ground before it can cause the damage that would be done if it were applied generally.
In my military days I remember when training that the first thing I was told was that time spent on reconnaissance is seldom wasted. If the Bill reaches a point where it is worthy of becoming a statute, then despite the possible consequences that can flow from it being wrong, it should not be applied en bloc at once, but it should he brought in in a way that will minimise the damage that some of us believe may be caused. I believe that many of my noble friends wish to support their own government in their Bill. It was announced in the Gracious speech; and the Government are absolutely right in the way they are presenting it and what they have done. They have gone to a lot of trouble to organise meetings with everyone concerned and there has been a sharing of views. The result is this Bill.
I can well imagine that many of my noble friends will say, "If they have gone through that test with their usual thoroughness and if it is good enough for the Government, it is good enough for me". That is rather than the party view that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said he represented. I say to my noble friends that if they have doubts despite their loyalty to want to support their government, it may be that those doubts would predominate in them wanting to oppose the Bill. However, if they know that there will be a try-out before it is applied generally it may give them the encouragement to support the kinds of amendments that time and time again they would feel they should not support.
It is with that hope in view that we shall approach this Bill as independent parliamentarians and not from any kind of emotional outside feelings and loyalty to clubs. Our loyalty is to seeing that the statute book of this country has on it statutes that are practical and sensible. Our loyalty is not to Tottenham or to Wolverhampton Wanderers, which is my club, or Peterborough United, which is the one that I supported when I represented that area in Parliament. Our responsibility is to get a good statute, and that is a job that we, as individuals, have a duty to perform.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he accept that the convention to which he referred is a parliamentary convention? It refers to whether this House should upset a decision of the elected Chamber. As this Bill has not yet been to the elected Chamber, does he not agree that the convention hardly applies?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it is a convention. There is no legal force behind it. I think it is a good convention, and generally speaking it is one to which I hope we shall adhere on this occasion.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, that is not the point. I asked the noble Lord whether he agrees that the convention is a parliamentary convention and
1252
deals only with relationships between the Commons and the Lords. As this Bill has not yet been to the Commons, does he think that the convention still applies?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, if we ignore for a moment whether or not it is a convention, I understand that it has been agreed on all sides of the House that we shall not oppose the Bill's Second Reading.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, perhaps I may now be allowed to speak. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, is to follow me. When it is his turn he can speak for as long as he likes, but now that I have the Floor I shall hold it.
I should like to remind the House that we are talking about the Second Reading of a Bill. My parliamentary experience tells me that at Second Reading we say what we like, how we like and when we like. It means nothing at all. But after the Committee and Report stages the Bill finally emerges. In all seriousness the Government should consider very carefully what is said at Second Reading and should consider with people outside whether what they are proposing is practicable.
I put this point to the Government Front Bench and to all Conservative noble Lords. The Bill will introduce a national membership scheme. Every football club in the four divisions will have to have a membership scheme. I must ask the Government Front Bench whether it will work. Will every club be able to do it? Will the Government be able to introduce such a scheme by next year? I agree with what was said earlier that it is wrong to make this a party political matter. It has nothing to do with party politics. It is about football and what is best for the game.
I agree that there is the problem of hooliganism. It is a disaster. I ought to know—I know as much about the argument as most noble Lords present and certainly as much as the Minister for Sport. I have been president of Millwall Football Club for 25 years. I took over from his Grace the previous Duke of Norfolk. He did not even know that he was the president, which is fair enough. I try to make it work. I have been with Millwall through all its dull days as well as its good days. In the dull days in the Fourth Division, when applying for re-election to the league, I was the character who held the meeting with all the supporters. That was a terrible meeting by the way. It was held at the Dun Cow in the Old Kent Road. I told them that no law in the land says that they had to go to football matches.
My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton has recently taken a great interest in Millwall. He said during his speech that the club had presented him with a tie. In all the years I have been associated with Millwall it has never given me anything. So perhaps he will put in a word for me down there and get me one of those ties. I did not even know that Millwall had them.
This is a national membership scheme. I ask Conservative supporters whether it is practicable to

1253
apply to a magnificent club like Liverpool, which has an attendance of 40,000, 50,000 or 60,000, the same rules as apply to a club like Leyton Orient, which has an attendance of about 2,500, or Hartlepool with an attendance of 3,000. Barnsley was mentioned. It has an attendance of about 6,000, which I suppose is not bad. For some of the teams, especially those in the Fourth Division, the scheme will be an absolute disaster. How can the Government apply the same scheme to them? Cannot the Government understand that those clubs cannot afford to lose support—and they will; they must.
Such clubs do not have hooliganism. One never hears of hooliganism at Leyton Orient, Hartlepool and so on. The problem of hooliganism has been blown up out of all proportion. I have never known the media to give such coverage. I give as a example the Luton v. Millwall game. It has been on every television screen. It has been featured and double covered. You name it. Everybody has seen the Luton v. Millwall game. The crowd invaded the pitch and the horses came on. The fans were smashed down with truncheons. It is a wonderful story. But let us have the background. I know something about it because I am a fairly lively president. The match was played at Luton. When the crowd turned up thousands of them could not get in. They had queued for three-quarters of an hour. Finally, after a great deal of hoo-ha, they did get in but had to pay £3, which is a good deal of money. They were then told that they could not see the game because there was no room for them.
What did they do? They went behind the crowd that was already there and pushed and shoved and created chaos to get their three quid's worth. The people in the front had no alternative but to go onto the pitch. It was either that or be killed or stoned to death. I am saying that when the story of hooliganism comes to be written, for God's sake let us put it in its right perspective. Let us understand why it happens. I was there that night and I saw it happen. By the way, for the benefit of the Luton management, the toilets were filthy. The ground conditions were deplorable. They have improved since.
Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that I was delighted to hear the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. The last time I saw him in action was on a cricket pitch; and he was jolly good then. His speech today was apt and right. He and I think alike on this matter. I do not object to the Bill as a Bill. I accept the argument at once that hooliganism must be dealt with. However, do the Government really believe that the way to do it is through a national membership scheme in which every club must do exactly the same? It is a fact that about half a dozen clubs are prepared to be the guinea pigs and to introduce a pilot scheme. Why not let them do it? Why not give them one year to see what happens. These are famous clubs. One of them is Norwich. If it works, let us apply it nationally. If it needs legislation, so be it.
I do not want to repeat what has already been said during the debate, but the story that the football clubs have done nothing at all to deal with the problem is a scandal. Does the House realise that the Football Athletic Trust gave £500,000, which is a
1254
great deal of money, for the provision of closed circuit television in the grounds? What a difference there is at Millwall now. A close community atmosphere has been built up involving the local council, the schools and the police. It is now a different story and a different world. By the way, the chairman is a Tory. What about that? He is a 100 per cent. Tory. He is sick to death of the idea of introducing such a scheme. It is daft. I speak for him, believe it or not. I am speaking for someone who is 100 per cent. Tory and I am saying: pack it up; it is a silly scheme and it will not work. We must get the matter into proportion.
I finish on this note. I do not propose to go on and bore the House any longer. I ask the Government to pay attention to what is said in Committee. Please believe that it is possible that the Minister for Sport and the Prime Minister are wrong. Please accept amendments. Please accept the idea that this is a national game and that we must cater for the small clubs as well as the large ones. The large clubs can look after themselves anyway. I am worried about the small clubs—clubs such as Leyton, Hartlepool and so on. If we do not look after them we shall completely destroy them. If we do that, we shall destroy the greatest game in the world.
6 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Carston: My Lords, perhaps I should explain why I asked a question of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I asked about the convention which exists between the House of Commons and your Lordships' House. My reason was that this may not be the first time a Bill has received its Second Reading in this House, gone through its Committee and other stages, and then landed up in the House of Commons, where they have thrown it out. I am rather hopeful in this case that the House of Commons will throw out the Bill. It has nothing to do with football. I do not believe that the issue which we are debating today should be just about football. However, if it is, I think that we have heard enough about the difficulties which will be encouraged on football grounds by the presentation of this stupid Bill.
Surely no one in this House can now support the proposed scheme. We will not be in control of it, because it will be done by regulation. It will be run by people outside the field of Parliament. They arc the people who will decide who is exempt; they are the people who will decide the final scheme. No one must think that the scheme as outlined in the Bill will in fact work without damaging football.
Before the Heysel disaster—which had nothing to do with football hooliganism—Liverpool and Everton met at Wembley. All the press of this country praised the spectators of both teams, saying that it was a demonstration of how comradeship can properly be generated. How was it then that a few short months later Liverpool went to Heysel and we had that terrible disaster? The answer to that question is simple: there was too much commercialism at the Heysel stadium (the cheapest type of stadium) and a lack of safety regulations. But above all the major cause was the exploitation of young people by selling them alcohol.

1255
If the Government really want to tackle hooliganism—which is not related to football or any particular sport—they should really look at the record. Perhaps it would also be convenient if some of the football clubs looked at their records; the same applies to other sports in this country. For example, when commercialism entered cricket through Packer, it did not improve the image of cricket. Further, I can remember seeing "Pot Black" on the BBC; now the picture is very different. You could get a smile out of Fred Davis and Joe Davis; but now you cannot get a smile when two people are competing. Oh, no! They are not playing to win a game; they are playing to win£62,000.
If you trace sport throughout England and the world, you will find that the commercial element is completely destroying sport in its real sense. It has ceased to be a game; it has now become big business. We have reached a stage where, because some politicians think that something should be done about so-called football hooliganism, they are going to pick on the game of football. Can we really believe that the Ministers on the Front Bench opposite are discriminating against football? Is their attitude that there really is a serious problem in football? Do they believe that it is a big problem. that our reputation in the world, as was said, is being damaged by the hooliganism associated with football and that this is the only way that they can stop hooliganism?
This is the Government which decided to liberalise the drinking laws. This is the Government which led us to a situation where any young person, without any experience at all, can sit in an open place, drink beer and then have a riot in all those rural areas. This is the Government which have done that. Why was it done'? It was done to pander to the commercial lobby. If you really want to tackle hooliganism: tackle it at its roots in society.
I sometimes wonder whether the Government really want to achieve a good reputation abroad. We hear about the football hooliganism abroad that is supposed to bring a bad reputation to this country. But I wonder why someone suggested that British bobbies should go to the Spanish Costa del Sol in order to assist the Spanish police to get rid of the hooliganism caused by British visitors. There is a simple way to resolve that problem, and I am all in favour of it. If anyone goes abroad and commits violent acts of disorder and brings the good name of this country into disrepute, the solution is simple: take away his passport. He does not deserve one. As I say, I would be all in favour of that. But that is not the present law.
This new legislation seeks not only to victimise football as a sport; it seeks to victimise innocent people. It strikes at the very freedom of the individual. That is why I thought that perhaps the other Chamber may well decide to throw it out on Second Reading. If some of our aged politicians stick to what they have said over the years, then they certainly will do so.
When the Bill was first printed I occupied myself by doing a little reading. I went to a hook called A Case for Conservatism by Quintin Hogg. In that book he
1256
spoke about freedom. I am sure that Members on the other side of the House will know it almost by heart, especially the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. A considerable proportion of the book is devoted to denouncing a Labour Government because that Government dared to introduce a Bill which allowed regulations to stay in force for two years. Well, what have we here? This is not a regulation which will stay in force for two years. Here is a deliberate Bill which sets out to put power into the hands of a committee, allied to the Minister, in order to restrict my freedom and everyone's freedom.
Lord Ennals: That is right!
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the Bill will say, "You can't go to a football match when you like, unless you have an identity card". Let us follow through the idea of the identity card. There is no doubt that if Quintin Hogg—if we are to accept all the great philosophies which he put into that book—is right, then it is fundamentally wrong to take away the liberty of an innocent subject and place it in the hands of an extra-parliamentary body without that body being responsible to Parliament. That is what the Bill does.
I am not appealing to anyone to get rid of the Bill on the grounds that it will pose difficulties for footballers. God knows, football has created some awful problems itself. I have already mentioned Everton and Liverpool and the good name which they had. They used to proudly sing on the Kop, "We are the best supporters in the land"—and they were. But, things change. At the time when they liberated the ability of players to negotiate for higher and higher wages, 1 said, "Okay, you do it; but you are taking the spirit out of football".
If a player on a football pitch is running down the pitch and sees the goal in front of him and between him and that goal there happens to be an opponent, is it not right that we have almost accepted the cliché of a professional foul? It is in order; it is accepted. If you arc going to get a goal and someone stands in your way then, "Take the legs from under him". The player is not fighting to score a goal; he is probably fighting for a winning bonus. That is what poisons sport, and I think that we should learn a lesson from that example.
Let me quote Steve Heighway who, as some noble Lords may know, was once a famous Liverpool player. He is coming back to Anfield and he is very pleased to do so. He has been in America and is quoted this morning—of all days—in a newspaper talking about football in America. He said:
"Millions of kids are playing, even though the game collapsed at professional level because team owners were losing too much money".
When one hears certain chairmen of football clubs talking about buying and selling football clubs and using the ground in order to carry out development, cannot one see the same thing happening? He goes on to say:
"It needed selfless players who are ready to put something back into the game—but instead it attracted fast-buck merchants who milked the clubs and who didn't do justice to the sport".
Surely there is a lesson to be learnt there.

1257
The important thing to note about Liverpool Football Club is that it is bringing back Heighway to establish a system whereby he will fulfil the useful social purpose of encouraging kids on Merseyside to play football for the love of the game. That is the important thing. When a club with a proud history such as that of Liverpool is doing that, what do the Government do? They foolishly intend to place more burdens on the club. In the end, the burden will become so great that the club will be unable to carry out that kind of activity. It is not just Liverpool; other clubs are doing the same thing.
The Government say that there is a major problem. I wrote to the Minister and asked him what consultations the Government had had with the Association of Chief Police Officers and what the result was. Neither of the Ministers is here. Perhaps they thought that I would raise the point. It was downright misleading for the Minister to refer to ACPO and give the impression that a consultation took place with it. No such thing happened. All that happened was that ACPO was represented on the working party. Of course it was outvoted on the working party. If proper consulation took place with it, as has been indicated by my noble friend Lord Mason, the result would be that ACPO was opposed to the proposal.
I shall not deal with the figures that have already been dealt with, but I have a duty to deal with the figures that relate to the clubs that matter most to me. I shall deal with Liverpool, which has a fine history in national football. I shall remind the House, as an aside, that it was a Liverpool city engineer who stopped an awful lot of disputes on the football field by suggesting that if people could not agree who kicked the ball between the poles, they should put a net at the hack of it. I shall tell the House something else. In 1935 I was a shareholder member and helped establish a football club called South Liverpool. It is the only club in the country that can boast of the fact that it has royal permission to use royal colours on its strip. It is sad to reflect that it cannot afford them because that kind of shirt costs much more than a plain shirt. I am proud of that club. It was also the first club to have permission from the Football League to play a game under floodlighting.
There is another small point which may be of interest to football supporters. That club played the first game in Great Britain in which the opposing side played in bare feet. I am glad to report that South Liverpool won. I am sorry to report that my wife strained her ankle when she stepped down the wrong step.
However, I also wrote to the Chief Constable of Liverpool. He gave me some figures. He dealt with 24 fixtures at Anfield and Everton. He gave the total attendance of 1,812,000 people in one season. He then gave the figures of the crimes reported to the police at the times mentioned in the Bill—two hours before and two hours after the match. He gave the figures for the terrible crimes that have been commited in the name of, or associated with, football. First, he gave thefts from motor vehicles. Thefts from motor vehicles occur at any time when there are plenty of motor vehicles. The ones that should concern us are thefts from the person and
1258
woundings. In the case of Everton, there were four thefts from the person. We are talking about millions of people. There were 15 woundings. I am glad to report that in Liverpool—one would perhaps guess that I am somewhat biased towards the reds—there were only 10 thefts from the person and there were no woundings. That is out of 1,812,623 people who attended those two clubs. Is that major crime?
Only last week I read of a rugby player—I am not sure whether it was rugby league or rugby union, because I am not very well up with the oval ball—
Lord Dean of Beswick: Union.
Lord Sefton of Garston: That player was found guilty of kicking an opposing player in the face. That is considerably worse than any of the woundings I have seen here.
Is that the full story? No, it is not. I asked the chief constable to let me know about the ordinary violence that occurs at other times. The times that I asked him for were those which would relate to nightclubs and beer. A different story emerges, because he also gave me the story of drinking and driving. The Government are not suggesting that we do anything serious about drinking and driving. If a person goes into a public house, gets himself into a state and then gets into a car—this has been mentioned—he can kill or maim someone, with all the horrible consequences of that for the person's family; and he should not be allowed to go into a pub. Anyone found guilty of drinking and driving should have to produce an identity card even to go into a public house. We should have the same kind of restrictions if we are intent of getting rid of these evils. Similar restrictions should be imposed on public houses and entry into them.
Let me return to the incidents of crime. Let us remember that there were 10 in the case of Liverpool. The chief constable gave the figure for offences of violence (January to November between the hours of 6 p.m. to 2 a.m.) as 2,860. If the Government want a problem, that is the problem to look at. There were 44,800 incidents of disorder, apart from offences of violence, over roughly the same period. Are the Government doing anything about that? As my noble friend Lord Graham said, the Government are not doing anything about it; they are taking up Parliament's time to annoy people and to take away the liberty of the subject.
What does Mill have to say? Page 10 of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty states:
"The majority have not yet learnt to feel the power of the Government their power, or its opinions their opinions. When they do so, individual liberty will probably be as much exposed to invasion from the Government as it already is from public opinion".
Does not that strike a note with regard to the Bill? That was John Stuart Mill, so ably praised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, in his Case for Conservatism as being the true exponent of freedom.
The abolition of the right to belong to a trade union, the destruction of local representation on health committees, and on, and on, and on. Whenever there is a problem, the Government have a firm record of clamping down. What damage is

1259
caused if someone in GCHQ joins a trade union? Do the Government condemn trade unionism as such? Once they start along that road that will be the next step. Go along this road, with the removal of individual liberty from innocent people and the next step is identity cards for everyone. The Government are even talking of a voluntary identity card system.
Let me conclude on this note: I invite everyone in the House to consider the convention. The Bill has not been to the other place. When Members of the House start getting confused about what the other place has done and what some of the leading lights in the Tory Party think should be done, we must look closely at parliamentary convention. I believe, contrary to what has been said, that we should not stick to any convention. I am prepared to divide the House. I am not too certain that I shall have a seconder. I shall not waste my time trying to divide the House unless someone volunteers his services to me as a seconder.
The Bill embraces such important provisions for the preservation of democracy that we had better be very careful before we ego even half way towards accepting the idea of identity cards being imposed as a necessity upon individuals who are innocent of every crime.
I remember when the Tory Party used to regale us with terrible stories that if this country went Socialist we should all be herded, identified, and slapped into cells because of the overriding power of the state to determine where we were, who we were, when we were and what we were doing. The Tory Party used that as a rod to break a liberal-minded Labour Party. They used it in reference to Russia. How ironic it is that at a time when we are talking about glasnost in Russia, all we hear from the Government is about more and more restrictions on liberty every day that they are in office.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, with not quite such wide-ranging polemics as he achieved and return to the subject of the Bill. That is of course to deal with what most people recognise as a serious problem in football. The noble Lord commenced his speech by saying that the Bill should be thrown out by the Commons. He made it very plain that he regretted that he could not throw it out here as well. Therefore the point of view from which he looked at the matter was not entirely constructive.
The parts of his speech which I enjoyed most were his references to his past hero, Steve Heighway. I agree with the noble Lord that he was a wonderful player, and I am delighted to hear that Steve Heighway is back in Liverpool playing a useful part there with the young. I do not doubt that that will he good for the future of Liverpool or possibly Everton.
However, there is a case to answer. My noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Harmar-Nicholls have both made the case out and I think there has been a certain amount of agreement elsewhere that there is a case to answer which justifies the Government taking action. Football violence and
1260
football hooliganism have steadily worsened year by year. The facts are there. Over the past 25 years football audiences have diminished by half. That is a tremendous drop, to the embarrassment of many small clubs. Football clubs are banned from playing in Europe. What a sad day!
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, made some good points in regard to the English and Scots and how well their clubs have done. However, we were the leaders in football at one time. Look where we are now. In addition, there is the reputation and good name of England; and Britain in Europe. Our name has undoubtedly suffered from the most unhappy and violent incidents that have occurred when our teams have been playing away matches in Europe in the past year or two.
No government could sit down and do nothing. They have an absolute obligation both to the British public—many of whom have suffered with unpleasantness, disturbance, violence and even damage to property—and the football clubs. There must be many people in the clubs who would like to see some action. It is obviously for the government of the day to take action and come up with a scheme. I agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that the Government must be congratulated on their courage in doing so. It is a great anxiety to the Government and to myself as a supporter to find noble Lords opposite expressing with such passionate strength their opposition to the Bill, particularly the leading speaker, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
Leaving out the passion I take on board the point that there is general opposition throughout the clubs. I understand that, especially with some of the leading clubs. Manchester United were good enough to send me a copy of their presentation. Very good it is too. It is first-rate and most interesting. The club has an excellent record in every way, and is extremely well-organised. Everything is working peacefully and very well in that famous club. If every other club in the country could do so, there would be no problem. However, the fact is that they cannot do it.
If it were left to voluntary schemes, many clubs simply could not get a scheme going which would be effective in controlling the hooligans who go around and pester people. They do not necessarily come from the clubs. After all, there are gangs of hooligans who move about the country, going from one ground to another, causing trouble for everybody. They are joined by some of the local youngsters who are looking for a hit of fun. Then the fat is in the fire.
That is the situation with which the Government are faced. It is why I think that logic brings us to the point where we must have a national scheme. If we are to do so, then it must be a national membership scheme valid throughout the country. That is quite obviously the logic which was seen by the working party who put the scheme forward as being the right solution. Obviously the Football League and the Football Association who were represented on the working party did not like that. However, they have been good enough to say that they will co-operate because clearly they must play a major part in the football membership authority. They must work out

1261
a scheme which will apply to the whole country. That is what we all want to see.
I do not know whether my noble friends will be able to put the suggestion in a form which can be recognised by Parliament. Obviously there is great interest on all sides in ensuring that the scheme comes out right. Although passionate political points have been made from the other side, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, about the liberty of the subject, and so on, there has never been a cause affecting the game of football—of which we are all proud in this country—where we ought to put our heads together to try to find the best answer. We ought to get down to the matter in Committee and try to hammer out the difficulties which, as has been rightly said, will face the little clubs in the Third and Fourth Division on how they take action.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I understand and respect his argument as I always do. But how does he explain the attitude of the police? I am talking about the police as a whole who have said that in their view the scheme would do more harm than good if it were imposed nationally. That is why I go back to my earlier theme: why can we not start with a pilot scheme and see how it works?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I always listen to the noble Lord with interest and respect because he speaks good sense. He may be right; that may be the right way of proceeding. At the end of the day, the police must be carried with the scheme, it will never work without them. They have done tremendous work over the past few years in keeping order and avoiding a great deal of violence in football grounds. Of course the co-operation of the police must be won and I am sure that my noble friend is fully aware of that. Whatever is finally settled as the outline of the scheme must satisfy the police as being workable so that they can join in and play a major part in making the scheme work as well as we hope it will.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Mellish, of course the police must be carried along. But the national identity scheme seems to be the only logical answer to a national problem. It has been most impressive to hear the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, speaking about the Scots' experience; but there are relatively few clubs in Scotland. My word, those clubs have done well to get the control that they have done there!
However, our picture is vastly greater, and I believe we must go for a national membership identity card scheme. What must clearly be done by my noble friend Lord Caithness, the Minister for Sport, and Ministers generally, is to get the rudiments of the scheme put before the new football membership authority. It will then work on the scheme and get it into some sort of shape which will win the support of the police, and at least be generally acceptable to clubs. It must be acceptable because the clubs have to work it. If it is best to proceed with a pilot scheme, well and good; let us do so for at least a season and see how it goes. I foresee difficulties; but, nevertheless, the point must be looked at. I make that point broadly because we have all been making rather
1262
long speeches. Here is a national problem. We are all interested in seeing that the right solution is achieved. We on this side must look to noble Lords on the other side for co-operation in this matter. We want the best thought to be given to this matter from everybody, so that we can try and find the right answers to a national problem.
We shall obviously have some very interesting debates in Committee from noble Lords who know all about the working of clubs. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, must know an awful lot about that after his experiences at Millwall. We really want the very best thought to be given to this, so that we can hammer out the best possible Bill.
If the Bill is then approved by the Commons, it will go onto the statute book. Then the real problem will begin as regards the football membership authority implementing it for the country. I support my noble friends who have bravely put forward this Bill. It tackles a major national problem which needs tackling. I believe we can look with some confidence to noble Lords on the other side, and indeed on all sides, to help us find the right answers in Committee.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I feel that I do not have to justify the fact that I have always spoken on the side of crime prevention. Therefore, anything I say about this Bill does not imply that I do not accept that there is a problem. There is a problem with hooliganism in shopping centres and at railway stations. It is not always the product of people going to football matches. We would be very foolish if we thought that by merely implementing the provisions of this Bill, we would cure the problem of hooliganism.
We have listened to some splendid speeches and I have no intention of repeating their contents. But it is rather unfortunate that the implication has appeared to be that football supporters are all male. I should be interested to know how many women figure in the number of arrests.
I have followed a football team. This is the time for me to declare an interest. I notice that noble Lords on the other side often declare in a debate that they went to Harrow, Eton or to university. I declare that although I did not go to Harrow or Eton, I attended a good convent and I have followed Fulham Football Club for the whole of my life. I went to matches with my husband, my father and my son. My son takes his 13 year-old daughter to Fulham's home and away matches every week. They are the kind of football supporters we are talking about. Those kind of supporters form the majority.
This legislation is being enacted to deal with the minority. I was told to bring my Fulham scarf with me, but I have left it outside. It would be much more appropriate if we issued everybody with a supporter's scarf to denote that they are football supporters. I personally would resent being described as a designated supporter. There is an implication that one intends to do something wrong before one even arrives at the ground. if I go to watch ballet or listen to opera, I am not described as a designated member of the audience. Why do we select this particular

1263
game for this particular treatment? I accept that hooliganism is with us. But what I do not accept is that we can single out one area for treatment and then think that we have solved the whole problem.
We must look at the cost of this. Several noble Lords have mentioned a figure of £2·5 million. But that figure of£2·5 million will have to be spent every year to operate the scheme. The scheme will involve an increase in the work of the courts and that of the Crown Prosecution Service. That increase is foreseen in the Bill. So obviously the Government do not think that the membership card scheme will stop hooliganism. If they did, they would not be envisaging more police and more courts. That money could be far better spent. If one merely increased the number of police at grounds, that would be helpful.
The ground at Fulham is situated on the river in the middle of houses. Fulham Football Club is now in the Third Division. If the Bill goes through, it will completely bankrupt small clubs like Fulham. Those clubs provide a great deal of pleasure and entertainment to many people. What will this legislation achieve? It will not prevent one incident of hooliganism at Fulham because it does not exist there anyway. Some people may say that Fulham does not play a very good game. Nevertheless, there is a marvellous quality at the matches. Nothing on the box will ever replace the feeling of being part of the audience. That is a wonderful feeling and it is linked with the borough.
Sadly, Fulham fell into the hands of a property developer who had a heart attack and died. I am not quite sure why that occurred, but at least the Almighty has delayed the club's fate a little. But there is no doubt that this measure will be a sad day for many small clubs. Further, is the measure workable? I have heard all sorts of costs mentioned as regards the membership scheme. It has been said that it will cost about £11 per card. The Bill states very clearly:
"The cost of the Football Membership Authority and the installation of equipment at grounds and the issue of membership cards…is a matter for the football authorities."
So, having been issued with the cards a group of visitors come to a ground and face these wonderful machines. I have said before that I am a bit of a Luddite as regards machines. Special machines will have to be installed in order to get people through the entrances. If this scheme turns out to be like that operated on the Underground, it will certainly not move people through faster.
I watched someone on the Underground the other day who had a rogue card, which held up everybody. The lady in question tried to offer it to the ticket collector and bypass the machine. But we all know that the British ethos is to use the system. So she had to go back, use the machine and hold up everybody. I am not imagining that these things happen. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has left the Chamber. One of my staff had a bad experience in one of his shops the other day. Some machinery had been installed which suddenly broke down on a Saturday afternoon. About 1,000 people were in the shop, and they had to be locked in. Absolute chaos ensued. That is the nature of the beast that we shall be handling.
1264
I am sure that many noble Lords will have had the experience of lining up in those ridiculous queues at railway stations like King's Cross, Euston and Waterloo. I believe the only station that has not instituted them is Paddington. One waits in the queue and just about five minutes before one's train is due to depart the queue is allowed to move through the barrier. At that point chaos prevails. Heaven help the handicapped, the elderly and mothers with young children in that situation. It is everyone for himself.
I can just envisage such a situation outside a small club like Fulham. I can imagine a group of travelling supporters arriving for a match. If a machine is not operating properly, they will promote a riot. That is what happens when someone has paid good money and he is stopped from entering a ground. That person will be aggravated and his anger will spill over. This whole measure must be thought out very carefully.
This Bill is one of those where the Government will make rules up as they go along. I notice that in the Bill an authorised spectator is any person authorised by the Secretary of State, the licensing authority or someone administering the scheme. That gives us a pretty wide choice. Further, the authorities must obtain information if someone has committed an offence. How will they get that information? That, surely, is a breach of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and certain other things. I noticed that one noble Lord mentioned that the information on offences was not accurate. That is true of every situation. But the only way that the Home Office can operate the measure is by collecting information on the arrests that are made. I was delighted to hear the right reverend Prelate make the point with which we all agree. I hope that we all share that feeling. If we provided our young people with more opportunities to enjoy their leisure, hooliganism would not exist. In my borough there are 75,000 inhabitants, but there is just one swimming pool.
When I was teaching I thought that it was a terrible shame that, while one encouraged the children to follow the arts, literature and sport when they left school, the opportunities for them to do so were very limited. Of course they turn to the pubs, there are plenty of them, and the shopping centres. An undesirable element become football hooligans.
However, most football supporters just want to support their team and enjoy themselves. They are not rogues, they are not villains, they are not hooligans. This Bill seems to me to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Do not bring in everyone.
There are so many amendments that could be made to the Bill. I am very sorry that it has been introduced. I must say that as a supporter I feel insulted.
6.40 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I noted in the press that this Bill is fiercely opposed by the football authorities, the clubs, the fans, the police, the Opposition and many Conservative Members of Parliament. However, I am not convinced that the

1265
general public is opposed to the Bill. In that group I must include myself and I should like to explain why.
In the few weeks running up to the introduction of this Bill there has been a general denigration and condemnation of its proposals. It may be that the opposition to the Bill is so strong that it has obtained more publicity in the press than any other point of view. However, I am not inclined to that view quite simply because I think that some radical action has now to be taken on the matter. I feel very strongly on the subject. I think that we all do and we have heard some very strong speeches this afternoon. They have all been good humoured and I trust that all speeches will be.
My credentials for taking part are merely those of many noble Lords who have participated in the debate, a lifetime interest and participation in sport, although at the moment I see football only on television. I thought that I should say that before anyone else made that point.
I shall start from what I think must be common agreement. What is that common agreement? First, when I see drunken supporters abroad I have a feeling of shame. There is no other word to describe it: it is a real sense of shame. Strangely enough, when I see drunken supporters at home at our football grounds I feel disgust. I do not know the reason for the difference, but that is how I feel.
When I see people rampaging at football grounds, whether it is at one ground or hundreds of grounds, and when I see them outside the grounds or in trains—and goodness knows in London we know what happens on the Underground after football matches—I think that everyone in this Chamber must be in agreement that we must condemn such behaviour. It just will not do. Whether we condemn it or not it has led to our banishment from Europe. There is no getting away from that fact. In Europe we are loathed and feared.
I believe that such behaviour has made our football a focus for violence, certainly in European eyes and, I believe, in the eyes of many people who are often forgotten—the householders, small businesses and pubs in proximity to many of our football grounds. I think that it is sometimes forgotten what effect such behaviour has on many of them. Obviously some will disagree and say that football is not a focus for violence and that their particular club is not a victim of hooliganism. It is true that all clubs are not victims of hooliganism but I think that there must he common agreement that what we see on television is quite unacceptable.
That is why I am not opposed to the Bill. I am waiting to see what will come out of it. I believe that we have reached the stage where strong and effective action has to be taken and the time for voluntary action is past. Where we differ is in what action should be taken.
Without going into the details of the Bill, it will he obvious that many of the points that have been raised today are suitable points for a Second Reading debate because they can be argued and the Minister will be able to answer them.
I take the view, which has not been mentioned today, that if the Prime Minister had not felt strongly
1266
about the matter we should not have had this action. That I have always believed and I still do. I know that that view will not be popular with some people. but for many months now I have felt that the football authorities were dragging their feet. I know that we have heard lots of examples of what has been done. But mostly we have heard reasons advanced by football authorities as to why this, or that or the other would not work. My mind kept turning to Luton where effective action has been taken. I know full well that people will say that what has been done at Luton is not possible in this Bill and is not being done through this Bill. However, I think that there is not the slightest doubt that what has taken place at Luton has made it a great deal better for the families who want to watch matches and for the people who live around the club.
From there I tried to think which points attracted the most vehement opposition from people who are opposed not only to the Bill but to any action at all. Every noble Lord will have his own points. I have only four and I shall not take long. The first point I noted was the curtailment of civil liberty; the second was violence being transported outside the ground; the third was cost; and the fourth was bankruptcy for clubs.
I do not think that the argument about curtailment of civil liberty stands up. Surely one cannot talk about threats to civil liberties when one looks at what has been happening at some grounds and in Europe. What about the ordinary decent people who just want to watch football? They have civil liberties too. What about the families who are now afraid to go to watch football because of the behaviour on the terraces? I give threats to civil liberties no marks at all. I do not think that the argument stands up because the civil liberties of everybody are affected.
What about the question of violence being transported outside the grounds? We have heard a lot about that. If hooligans cannot get into the ground, is it likely that they will travel there just to cause trouble? As was said in another place during a debate, those involved in football violence will act in groups in a crowd in ways in which they would not act as individuals in the street.
Many of us, probably all of us, received a letter from Mr. Stott, the Chairman of the Football League Anti-Hooliganism Committee. He writes:
"What is likely to happen is that hardcore hooligans will neither apply for membership cards nor go anywhere near the grounds".
I know that he goes on to say that they will transfer their activities elsewhere, but I am concerned with the fact that I do not believe that hooligans will go to the ground if they cannot get in. l should have thought that that was quite obvious.
Then there is my third point: what about the cost? So many estimates have been made and so many figures plucked out of the air that truly it seems to me that we have no firm and reliable estimates. I have read Mr. Arthur Young's conclusions—I have a copy of them with me—but I do not think that we have any firm and reliable estimate of what the cost will be. The cost of membership cards has been calculated at various figures, but at the same time the point has been made that skilled and inventive managership

1267
could devise a scheme so that cards would be free and even beneficial to their clubs. However, we just do not know.
I suppose that many noble Lords, and probably all those taking part in today's debate, attended the demonstration given recently in this House by GEC when the type of membership card and turnstiles that could be used were shown. I understand that one of the main objections of the football authorities has been that current technology cannot deal quickly enough with the large crowds involved. Perhaps the Minister can tell me when he comes to reply whether I am correct in assuming that the Government would not have the intention of imposing (though probably that is the wrong word) this Bill, if it is carried, upon the clubs until they have assured themselves that the technology for admission to the grounds is correct. I think that that is so, but I should be very grateful if the Minister would mention it in his reply.
The question has been raised of bankruptcy for some clubs. I think we must accept that some clubs would not survive. However, I am sceptical when we are continually told that clubs in general cannot afford such a scheme. I remain even more sceptical when I read equally continually about the transfer fees that are paid. One has only to look at the back page of the Evening Standard this evening to see the size of those transfer fees. I do not believe that there is a shortage of money there.
In conclusion one could argue indefinitely the pros and cons of membership cards, electronic turnstiles and possible costs. As an outsider, albeit a keenly interested one, I wish that the Football League and the Football Association would consider the possible advantages of dealing with this problem and not dwell only on the possible disadvantages. I honestly believe that hooliganism infringes the civil liberties of the general public and that radical change is needed if English clubs are once again to be acceptable in Europe.
For that reason 1 think that we should try to consider the Government's Bill without prejudice. In this House we are very good at examining Bills and we should look at what amendments we can devise to improve the Bill. However, when we come to the end of that road, we should either accept the plan that is ultimately put forward or have another to put in its place. Quite honestly, I believe that if we do not do something about this problem, football as we would all wish to see it in this country will be finished.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Knights: My Lords, as the noble Earl the Minister commented, the problems of violence and hooliganism associated with the playing of football are not new. Indeed, all through the Middle Ages when it first developed as a local mob activity it was so rough and dangerous that it had to be curbed and sometimes wholly forbidden by law.
So far as concerns the modern game, the emphasis has been mainly on safety, culminating as it did in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. While many people may be surprised at the introduction of this Bill, it is perhaps more surprising that some approach
1268
of this kind has not been taken sooner. It is now 22 years since Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary first drew attention to the developing problem, when, in his Annual Report for 1967, he said:
"During the year much publicity was given to outbreaks of hooliganism by certain sections of football crowds, often associated with vandalism in the vicinity of the football ground and on train journeys to and from matches".
We tend to forget that it had become a common practice long before then for trouble to break out when neighbouring clubs played each other, but the development in the 1960s of the almost universal five-day week created for the first time the opportunity for fans regularly to travel about the country with their clubs, and so create widespread confrontations.
In more recent years we have seen the emergence of organised gangs who have little real interest in football but who travel to matches specifically to cause trouble in the crowds. There is no way in which we can turn the clock back, but clearly the answer to the problem must be to keep the violent fans away.
However, while the Bill may not he unexpected, I believe that certain aspects of it are somewhat unique. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said, in order to deal with what are generally regarded as small gangs of irresponsible hooligans who are almost exclusively males and in general not very young—the average age of 75 per cent. of them is between 17 and 25 years—one section only of the community at large, the football spectators, is to be inconvenienced. It is debatable how many of them there are. We have heard figures of 5 million and on one occasion this afternoon I think the figure of 10 million was mentioned. I believe that it is nearer 450,000 regular attenders every Saturday and perhaps I million in all.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to the form of legislation. Moreover, football clubs, like other places of public entertainment, are private areas. As with theatres and cinemas, they are required to be licensed and to conform with statutory safety requirements. It has always been the responsibility of the owner to ensure proper conduct on the part of the members of the public who go there, not that of the police or the Government. It is for them to decide who shall or shall not be admitted to their areas and who shall or shall not be permitted to stay there.
This Bill will create a situation in which that decision will largely be no longer the responsibility of the football club but will be taken for it by some remote football membership authority appointed by the Secretary of State. If such departures from the normal are to be justified, it may be felt that a clear need must first be shown for the proposed legislation; in other words, what is the problem which it is felt necessary to ameliorate?
As the Government see it, football is a focus for violence and there is a need to break the link between the two. Others have claimed that there is no real evidence of this and point to the considerable improvements which, on a subjective view at least, have taken place in recent years. One no longer hears of football trains being wrecked or motorway service

1269
areas being pulled apart. We no longer, or very rarely, see 100 or more supporters being arrested at a match at one time, as used to be the case, certainly in the 1970s.
It is rightly claimed that the number of arrests last year—6,147 out of 18 million attendances—is a much better proportion than the total number of arrests made in the adult population as a whole. It is also said that many of those arrests would have been made outside the ground for offences such as drunkenness or theft from cars. The Bill does not address itself to that aspect of the problem.
All I can add to that argument is that in the county of West Midlands, where they have six League football clubs, the percentage of arrests made within the ground has varied between 31 per cent. in 1985–86 to 53 per cent. this season to date. As to the offences for which the arrests were made in one recent year, at least 68 per cent. of the arrests were made for public order offences and related matters and 20 per cent. for drink offences. Therefore 12 per cent. were for theft from motor cars and so on. However, noble Lords may think that these figures for arrests are not a very good criterion by which to judge the position or the need for this legislation, bearing in mind that an incident involving perhaps 100 rioting hooligans might well result in only five or six arrests. What about the obscene chanting, and racial abuse and taunting that goes on on the terraces? Those probably lead to no arrests.
Having said that, I believe that it is accepted that there has been a general improvement in the last two or three years as the result of measures which were outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. However, 1 believe that the potential is still there.
The police have expressed the view recently that the threat of violence is never far below the surface and in order to keep it there large numbers of police have to be deployed throughout the nine months of the football season. The few offences that it is claimed are committed may be the result of that heavy policing presence rather than the absence of any potential.
So far as I am aware there are not authenticated national figures for the cost of this policing. The Minister referred to 4,000 or 5,000 or more officers being employed on one day. Figures of £30 million or £40 million have been published as the total cost. Certainly, in the West Midlands area on a Saturday when there are three home matches, 450 police officers are deployed for duty in and around the grounds, of whom 200 are paid for by the clubs because they are assisting their stewards in controlling the queues at turnstiles, keeping gangways clear and preventing encroachment on the playing area. These are all matters that are not part of official police duty. On Saturdays when there are only two home matches, the figures are reduced to 330 in total on duty, with 150 being paid for. If the hooligan element and the potential for trouble could be reduced, these figures could undoutedly also be reduced very considerably.
There will always be a need for some officers to control traffic and pedestrian movement outside the
1270
grounds, many of which are in densely built up areas and unsuitable for the purpose for which they are used. There will always be a need for some officers to help with stewarding in the grounds also. However, as an example of what can be done, since Luton introduced its "members only" scheme the policing needs in and around its ground have been reduced by as much as 75 per cent., although some of this reduction must be attributed to the reduction in attendance figures, which it is suggested is as high as 25 per cent.
However, noble Lords may well agree that a continuing drain on police resources of the current magnitude cannot be defended. Some further action is now demanded with a view to reducing it. One would have hoped to see more positive action from the football clubs themselves. But, in its absence, it seems to me that the Government have little option but to put forward their own solution. The key question is whether the proposed scheme will provide the answer. I believe that it should stand or fall on its own merits and not seek to be justified by some possible commercial return.
On the position within the grounds, I believe that the Bill could be the answer. Outside the grounds is a different matter. While visiting groups of hooligans may well be deterred from attending because of their inability to get into the ground, there is certainly a possibility that the local ones may still attend simply to prey on the hopefully well-behaved visiting fans unless police action can prevent this.
As to the Bill, I understand that the Football Association and the Football League have now agreed to play a major part in the football membership authority. I welcome this very much, if only because it will serve to emphasise that it is the football clubs which are responsible for the conduct of the spectators they choose to allow into their grounds. How the authority relates to the administrator referred to in Clause 3(1) or the Bill I am not sure. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on this. I am also concerned at the suggestion that the membership authority will be able to withdraw membership, if it so chooses, from persons who are ejected from the ground. Ejecting people who have become trespassers by virtue of the fact that they have offended against the club's ground regulations—which is the basis of such action—is a civil rather than a criminal matter. It sits rather unhappily against the criminal offences which also lead to withdrawal of membership.
I am also concerned that it will be the police who have to play such a vital part in the success of this scheme if the Bill becomes law. We have heard several comments this afternoon on the police view. I cannot speak for the police service. It would be quite wrong if I were to seek to do so. However, comments of the Police Federation have been quoted. They were in an editorial in the Police Federation magazine. I am not aware of the extent to which they reflect the views of the Police Federation and the Joint Central Committee. I believe that chief officers of police are probably as divided in their views as are most other people. I do not believe that they will voice any opposition to the general principle of the scheme, accepting that if a membership system is inevitable

1271
the Government's proposals are probably acceptable. However, I am sure that they will have some apprehension about the possible consequences. In particular, they will be anxious to ensure that the new regime does not involve higher levels of policing. There has been talk, for example, of one, sometimes two, police officers being required on every turnstile.
I am sure that noble Lords will wish to ensure—and the police will certainly be looking for it—that before the scheme starts the technology will have been thoroughly tested and will be robust enough to ensure that turnstile checking can be done with as little interference to the flow of spectators as possible. At Aston Villa last Saturday afternoon when the club was playing a cup match against Wimbledon, 69 turnstiles were in operation. Each of those turnstiles at 10 minutes before the kick off was allowing three persons in every two seconds. To slow that down can lead only to considerable congestion. I believe that there will have to be some provision in the rules of the authority to allow spectators to be admitted without checking, perhaps on the authority of the club secretary supported by the senior officer on duty, if circumstances of that kind develop.
The police must be fully consulted by the membership authority when settling the details of the scheme in order that the practical consequences and difficulties of what is being proposed can be taken fully into account. I believe that this also applies to Part II of the Bill. While the provisions there are to be welcomed, much is being asked of the reporting agencies. It must be borne in mind that not all police stations—which it is suggested may be the reporting point—are permanently manned on Saturday afternoons.
There is much more that could be said about the need for this Bill, the problems that it will throw up and the doubts and difficulties that we all have in mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has said, football violence is only a part of violence in the community as a whole, which plays such a major part in affecting people's lives these days. Football violence is only a part of it but we cannot go on deploring violence in our society and doing nothing about it. I believe that we have here an opportunity to consider whether at last the area of football can be improved. I believe that we should welcome that with open arms.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, 1 must first declare a minor interest, in that I go to Highbury, the home of Arsenal, about three times a year and occasionally go to Wembley—that is if Arsenal have reached a final. But I am not a regular supporter and never have been.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing the Bill to your Lordships today. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Hesketh on his promotion. There is one thing on which I can agree with my noble friend and other noble Lords; that is, that I deplore football hooliganism.
I admired the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. I am sorry he is not in his
1272
place. But, as he said, football means a lot to many people. Parading the cup to the town hall gives one a sense of pride; it is like a royal wedding or a birthday to others; it gives a sense of pride and joy.
Having said that I am not at all certain that this Bill will do what the Government and we want. Yes, the number of arrests last year was 6,147, but that I am told is 0·03 per cent. of the some 18 million who went to football matches. So the majority of supporters, he they families, club members, the disabled or the occasional supporter like myself and other noble Lords, have to be penalised. Much of what I wanted to say has already been said so I can be very brief.
My main worry is that the Bill will not work. We had a very good demonstration the other day from GEC-A very of how the technology should work, but when it does not it will cause havoc. One only has to see for oneself, as 1 have, at an airport when you check in for your flight. You are told that the computer is down or playing up. You are told that you will have to wait for a few minutes. In that case there are only 200 or perhaps 300 other people on that flight. When you go to a bank for a print-out of your statement or at a supermarket, as some other noble Lord said, you may have to wait for a few minutes. You cannot say that to 20,000 or 30,000 people, or even to 5,000 to 10,000. That is what will happen when the scheme breaks down on match day. It could or would give rise to even worse disorder than the Bill seeks to suppress.
All the big clubs such as Highbury, built many years ago, are in built-up areas with ordinary side streets on two or three sides of the ground surrounded by residential housing. This is not the right area to hold 20,000 or 30,000 or even a few thousand spectators for any length of time, so the police will have to open the ground and that defeats the object. I know that many police chiefs, who have to control the crowds, are very worried. It may sound all right on paper, but will it work in reality?
Like other noble Lords, I should like to see a trial period for one or two seasons at a few selected grounds, not a blanket approach. The clubs have done a lot with closed-circuit television. They have encouraged families to go to games, have designated areas for the disabled and have sold boxes to companies to bring in extra revenue. These schemes, plus the ban on drinking and the Public Order Act 1986—which could be tightened up—are working. With better stadium management with the police the level of hooliganism will diminish even further.
To use Luton—I admire what it has done, but at a price—as an example is wrong. Its scheme and what is proposed are fundamentally different. Luton's gates dropped over 25 per cent. last season compared with 1985–86. Yet across the league there has been an increase of 9 per cent. over the same period. Luton's police costs per capita have increased more than the average per 1,000 spectators. I fear that this scheme will be the thin end of the wedge if it is used for other sports and recreations, as has been said. I am all for a national ID card and perhaps that could work for this case as it could be endorsed just like a driving licence.

1273
If the Bill is enacted Parliament will not, I am sorry to say, have an opportunity to debate details of the membership scheme and the Bill will be passed when expert management consultants have said that the technology is not ready. Therefore, I believe, it is wise for proper trials to be carried out to test the technology before it is brought in nationally.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I begin by apologising to the Minister and the House because, owing to a longstanding engagement out of London, I shall not be present for the final stages of what is proving to be an extremely interesting debate. The Bill we are considering is a curious piece of legislation. If it is passed into law, its provisions will drastically curtail the entertainment of some 450,000 people every Saturday in the football season in order to deter on average about 200 potential hooligans. The Bill could wreck League and Cup football in England with a scheme produced as a panic reaction to violence in Germany last summer which we now know was caused as much by German and Dutch supporters as by English supporters.
The proposed scheme is entirely dependent on so-called "smart card" technology which has not been tried at a single football turnstile under match conditions. The Bill, as has been said, hands over indirect responsibility for public order to a person and a body whose activities will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Curiously, the Bill excludes Scotland, which has almost the same total number of football-related offences in a season but with a total attendance at League and Cup matches of the order of 5 million compared with 22 million who attend in England.
With all this in mind we are entitled to know why valuable parliamentary time is being given to the Bill. I believe we know the answer. I am afraid it is yet another example of the prime ministerial knee-jerk politics which have become so familiar.
The Government know as well as anyone that trouble inside football grounds is now very largely under control. The problems now occur well away from football grounds. The Bill is not really intended to deal with trouble inside football grounds, although the Government pretend that it is. Quite simply it is intended to deter potential hooligans by turning attendance at a football match into an obstacle race which will be attempted only by the keenest supporters. In my view the Government do not really care if football attendances decline by 20, 30 or even 40 per cent., so long as the Government are seen to be doing something.
The Bill stands or falls on the Government's assumption that hooligans will just not bother to turn out on match days if they do not have a card or if their card is invalid. But we are entitled to know what the Government think the hooligans will do instead. They certainly will not stay at home and take up crochet work.
It might have helped if the Government had paid some attention to the considerable amount of research work that has been done into the causes of hooliganism, particularly at the Sir Norman Chester
1274
Centre for Football Research at Leicester University. These factors were touched on in a most eloquent speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. In an excellent booklet, The Roots of Football Hooliganism, the problem is traced to, among other things, factors such as the social and economic policies of successive governments; structural changes within the working class; the rise of an identifiable teenage market and youth style; the changing sexual and racial contours of society and:
"changes in the mass media, particularly the advent of television and the rise of a sensationalizing tabloid press; a media-orchestrated moral panic over football hooliganism and consequent pressure on the football authorities and the government to take remedial action".
As an example of the change in society, I am sure that many noble Lords will remember that after the war there was a visit by Moscow Dynamo to this country. I am relying on my memory, but I believe that in a match when they played Arsenal in front of a crowd of 60,000 people there was a handful of police inside the ground to control that match. If the Government really think that they are able to deal with the complex matrix of the social and economic problems to which I have just referred with a football membership scheme and a "smart card", I fear that they will be in for a nasty shock.
As my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, the Government's case is not helped by the use of phoney statistics. Noble Lords may have seen the so-called league table of offences at Football League grounds. I have been a season ticket holder at Southampton for many years and, knowing how little trouble there has been over the years, I was surprised to see that Southampton was third in the first division table of offences—rather higher. I am sad to say, than it is at the moment in the real league table.
I examined the figures for the season in question and there were a total of 208 offences, which made the club third in the table. Of the 208, there were 43 inside the ground and 165 outside the ground. Of the 165 outside the ground, no fewer than 108 occurred on a single day at the railway station, three miles from the ground. Of the 108, I believe there were only three people who were charged with an offence; this in a season with a total attendance at Southampton of the order of 300,000.
I wrote to the Minister for Sport in December, asking him how a national membership scheme would prevent 108 people turning up at a railway station three miles from the ground on a match day, the worse for drink and looking for trouble. I have not yet received his reply.
The Bill, as we know, places great reliance—indeed, depends—on the so-called smart card. Your Lordships will know that we had a most impressive demonstration in this House last week, though a Committee room in the House of Lords is about as far as one can get from a fourth division turnstile on a freezing Saturday in February. If the smart card works—and I say "if" with some feeling, as all of us who have invested in computers in our businesses have scars to show for it—and, by definition, only one company can provide it and operate it nationwide, it will be an irony if this is yet another case of a private monopoly which is set up by a Government who believe in a free market.

1275
In the operation of the smart card—and I think we are entitled to go into this, because in my view the whole sense of the Bill depends on this—we were shown that at the turnstiles everybody would be let in and nobody would be delayed. But if there is an invalid card a red light will show over the turnstile and the policeman or the steward on duty will have to grab the offender and deal with him. It is not exactly explained how.
This could lead to a situation where 20 or 30 people with invalid cards, who know that they are invalid, will send in the first one in a kamikaze role. He will know that it is his job to dive into the ground as quickly as he can. The policeman will follow and the others will rush in. Although that is only a detail, it is a very important detail which the Government will have to deal with.
This Bill is unnecessary because the powers to deal with football hooliganism already exist. We were told only last week by the Minister for Sport how impressed he was by the police intelligence which enable the English police in the control rooms in Germany to identify by name a substantial number of English supporters at the matches for the European championship. If the intelligence is that good, I find it hard to understand why the troublemakers are not being identified and dealt with now.
This Bill requires much amendment. There are many of us who will certainly wish to put down amendments at Committee stage to exclude a number of categories of people from the scheme. To mention only two, there are people with disabilities and people with children. This Bill will do nothing for football and very little to control hooliganism, although it may change the venue of crowd trouble. I understand the constitutional convention which constrains what this House can do to this Bill. We must hope that common sense prevails in another place.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I think this Bill would generally have had a much more favourable outlook had it been introduced three years ago, or whenever it was, in the immediate aftermath of the ghastly Heysel Stadium tragedy. However, even now one must recognise the Government's good intention in promoting it. But one must also doubt whether it will be effective in achieving its desired results or indeed whether it will he practicable in operation.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, who was not concerned about the restriction of civil liberty. I think she was right. There are probably some specific areas in which there is a slight risk, but as I understand it the ordinary citizen has nothing at all to fear.
I am concerned that it is purely an enabling Bill and that the final scheme will be left to the football membership authority, albeit with the approval of the Secretary of State. It seems to me essential that the football authority and the Football League should, in the main, constitute the membership authority as they are the people who will have to make the scheme work.
1276
I wonder whether my noble friend can tell me when he winds up about the number of incidents of violence or hooliganism in the grounds of non-league clubs. There is surely a fear that the vicious element of the young thugs, none of whom is a true football supporter, in going along to use matches as a medium for a punch-up and so on, will transfer their activities to the grounds of non-league clubs or to other sports, as noble Lords have said. What will then happen if they do that? Will clubs in the minor leagues be designated and brought into the scheme? If so, where does one stop and what happens to the other sports?
We have been told by many noble Lords that there are problems with hooliganism there, and if there is a great incidence of violence within those sports will there be another Bill to cover them as well? If so, we might as well cover all spectator sports now in one Bill.
I was unable to visit the exhibition of the equipment that is to be used to allow entry into the grounds with a membership card which was held a few days ago in this House. It is claimed that this equipment will be foolproof with normal usage but, as the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, pointed out, there seem to be many ways in which determined young hooligans could sabotage the equipment and that would obviously cause complete chaos at the entry gates.
I understand that firms have indicated that they will supply and install all the necessary property and equipment for the entry mechanism to all clubs in the Football League. This will possibly be carried out at no cost whatsoever to the clubs. But it is obvious that someone has to pay and, indirectly, I think that the clubs will be paying dearly in loss of revenue through lower attendances, which I am sure are inevitable.
Perhaps I may give myself as an example. I am a Norfolk man and I have long followed the fortunes of Norwich City, but regrettably I no longer live there. Occasionally I visit friends at weekends and, if the ladies wish to go shopping, the men sometimes decide to go along to Carrow Road to watch a match. Also, my son lives between Portsmouth and Southampton and sometimes I visit him at weekends. If he is not on call or on duty at the hospital he may say "Well, dad, let's go along to see Southampton or Portsmouth play". We are all—my son, my friends and I—just casual spectators. We shall never get around to having our photographs taken, writing to wherever and sending our money for a national membership card.
Neither shall I, when I am staying in Norfolk, spend Saturday morning going along to Carrow Road and presenting myself there in order to obtain a temporary card to see a match in the afternoon. Casual spectators in the course of a season probably run into many, many thousands. As I think has been estimated, something like 20 per cent. or even more of football attendances are by casual supporters.
As the Bill now stands it seems that the football authorities do not like it, the Police Federation do not like it and genuine supporters do not like it either. One realises that the Government are determined that it should go through, and possibly they are right that it should go through in some form, but we must

1277
make major efforts to improve it in the ensuing Committee stage.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wise, for two reasons. First, he is a fellow Norwich City supporter, and secondly his late father, Fred, was a great personal friend of mine. We served in the Commons together. That dates me a hit but, as one expects, one does not get younger every day.
I simply do not understand Part I of the Bill. For Part II there is a case, but Part I makes me wonder what on earth we are talking about. For instance, the Bill states:
"'Designated football match' means any such match of a description For the time being designated for the purpose of this Part by order made by the Secretary of State or a particular such match so designated."
What on earth that means, I simply do not know.
I assume that the Government are talking about the Football League, but they have not definitely said so. Does it include, for instance, the Vauxhall Opel League? This is almost the Football League because the winning team in that league goes into the Fourth Division, and a relegated team goes back to the Vauxhall Opel League. There are many other semiprofessional leagues, some of which probably get attendances of Fourth Division standards, with some below. Nothing is stated. But as the Bill stands the cost to the clubs and spectators will be a completely unfair burden and will penalise the great majority of law-abiding people.
Protests about the Bill, the whole of it or part of it, cut right across political differences. We may have had one or two political speeches today but by and large it has just been individuals discussing the Bill, and it really is a case of a government against the people Bill. By "government" I do not mean all the supporters of the Government, but just that narrow majority.
I said that the Bill is opposed in many quarters. One amazing thing to me is that in Norwich, for instance, both Norfolk County Council and the City Council have voted against the Bill. To anybody who knows Norfolk, it is really something when the city and the county get together and agree.
I only wish that some Members of the Government had been at Norwich last Saturday, where sportsmanship and friendliness were demonstrated in the extreme, particularly at the end of the match when Sutton United did a lap of honour and received a standing ovation from nearly 24,000 people. That was not because Norwich City had won but because the people of Norwich applauded the achievement of a club getting so far. Quite frankly I felt taken aback by it, because even in the glass-enclosed sections people were standing, applauding, and shouting "Bravo". That is something that counts, and counts very much today.
The great majority of clubs have done a good deal to make their grounds attractive and safe, particularly in the past two seasons. Norwich, for instance, will shortly have a special enclosure for the handicapped with specially adapted toilets and other
1278
facilities for them. Millwall is a tremendous surprise. I attended Millwall matches in the old days when one almost first checked on one's insurance policy. Today it has changed. They have done wonders for family participation. They even have crèche facilities for young children. It is part of the community.
In many areas special arrangements are made for families, the handicapped, pensioners and young children. I put this question to the House: are the handicapped, the pensioners, the wives and children to be regarded as potential troublemakers? It is nonsense to think that way, but as it stands they are bound to be in the scheme.
Luton Town's scheme has been referred to. I understand that it has the backing of the Prime Minister. That is understandable because I think the chairman is now Member of Parliament for the area, but it is still a matter of opinion. Luton Town ban away supporters from attending their matches. Their fans can go to any ground in the country they like, but visiting fans from other clubs cannot attend a match at Luton. The result is that their gates have dropped to around 8,000, and there is a considerable financial problem.
Today most clubs have special enclosures for visiting supporters, and the segregation of spectators has proved successful. As I stated in the debate on the gracious Speech, I am president of Capita] Canaries, the London-based supporters of Norwich City. There are a large number of supporters' clubs in London supporting various teams in the English League covering the majority of football clubs. Each has a set of rules, which is rigidly adhered to. They are linked together in an organisation co-ordinating activities and providing sports facilities other than for football. All are decent, law-abiding citizens who travel many miles even to the home matches of their respective clubs. They deserve better treatment. A home match means considerable travelling expense to these people. The proposed membership card to them, with the added burden of delay at the turnstiles, is an unwarranted handicap and expense.
These are not troublemakers; they are football enthusiasts extraordinary. Membership of such clubs—and indeed club membership generally—is growing. Given official government support they would do much to meet the problem that the Government allege exists. Norwich has a membership scheme as well as the Capital Canaries scheme.
Like some other Peers, I have seen an example of the proposed use of identity cards. The use of these machines at grounds will cause delay at the turnstiles, which in turn will cause considerable trouble outside. The police do not like it. In any case a person whose card is rejected must pass through the turnstiles into the ground, I assume to be met by police and officials for investigation. He cannot go back through the turnstiles because the crowd is pressing to get in. Furthermore, the delays caused will only give rise to further trouble outside the ground where, in any case, the majority of troubles exist.
Perhaps I may now turn to the FA Cup. FA Cup matches are another problem. In the earlier stages many competing clubs are non-league clubs and

1279
some, like Sutton United, progress to the fifth round. Will those matches be exempt? Then there is the FA Cup Final which many casual supporters, and indeed others, attend, some possibly for their first ever match. Will they have to have passes or identity cards? Will the Prime Minister have to have an identity card?
Of course, there are a large number of people who go to watch various clubs play. They are not regular supporters of any particular club but like to go occasionally to a match, possibly in a town where they may be staying at the time. How will those people be catered for?
Invasion of pitches is sometimes quoted as a reason for the Bill. If that is the case, these measures should be extended to cricket as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool mentioned, especially for Test and Cup matches where crowd invasion takes place at matches where beer is readily and freely available.
A serious matter which needs to be raised during this debate is this. We have been told that clubs can have their new gates provided free of charge. All they have to do in return is to allow the sale of the identity card names to commercial buyers. That is a serious matter to which I strongly object. I believe that if the Bill goes forward, steps should be taken to stop anything of the sort taking place.
It is unfortunate that this Bill has come first to this House. By tradition we do not oppose Second Readings of Government Bills. However, we have the Committee and Report stages to make changes. Mr. Robert Chase, the chairman of Norwich City, stated in last week's club programme that there was bound to be a big debate but he said that there are no indications that any sort of compromise will get any consideration at all. All I say to this House is that it is up to us and another place to ensure that drastic amendments are made, for, in the final analysis, why should the great majority of law-abiding people be penalised by a very small minority?
7.42 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, people would have thought you were raving mad if as recently as the late 1970s you had forecast that within 10 years a British Government would seriously propose that what had been a popular game and spectacle in one form or another for hundreds of years should effectively become a private affair. Moreover, that it should also become a criminal offence for a perfectly respectable citizen, not affiliated to any particular football club, on the spur of the moment to try and get into a football ground without an identity card.
What has changed so drastically as to bring about this extraordinary state of affairs? Surely it is not football itself. Leaving aside the unusually peaceful 1930s and 1950s, back towards which people look with such nostalgia nowadays, football has traditionally engendered strong passions and a considerable degree of rowdiness and violence over the past 100 years or more, although never as much in this country as in, say, Turkey or Latin America.
1280
Of course, matters had worsened in recent years. However, as has already been mentioned by a number of speakers, the introduction of closed-circuit television has improved matters considerably and arrests within football grounds are down to one in 9,000. That compares favourably with arrests at other forms of recreational activity.
What has grown much more drastically over the past decade is violence, yobbery and vandalism in general: in pubs, outside pubs—both in towns and in the country—on the London Underground system, in trains, on buses, in shopping centres and on the walkways of council flats built in the fifties and sixties. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, reminded us, even Henley and the centre court at Wimbledon are now not immune from yobbery. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, talked about British football hooligans abroad. I would merely say that the British lager louts on Continental beaches and in Continental bars cause even more mayhem, taken collectively, than equally odious British lager louts in Continental football stadia. In other words, it is not confined to football: it spreads throughout the whole spectrum of youth activities today.
By singling out association football for their draconian restrictions, the Government are attacking the symptom—and a relatively minor symptom at that rather than—the disease. For disease one should perhaps read condition. The condition in question, which is a fact of nature, is young male aggression. Traditionally over the centuries this young male aggression has been siphoned off by periodic wars combined with hard physical labour in the intervals of peace. However, thank goodness, we have not had a major war for 44 years, and automation and mechanisation have taken much of the sweat out of the daily grind for the average person in this country and in the rest of the western world.
Of course there are other contributing factors: the dispersal of tight-knit urban communities after World War II into soulless high-rise blocks, and new towns with no sense of community; the instant gratification ethos implanted in the 1960s together with the cult of youth which was fashionable at that time, which demoralised parents and made them frightened of disciplining their children for fear of being accused of being reactionaries; the fact that so many children nowadays grow up without a father; the continuing decline in manufacturing industry coupled with the concomitant swing towards service industries which means that male adolescents are now finding that their sisters are in a position to secure better paid and more interesting jobs more readily then they can, which is a very severe blow to masculine pride. All those factors and many more, which I do not have time to mention tonight, contribute to the general upsurge in young male violence in which football violence plays only a minor part. I was interested in what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said in his opening speech. He said that at too many matches violence is just below the surface. In other words, he tacitly admits that young male violence is endemic and not merely confined to football matches.

1281
It seems to me that the Government are behaving like the proverbial little Dutch boy by sticking their collective finger in the small hole of the dyke which is holding back the great tide of young male aggression, while at the same time a considerable number of much larger holes remain totally unblocked. Furthermore, the small hole into which the Government are proposing to insert their finger is silting up quite satisfactorily anyway, mainly as a result of the introduction of closed-circuit television within football grounds, which is a very effective deterrent to potential troublemakers.
It is undeniable that many factors which have contributed to the present tide of violence at football grounds and at other sporting events and in the streets and on our trains and in blocks of fiats in south London and elsewhere are outside the present Government's direct control. But not all. After all, we are virtually the only country in Western Europe without national service of any sort. Surely that cannot be entirely unconnected with the much greater incidence of hooliganism in this country as compared with the Continent. That is not in itself an argument for the introduction of national service but it is a factor which cannot be denied. To what extent do our divorce laws, especially as regards alimony, and our taxation allowances militate against stable family relationships? This Bill merely scratches at the surface of the problem—and at what a cost!
The conservative minded—with a small "c"—older supporters, indignant at being branded as potential trouble makers, are not going to apply for membership cards. The casual once-a-year supporters, whether British or coming from overseas for the weekend, will also be driven away. This will lead, as I believe has already been stated, to a drop in gates of between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. Luton was mentioned. The drop in gates at Luton Town's matches amounts to as much as 27·6 per cent. since the introduction of a membership scheme.
Law-abiding youngsters may well he mugged on their way to the grounds and have their membership cards stolen by hooligans. That possibility has not yet been mentioned. The probability of electrics and electronics going wrong will put Boeing's problems with their 737s and 757s into the shade. How many of your Lordships in the past 12 months in the course of their business or when trying to book an airline ticket over the telephone have been met with the dreaded phrase, "Sorry, the computer has gone down, yet again".
I repeat the warning given by the Police Federation, albeit in an editorial, that when a scheme breaks down it will do so on match days and give rise to the threat of even worse disorder than it seeks to suppress.
Nor is Part II entirely without blemish. I am a little concerned at the easy ride given to Part II by noble Lords this evening. There is a nasty smell of retrospective legislation or, at any rate, prospective retrospective legislation contained in Part II. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will give his views on that when he winds up. Clause 12(3)(a) seems to make it possible for the ban imposed by Part II to apply to offences committed before the Bill becomes
1282
law, or even before the First Reading. Surely we must beware of that. It is not spelt out specifically but appears to leave a loophole in that respect.
Clause 19 is also extraordinary. It provides that someone who has been convicted of an offence abroad and who has duly served his sentence abroad can nevertheless be arrested at some point after he returns to this country and brought before a magistrate. That would appear to be a gross assault upon the freedom of the individual and not to be welcomed by any means.
The traditional British metaphor for overkill, of which this Bill is a prime example, is "Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut". However, at least the sledgehammer usually finds its target even if it happens to shatter the edible part of the nut in the process. Far more apposite in this case is the equivalent French metaphor. The French talk about "Using a cannon to kill a fly". Your Lordships will not need reminding that even on the rare occasions when they are aimed with pinpoint accuracy, cannons cause a great deal of incidental and random damage. The quick witted fly, on the other hand, may well escape altogether.
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, one of the advantages of speaking low down in the batting order is that one has the benefit of listening to some excellent speeches which cover all the points that one should have liked to make oneself. Moreover, with dinner approaching one is perhaps encouraged to be brief, which I promise to be.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, and to discover that we have something in common; namely, a mutual support of Liverpool Football Club. However, I regret to say that after that I part company with most of what he had to say.
The events of the Heysel Stadium disaster were, as we know, appalling and they have already been referred to by some noble Lords. Obviously it was a matter of great sadness to me that players from Liverpool Football Club were playing on that occasion. It had a personal tragic feel about it.
The result of that tragic event was that English clubs have been banned from playing in Europe. Surely we must now all strive to get back to where we can hold our heads high in Europe as a nation which can control its supporters and also represent our country in the game of football. Therefore, I am in favour of introducing some form of legislation.
I accept that the Bill is not necessarily perfect but I hope, as my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Nugent of Guildford, said, that we can adjust elements of this Bill in Committee and on Report. However, I believe that the main thrust of the Bill must be right because the hooligan element has unfortunately developed to a stage where something must be done.
It has been said that there is very little support within the clubs for the scheme but I am not altogether certain that that is the case. I have made one or two soundings and find that the clubs have been mollified to a considerable extent by the comments of my right honourable friend the Minister

1283
that the Government very much seek to bring in the clubs and the Police Federation to advise on and develop this Bill. It is hoped that those bodies will work closely with the administrator and the licensing authority.
As I said, there are one or two possible wrinkles in the scheme. It occurred to me that a supporter who is undecided about attending matches regularly and who therefore has not obtained a card will be unable to gain access to the club. Therefore, the scheme may have a deleterious effect on clubs obtaining new members because spectators will find it impossible to get into their first match without a card.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said that hooligans will not go to football grounds if they cannot get in and I entirely agree with her, but there is another aspect relating to hooliganism, which the press sometimes infers has been perpetrated by football supporters. It is sometimes difficult to prove that the hooliganism which takes place outside a ground has not been perpetrated by football supporters.
I said I would be brief. I conclude by saying that I support the Government in the main thrust of the Bill and I hope that it can be improved during the Committee and Report stages. I hope to do my part during those stages.
8 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, perhaps I may echo the last few words of the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, who I believe said that this is not a perfect Bill and that we hope to improve it as it goes through. I believe that to be absolutely right. It is not a perfect Bill. Those of us who are taxpayers and ratepayers pay each weekend towards the cost of funding the activities of football fans outside the stadium. The football teams pay for their policing inside the grounds and that I totally appreciate. We pay for it outside. That, if nothing else, is an excellent reason for the Government to bring forward this Bill tonight.
To be asked to favour such an enabling Bill is always difficult. It is rather like planning one's honeymoon. One looks at the tour operator's brochures; the scenario is perfect. But one still has a doubt as to whether it will all be all right on the night. Despite that and because upsets such as violence and hooliganism—one can use all kinds of words—go right back to the police officer on the white horse at Wembley Stadium in 1924, I feel that this Bill is right. Those of us who are outsiders and who pay for the policing of activities not actually occurring within the grounds, have a reasonable ground for asking the Government to bring forward legislation. I believe that we are right to do so.
As farepayers or as subsidisers of British Rail, London Underground and the buses, at weekends we are paying for the police to police the travelling football fan. Why should we be doing that, and why should we be paying as much as we are? I believe that the Bill is right. As I said before, I feel that to ask noble Lords to approve an enabling Bill is like the honeymooner looking at his potential hotel; it is
1284
rotten. My support for this Bill tonight would be much stronger if I had actually had the scheme, as it is called, before me.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that is right.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I see the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I greatly admired his speech because it addressed itself to the issues, whereas the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was, if I may say so, trivial. I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and I welcome his support for what I am saying. I do not feel that we should be paying for the by-products of football hooliganism. As a Hampshire ratepayer and taxpayer I resent having to pay twice over the costs incurred in policing supporters outside the grounds every time that Southampton, Portsmouth and Bournemouth play at home.
I also feel that it is wrong that the police should be required to do this. I know that the police will always find themselves in a difficult position because they do not like to do this. On the other hand, there are a fair number of policemen who wish to earn overtime. I suspect that a good deal of what takes place at weekends is overtime-related.
I have sat through most of the previous speeches and there have been those in favour and those against. I believe that those who are in favour of the principle are right. Those against, on nut and bolt grounds, are wrong. I return to what I said about the policeman on a white horse at Wembley in 1924. The football promoters have had a lot of time to get their acts together. I have had many briefs from them and I have to admit that most of them did not seem totally relevant. I received one saying that the cost of this whole scheme as charged to the football teams (ultimately it is the consumer who will pay and there is nothing wrong in that) would destroy the small teams and even the medium-sized ones. The gentleman who wrote the first letter to me, two days later went out and spent £800,000 on a goalkeeper. Is he actually trying to persuade me that the star billing is critical and that he has the right to spend money on that while we, as the ratepayers and taxpayers, and in the fullness of time the poll taxpayers, shall pay for anything that happens outside the grounds? I find that nauseous.
It has been said tonight that the need to pay for this scheme will kill the small clubs. The Western Mail—the voice of Wales—this morning carried a lovely story saying that a Third Division team was willing to pay £150,000 for a Cardiff player and a Fourth Division team was willing to pay £100,000. A great many of the arguments about destroying football as we know it have been about Third and Fourth division teams. If a Fourth Division team is willing to pay £100,000 for a Cardiff player, then the money is around. I come back to the fact that the security, safety and comfort of the spectator is much more important than the stars on the team sheet.
Taking up the point that the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, made, inevitably there are smaller points that one wishes to see pursued. The one I wish to pursue is that of the foreign tourist. Noble Lords will know that I work for the British Tourist Authority

1285
though I do not normally speak for it. The authority has put on record its concern that a totally hard and brutal membership scheme would kill a source of tourism for this country. I support the authority, though it was its view and not mine, in this case.
We have many foreign visitors coming to this country to watch British football. On a good day when they play at home, for example, Tottenham receive 1,000 to 1,500 Scandinavian supporters who have been assembled by the shipping companies and the airlines because they wish to watch British football live. I am very concerned that they may be caught in the membership card net. I urge the Minister that when the scheme sees the light of day we take account of their requirements and that they should have very easy access to grounds. If they do not we shall not only lose them for two nights, but also the revenue to British carriers that they produce. Football being what it is we shall also lose their spouses. If the man comes here to watch football he comes over on a British carrier; he spends a couple of nights at a London hotel and then he goes back with a British carrier. Meanwhile his wife spends a good deal of money in Oxford Street. We shall lose out very heavily.
Another point on which I wish to urge the Government forward relates to the second half of the Bill and its provisions to stop the football hooligan going abroad. In this I believe I speak for all British carriers in utterly welcoming this measure. It has been welcomed by several other noble Lords today. I had the misfortune to go to Holland on that day in early 1986 when a 20,000 tonne ferry between Harwich and the Hook of Holland with 1,500 passengers plus 100 crew on hoard, had to turn back to Harwich half-way across the Channel in order to unload Manchester United and West Ham supporters. I was going there for my mother-in-law's 80th birthday party. I can tell the House that no matter how great the welcome one receives on arriving for one's mother-in-law's 80th birthday party, it is rather destroyed when people say, "What about these English who more or less destroyed the Dutch ferry on the Channel last night?".
I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, assuming that the membership scheme goes ahead—I have not objected to the membership scheme—will the transport police who work the ports have powers to refuse admission? Secondly, will the carriers have more long range powers to refuse transit to people whom they wish to reject? Will the transport companies be able to ask people whether they have membership cards? If a passenger says, "No, I have lost it", will companies have access to the computer that runs the scheme so that they can refuse to board passengers?
On that night there were 1,500 passengers and 100 crew, of whom perhaps 100 passengers were violent. Forty-nine were arrested and 19 were subsequently charged. It was an impasse in terms of British participation in European football because the Brits had been banned from playing competitive matches. Noble Lords may recall that the trouble involved a group of Manchester United supporters and a group of West Ham supporters. Sealink said that, under the rules that had been agreed with the police and others,
1286
it could not reasonably have anticipated that. I hope that the scheme will make provision for the carriers to have access to the computer when they have reasonable cause to do so. That said, as a taxpayer, as a ratepayer and as a person who is sometimes intimidated by football fans, although I have not been to a football match for two or three years, I can only wish the Bill a fair hearing and a good wind.
8.12 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am sure that it must be the desire of all noble Lords to stamp out hooliganism in all forms. Therefore I find it somewhat disappointing that the Bill has riot received the amount of support that I should have liked to have seen. The Government have been extremely courageous. It is necessary to deal with areas of unrest and offensiveness, which are not good for anybody or any country. The Government are trying to grasp the nettle.
A great deal of legislation these days seems to operate on the basis of looking over our shoulders and trying to appease people. We are told that we should not go too far in case we upset someone. This is wrong. If there is a point, we should grasp the nettle. We should hit the problem hard. This Bill will hit those who bring down the country's name and try to destroy the enjoyment of spectators at sporting events—in this case, soccer. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked earlier why the legislation is being linked only to soccer. I would link it to all sport. Why should people be offended? The Government are 100 per cent. right to grasp the nettle and to hit the nail on the head. They are taking the rough with the smooth. I am sorry that many noble Lords have spoken rather mutedly about supporting the Bill. I say that because the principle is right.
Why limit the Bill to soccer? I could not agree more. The Bill provides a certain regulation in regard to people going to soccer. Why not extend it to all kinds of sporting events if the need arises? My only connection with sport on a national scale is through cricket. I hope that we shall never see on the cricket field the same unhappiness and discord that unfortunately seem to have crept into soccer. But if that were to happen, why should there not be a provision in the Bill whereby the Secretary of State could by order—I am not a Parliamentarian and I do not know whether the correct term is an Order in Council or an affirmative resolution between both Houses of Parliament—use the fabric of the Bill to push the button and say, "I'm very sorry. Wimbledon has gone the same road as football. We need identification cards"? That could be a useful provision. If another sport were ever to suffer the same sad decline as football, we would not need the procedure of a new Bill going through both Houses of Parliament. It is a practical suggestion which I hope would never have to be used.
This Bill is the thin end of the wedge whether we like it or not. It is the thin end of the wedge to the extent that one will seriously have to consider whether one needs to introduce national identity cards. I know that is anathema to many people and I quite understand their concern about it. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will tear me to shreds

1287
when he comes to speak. However, if one has an identity card for soccer matches, it begs the question why one does not have identity cards generally.
We are all on the data bank. Everything is known about us. We carry cash point cards. We put the card into the till and it tells us in two seconds exactly what our bank balance is. One carries all kinds of cards. That is not a far step from having a national identity card. After all, during the war, no one seemed to complain about having an identity card. I do not think that serving members of Her Majesty's Forces complain about having some form of identification on them. I am sure I speak for many noble Lords when I say that I would not complain about having such a card. It could be useful in many ways. It might help the police.
I do not see the objection to the membership scheme. On the London Underground one puts in the ticket, it goes through the machine and through the gate one goes. If the identity card causes a blob on the computer, someone will say, "What are you doing?"; and there you are.
The principle should not be too difficult to implement. If we go down that route with the Bill as it stands, fine, I support it entirely. However, I question whether it is not the start, or the thin end of the wedge, of a national identification scheme. If that is so, I would support it enormously. I hope that that remark will not be taken out of context or that people will think that one is Right-wing, or anything like that; one has nothing to hide. Indeed, good people have nothing to hide. Further, if it is helpful and constructive to the authorities, there could perhaps be merit in it.
I hope that the Bill will receive rather more support than it has received so far this evening. Noble Lords have criticised the concept of it, but I have not actually heard a great deal of constructive criticism. I ask myself: what do you want? I do not know. Surely we want to abolish hooliganism. Okay, if you cannot accept the Bill as it stands, or something like it, then you must produce something better. I think that the Government have done a jolly good job in grasping the nettle and being quite firm about a policy.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should think that all of us are concerned about football hooliganism and, indeed, we all want it to end as soon as possible. But, like other Members of the House, I am concerned also about the bestial battering and killing of old folk, often for only a shilling or two, as I am about the disgraceful beating, raping and murder of women and the disgusting abuse and killing of children. Perhaps we ought to have a Bill to deal with such matters and not give priority to this particular piece of legislation. That is where action is really needed, and needed urgently.
I am not a great follower of football, and I never have been. But I am opposed to Part I of the Bill because I believe that it is a thoroughly illiberal measure aimed at one particular section of the community in an attempt to deal with a problem
1288
caused by a small, well-heeled group of Fascist thugs who have no interest in football other than to ruin it as a national sport.
Clearly with the production of this Bill the thugs have won, because, as we have already heard, the imposition of a national membership scheme will deplete attendances at all matches, cause severe financial difficulties for most, if not all, football clubs and put the future of Fourth Division football in jeopardy. 1 do not wish to go into all the details of that because other noble Lords have already done so. Indeed, the Football Association and the Football League have set out in detail their own objections and have given sound reasons as to why the scheme will not succeed and could, under certain circumstances, worsen the situation especially outside football grounds.
The National Council for Civil Liberties has prepared an impressive paper on the civil liberties aspects of the Bill. It points out that people arrested but not charged with, or convicted of, an offence may nevertheless be punished by the removal of their identity football pass. My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton quoted from Police, the organ of the Police Federation. Perhaps I may make a further quotation which appears at the end of the article from which he quoted. It says:
"Mrs. Thatcher's insistence that football hooliganism must he conquered reflects the feelings of the whole law-abiding public. All the more reason why such an objective needs something far …more feasible than this lamentable miscarriage of judgement".
That is the view of the police on the matter. Indeed, noble Lords will note that the article mentions Mrs. Thatcher in particular. The police are quite clear that this is not Mr. Moynihan's Bill; he does not have the political weight to deal with such a Bill. In fact, it is the personal Bill of Mrs. Thatcher herself.
Even if the Bill works, the thugs will still be around, make no mistake about that. Is there not therefore a danger that they will transfer their attention to other sports, like rugby and cricket? What will happen then? Will the spectators attending those games have the scheme extended to them, or will the Government then use the situation to extend identity passes to the whole of the community?
The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, who has now left the Chamber, made reference to the possibility of a national scheme. He said that he did not much care whether we had one. Let me assure the noble Viscount, and other noble Lords, that many of us do care and care very much about a national identity scheme. We do not want it at any price. I say that because these days when much information can be stored on a very small piece of card, the Government would have the means to control all of us in everything we do.
Let us not forget, especially in this House, that identity cards are the tools of autocratic government and dictatorship: we should be clear that there is no case, and indeed there ought not to be any support, for a scheme to impose national identity cards.
It may well be, if the Government have such a scheme in mind, that big brother is a little late arriving; but he is certainly on his way under measures produced by the Government such as this Bill. Since the Bill has been published ordinary

1289
football fans have been making their views known loudly and clearly, in Swindon and elsewhere. In Swindon, which I had the honour and privilege of representing in the House of Commons for 13 years, the local newspaper, the Evening Advertiser carried out a poll which showed quite clearly that 84 per cent. of the fans were completely opposed to an identity card scheme, while only 9 per cent. supported it.
Other people have been good enough to write to me direct. One of them, Mr. Steve Cann, sent me a copy of a petition which will be presented to the House of Commons in due time. That petition already has 1,754 signatures, with many more to come. Mr. Cann points out that at Swindon Town last season only 67 arrests were made out of a total attendance of 210,000. Moreover, some of those arrests were apparently of people outside the ground who were stealing from the cars of football fans who were inside the football ground.
Another Swindon resident, Mr. Ron Burchell, who is campaigning against the Bill, supports Swindon Town's own pass scheme, which has already eliminated trouble inside the ground. He wonders what relevance a national scheme will have in relation to football matches played abroad. Another letter I received came from a Mr. John Crowdey. He is seemingly an octogenarian and he has been an Everton supporter—I do not know why he should want to be an Everton supporter, but nevertheless he is—since 1919. He still attends some football matches and wants to know whether he is to be classed as a potential geriatric hooligan as apparently he, together with all other old people, will have to carry one of these silly identity cards.
Clearly then there is no need for a national scheme in Swindon. Further, although Swindon Town is not on its uppers financially—at least I do not think so—it is not so flush with money that it can easily withstand the adverse financial effects that the scheme will bring.
The same is true of Reading, where I live. It has introduced its own scheme and is trouble free. My younger son attends Reading regularly, and he tells me that the arrangements work efficiently and well. He feels safe and at home when attending matches. The scheme works there. Indeed, my wife, who is a magistrate, tells me that since the scheme has been operative the number of football hooligans dealt with by the Reading magistrates' court has fallen away to practically nil.
The football clubs themselves and football itself have been dealing with the problem at the request of the Government. There are signs that it is working. Why on earth bring forward such an illiberal Bill at this time?
Like my noble friend Lord Sefton of Garston, I should like to have the opportunity to vote against this wretched Bill tonight, but convention unfortunately prevents us from doing so. I hope, however, that the good sense and fairness of the House will ensure that in Committee, and at other stages the Bill can be improved beyond all recognition to make it acceptable to football and to those who cherish our traditional and hard won civil liberties.
8.31 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on making out an extremely good case for identity cards. He has just said that Swindon Town has identity cards and that they have cut down the amount of football-related violence. That, in essence, is the whole of the Government's argument. I must congratulate the noble Lord on perceiving it with such instant clarity.
"Modern youth have no manners, are ill disciplined and show no respect for their elders".
That is not my view. It is something which was found inscribed upon clay tablets in Samaria 2,500 years before the birth of Christ. In other words, young male misbehaviour is nothing new. I believe that Nicaragua and El Salvador went to war over a football match. I heard in my bath this morning a description on the wireless of a Spanish football match this week where the goalkeeper was hit on the head by an orange thrown from the upper tier of a public gallery. The match finally had to be called off because of fireworks. It is not a problem which is confined to this country. It seems to apply to Association Football much more than to other games. It does not seem to apply to Rugby League, although there have been one or two fairly unpleasant incidents at Rugby Union matches.
I attended a Rugby Union match between France and England. Every condition which should have caused a riot was present. There was no segregation of fans; too many tickets had been sold on the black market and so one could not see anything if one was stupid enough, as I was, to buy a ticket on the black market; the CRS was out in force; and there were container-loads of drink flowing about inside the ground. One would have thought that that was a perfect example of something which should have produced a massive riot, but it did not. I cannot tell your Lordships why. It was an extremely enjoyable occasion.
Surely the Bill is an attempt to isolate out of Association Football the unpleasant yobbish element. Like almost every other sport, when played well Association Football is immensely pleasurable to watch. I admit that I have been to only one football match: when Leicester City played Coventry in the Cup in 1962. My only other connection with Association Football is that the chairman of Arsenal was a troop leader in my father's regiment during the war. That is an even more tenuous connection. 1 occasionally watch football on television. However, I know that the general public—this was a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton—is fed up to the back teeth by people whose behaviour is utterly intolerable in a civilised society. Again, that is not new. It seems to be confined, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, to young males between the ages of I6 and 30.
There was a terrible row because a Highland regiment stationed in Minden went on the rampage and behaved badly. Many of the soldiers lived up to the description of the soldiery as brutal and licentious. The German Burgermeister called them poison dwarfs. Some of your Lordships may remember the incident. That again was an example of

1291
young males becoming aggressive, macho and out of control. That surely is the problem with which we are attempting to deal.
We all behaved badly when we were between 18 and 25. I look around the Chamber and I bet there is not one male Member—here I am being blatantly sexist because it is hormonal rather than anything else—who does not have something of a slightly stroppy, yobbish nature that he did when he was between 18 and 25 and that he would not like other Members of your Lordships' House to know about. I should be surprised if we could all lay our hands on our hearts and say that we have not misbehaved. I did. I even buried deckchairs over the side of the "Dilwarra". I thought it was terribly funny. I would not do it now. It was 21 year-old misbehaviour and one should not do it. It is that type of behaviour, writ much larger, that one is trying to deal with.
Lord Graham of Edminton: Mine was 26.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, there is nothing new in sporting riots. There were some splendid riots in Constantinople in 520, or something like that. between the blues and the greens. They were both chariot race supporters. They were not arguing only about the Government; there was also what the right reverend Prelate wanted—some religion thrown in as well. They were arguing about the government, the substance of Christ and sporting matters. The government nearly collapsed. Its most powerful member at that time was a woman of immensely strong character, just like my right honourable friend, but whose morals were completely different. When it was proposed that the whole government should flee, she said that purple was the noblest winding sheet and that she would rather die an empress then die fleeing to somewhere like Thrace. Lo and behold, the generals Belisarius and Mundaus were introduced secretly into the hippodrome, where 30,000 fans were slaughtered. That would be an abuse of human rights. We do not suggest that Belisarius and Mundaus should return after 1,200 years and be used for riot control in Everton or Liverpool. We are suggesting that someone should voluntarily buy an identity card.
However, the technology must work. It must be made to be seen to work and to be as foolproof as any human being can make it. We have seen techonlogy that does not work. A greater effort must go into this scheme than into anything else. I give practically unqualified support to the Bill. The people who it is essential should buy identity cards are males between the ages of 15 and 40. I have a great aunt who is 100. I do not know whether she goes to football, but she is unlikely to start throwing beer cans, and so it strikes me that she does not need an identity card. On the whole it would be much more sensible if women of all ages and men over 40 did not have to have identity cards. That would make the administration and technology cheaper.
If we confine the scheme to the potentially yob classes we shall cause much less offence to the other people concerned. I am bound to be accused of being sexist, and on this I am blatantly sexist because on
1292
occasions there are differences between male and female behaviour, thank goodness! I hope that my noble friend will consider that suggestion to see whether it could possibly work. If we can get these beer swilling, flat singing, heavy booted, vomiting thugs, who are occasionally a disgrace not only to football but to almost everything else, out of the way and confine the audiences to those who want to enjoy the game; if peace and quiet reigns on the terraces and the sportsmanship described by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, comes back, I suspect that football gates will rise. Football will once again hold the place of great pride that it did in 1924, when, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, one policeman on a grey horse pushed the whole of the crowd back when King George V was visiting the Cup Final. I support the Government and wish them well.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is late and we have had an impressively lengthy debate. Rafts of noble Lords 1 never imagined doing so have stood through and survived the hostilities, let alone the weather, on the terraces of West Ham, Millwall, Walsall and Oldham Athletic and now emerge with deep convictions and detailed briefs. We can understand why because, as has so often been stressed, scenes of violence are deeply offensive to all sides. There is no monopoly in being offended. I think we all feel ashamed at the sight of drunken British louts parading a proud national flag through terrified towns of Europe.
I must confess that when I first heard on the radio some time ago that the Government intended to legislate to solve this problem, my initial reaction was, "Good. I'll support them on that". I think a majority of the British public probably share that view now. But almost the only thing I have learned in a misspent life is not to trust my own initial gut reactions. I also recommend similar caution to Ministers. Gut reactions are not a sound basis for good government. Equally, making scapegoats of Football League clubs is not an honourable way to try to duck public responsibility for our growing social problems. It is better to listen to people with long experience in football who have reflected long and coolly on this serious problem.
I am not sure whether the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Home Department or the latest and smallest in a long line of Ministers of Sport, or even the noble Lords sitting opposite on the Front Bench come into that select group of those who understand. I prefer to listen to those who love and know football, who detest hooliganism but who are convinced that this Bill is at best irrelevant and at worst provocative of further disorder. In particular. among many people, I mention two whom I respect: Mr. Denis Howell, an experienced referee and the only Minister of Sport whom anyone can remember, and Mr. Ted Croker, a former professional footballer and now a very distinguished secretary of the Football Association. I pick those two because they would not agree on anything in politics but I suspect they agree on much against this Bill. It was Mr. Croker, noble Lords will

1293
remember, who with great courage and accuracy said to the Prime Minister in Downing Street, "These are not our hooligans, Mrs. Thatcher. They are your hooligans". In fact they are all our hooligans.
I am referring to the part of the Bill concerned with English clubs. The parts concerned with fans going overseas are well based and I certainly support the Government on them. Where the Bill concerns English League clubs it is misconceived and wrongly targeted for five main reasons that have been well explored in this House. First, it assumes that the problem is in the football grounds when it is really in society outside. It is claimed that the Bill remedies violence when it is more likely to increase tension. It ignores improvements in the behaviour in football grounds in recent seasons. It punishes all when the problem lies with a few, and the greatest damage financially will be to those small clubs with perilously small finances but which, because they have small crowds, present few crowd behaviour problems.
We must ask Ministers opposite to press their colleagues to think again. I say that not without optimism, especially to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, while congratulating him on his recent promotion. He is a sporting fellow; he is a Northamptonshire man, which must be a good thing. He was apparently a director of one of the finest but least appreciated clubs in the land—Northampton Town. I watched the Cobblers regularly before the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, was born and I wonder whether he was a director when they achieved the record of demotion from the First Division to the Fourth Division in three successive seasons. I am sure he had nothing to do with that, nor did it have anything to do with his departure. Anyway, we urge the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, in particular to ignore—as I did—his gut reactions on the Bill and reflect again.
Finally I wish to make two quick points for Ministers to consider. First, be realistic. Football is bound to be tempestuous and produce volatile but not necessarily violent reactions. When West Ham meet Wimbledon we cannot expect it to be like a gathering of the Women's Institute, or like Her Majesty's Cabinet or some obscure Scottish religious sect where silence, obedience and deference are expected and any deviations of behaviour lead to disapproval and expulsion.
Football is an arena where passions inevitably arise. In response to the challenge of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I fear that I myself must confess that when, well past the age of 40 and not just below the age of 25, I played against the German Parliament on the Crystal Palace ground, I was shown a yellow card by the referee, who considered my conduct towards the German centre forward unparliamentary. We can all experience passing passions, but we must stop mindless violence. Nevertheless, we should not expect to impose upon football a vicar's tea party.
More importantly and precisely, I recommend to Ministers the possible compromise solution recently proposed by Mr. Joe Haines—not only the best leader writer in Fleet Street but also a lifelong supporter of Millwall Football Club, along with one or two noble Lords. That demonstrates how much
1294
and how long people will suffer for their loves and their beliefs.
That compromise which Mr. Haines has just proposed and which I think is serious is that, if the Government insist on pushing the membership scheme, it should be passed but held in reserve. Then it could be used selectively, on formal advice and in consultation with the police, only when it is proven that a club clearly and demonstrably has a crowd violence problem. I believe it is worth serious consideration. It would avoid one of the worst aspects of the Bill: that it punishes the many innocent. It would certainly enable the majority of smaller clubs such as Northampton to escape the punitive aspects of the Bill. Politically I think it might be very difficult for the football authorities to take such a hostile line to it.
Otherwise, without such a compromise this is a bad Bill, spawned from understandable human instincts but translated into a legislative and misdirected irrelevance. We must then wait for the other House to tear it up.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Donoughue in his happy style of presenting a case to the House. I also wish to follow him in the congratulations that he extended to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, who will, I believe, be responding for the very first time on Government legislation. I am sure he will represent the department with great dignity and ability.
I shall express a purely personal point of view. This Bill deals with the question of civil liberties. One may have various views about that; but certainly the Bill deals with the principle of civil liberties. The Bill deals with a national scheme which will control the attendance of our citizens at a sport, called our national sport. If ever there was a Bill where the wisdom of the parties in Parliament should say, "Let there be a free vote on all sides of the House, whether in this House or in another place", this is the Bill.
I say the following unreservedly, but it is purely a personal point of view. I hope that that kind of wisdom will prevail among the leaders of the political parties. I have been looking at the score. That is a happy way of referring to a Bill that deals with the sport of football. The score in our own second division, or Second Reading, is as follows. If one omits the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, who are not quite independent in this matter, from the score, one finds that 17 speakers out of 25 have spoken against this Bill. Eight speakers have spoken in favour. Those eight number among them those who had very definite doubts but who agreed generally that such a Bill should at least be discussed and taken seriously. In those eight and in those 17 there were representatives of all sides of the House.
I shall try to deliver what I hope your Lordships will feel is a rational view of the principles that we have been trying to discuss and the measures that we should take. I shall repeat the metaphor used by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, who see is back in his seat. I can therefore repeat the metaphor

1295
without feeling I am doing the wrong thing. I thought the metaphor used by the noble Viscount was delightful, even though it was mixed. I, too, intend to grasp the nettle and hit the nail on the head. That is exactly what I propose to do. No one can view with any amount of equanimity, let alone tolerance, the behaviour of some people who go abroad calling themselves British, as they are entitled to do, and shaming the name of Britain in the process.
No one in his right senses wants to support that kind of thing. Everybody who is right minded wants to deal with it. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not in his seat. He referred to Part II of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, always does things at the right moment. I have noticed that before. The noble Lord has entered the Chamber just after I mentioned his name. I was about to refer to a matter because of something that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, had said. I shall make that clear now.
Part II of this Bill, as my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton said, should in principle be acceptable to all the Members of this House. If Part II of this Bill was the only bit of legislation before us, I say to my noble friend here and now that it would have received the support of our Front Bench. We would merely have wanted to discuss some of the little lettering in the Bill. But we are talking about Part I of the Bill. Part 1 has this merit about it. It endeavours to deal with a situation that none of us is satisfied with. That situation is the conditions on some of the football grounds in this country. As has been said, this is part of a general scene. It is not only football that is involved. One should also deal with the whole issue of why violence occurs in our society, and the measure in which it occurs. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that violence was part of his life between the ages of 18 and 25. I am not as proud of having him as my friend as I was before he made that admission. I believe he threw something over a parapet. I was very ashamed to hear that. No doubt this question of misbehaviour among young people is not only the tale of the 1980s.
All of us can accept that something really practical should be done where things are very bad on football grounds and where they have not been improved. Part I is not an answer to that problem at all. Not only does it cover all the football clubs in the four divisions of the Football League—we were told that was the designation to be applied—but it covers the good and the bad. It covers the Wokings in one kind of area, and the good clubs in another kind of area. Not only does it do that, but it covers all kinds of people. It covers the 999 out of 1,000 who are perfectly law-abiding decent citizens. But it does not even do that in a practical way. We submit that it makes things infinitely worse.
Let us consider a little bit of detail. I promise not to take long about this. What is the use of someone carrying an identity card unless that card has a photograph? We are told that it will have a photograph. What is the use of putting an identity card on some kind of a computer unless the person at the turnstile looks at the spectator, then looks at the photograph and makes sure that the spectator is the
1296
same person that the photograph would appear to indicate? How long will that take? We have all seen the machine work, but what about the person who has the responsibility of doing the checking?
I shall not repeat at any length at all the examples given by many noble Lords of what happens when computers break down. Those of us who have had the privilege of having overdrafts at our banks know perfectly well that in the old days one used to be very proud to be able to point out to a bank manager that one's bank statement was wrong and that one did not owe quite as much money as the bank claimed. Nowadays it is an exceptional occasion when a bank statement arrives that is accurate. If we find it is inaccurate and we telephone the bank we are told, "It is the computer. The computer so often makes mistakes." It has been said that computers may break down. Let us consider that situation.
Let us also consider the situation in which somebody comes up to the turnstile—and goodness knows how many times this may happen!—and says, "My card was stolen while I was waiting in the queue". What is the chap who is in charge of the turnstile supposed to do then? Is he supposed to conduct a debate? Is he supposed to push the man back so that he finds his way out of the queue? Is he supposed to allow the man to go through? Is he supposed to call for a policeman to investigate the matter? What will that kind of situation lead to?
So we have the injustice that all clubs are covered when some have no problems or only minor problems as against major ones. We have the problem that 999 people out of 1,000 are going to have to go through all of this. And we have the impracticalities and the question of whether, as has been suggested in this debate, we shall create much more violence than already exists.
Noble Lords are entitled to say, especially to those who speak on behalf of the Opposition when they are opposing something, "You have said that there may he a need to do something. Why do you not tell the Government what they ought to have done?" I am going to tell the Government what I think they should have done. I shall tell them that there is support for my view.
On Tuesday of this week the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, spoke in the debate on the National Health Service Statement. He is a former Conservative Minister of great distinction and, I know from my many years at County Hall, a very respected former Leader of the Opposition at County Hall and therefore somebody who knows something about local government. He said:
"My Lords, while I warmly welcome much of the Statement, perhaps I may press my noble friend on one point. Why do the Government persistently regard democratically elected Councillors as unrepresentative of local interests and concerns?"—[Official Report, 31/1/89; col. 1014.]
Not once have the Government mentioned the part that local authorities ought to be taking in any measures to deal with the matter we are considering in this Bill. Are they not supposed to know their areas? Are they not supposed to know their football clubs? Are they not supposed to know the problems that occur at their football grounds and how to deal with them? Do local authorities not come into this?

1297
A report from the AMA Joint Working Group on Football Violence, Football Violence: the Metropolitan Viewpoint, pointed out the local authority interests in this matter. It asked, what about housing; damage to property both public and private and to light industrial and commercial premises? What about transport and the local authority interest in damage to buses and trains; disruptions of services? What about social services—distress and anxiety to people already experienceing disadvantage? What about recreational services and disruption and destruction of amenities such as public parks, gardens and recreation grounds? What about environmental and planning services? What about the councillors and officers and the time taken in attempting to mitigate the effects of violent crowd behaviour? What about the police in the local authority areas, and the health authorities which deal with local matters? And, lastly what about probation and the increase in the number of references for report by the courts and the follow-up action thereafter?
Could the Government not have introduced legislation that would enable local authorities throughout the land, in consultation with their football club authorities and local police, to put such schemes together for the approval of the Secretary of State as they consider suitable for their area? If the local authorities considered that a local identity scheme was appropriate, why not? The local representatives would have voted for it; the football clubs in the area would have have expressed their view and the local police would have expressed theirs; and the Secretary of State has the ability to approve the scheme. There would not have been the difficulties of applying a scheme nationally in areas where it was not wanted or was not deemed to be appropriate and there would have been local will.
As an alternative, if the Government for some reason which I cannot imagine say that that is not a suitable way of dealing with the problem and Part I is adopted, I ask them to accept that any local authority or club ought to be exempted from the designation process and the need to produce identity cards if, in conjunction with the league football clubs in its area and with the co-operation of the local police, it produces an alternative scheme for the approval of the Secretary of State in preference to the national scheme. Could they be exempted from the national scheme so that we do not blunder on with the problems that Part I is bound to lead to?
In winding up this debate I have not only tried to show the transparent weaknesses of Part I but also the possibility for the Government to think again in regard to Part I. It is not too late to bring forward legislation which will give the right to local authorities to deal with this matter in their own way, in their own area, for their own citizens and the football clubs in their own locality.
Local government has had enough bashing over the past few years. I shall not make a clumsy political point at the end of my speech. I shall simply say that it has had enough bashing. It has had little recognition. It has had funds taken away from it so that it cannot properly carry out its duties. Let us put some strength and dignity back into local
1298
government if we are trying to deal with the problems of football clubs in these areas.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords. I think it is fair to say that we have had a long and interesting debate. I should like to congratulate all noble Lords who have spoken on their valuable contributions and, if I may say so, their forbearance.
The range of views expressed by noble Lords reflects the interest which the Government's proposals have generated outside the House as well as within it. I am grateful to eight noble Lords for their support for measures which, according to the evidence of popular opinion so far available, also have the support of the majority of the British people. I regret that those 15 noble Lords who saw fit to criticise the Bill are not in a position to offer very much in the way of an alternative. I mentioned the figure of 15, for there are two exceptions: the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Donoughue, to both of whom I am extremely grateful for their kind personal thoughts so far as I was concerned. My answer to them is that both the alternatives that they presented lacked the universality that we believe is absolutely essential for the scheme to succeed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening at the very beginning of the speech. I shall not interrupt him again, whatever he may say hereafter; that is a promise. However, I said that the measure had support. I did not mention the support for the alternative that I put forward. The AMA is one of the bodies which has authorised me to say that it would be delighted to discuss the matter with the Government. So also is the very well known Football Family Forum, which has said that it would want very much to discuss this scheme and is very much in favour of it.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, before the Minister rises again, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord why we are told this only now. It is delightful to hear about the AMA—not many league clubs are within the ambit of the AMA—and the Football Family Forum, which I had not heard of before. But why are we told this now? Surely it would have been more helpful to have been told of it before now.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Caithness recognised that significant measures had been taken by the Government, the police and football authorities to deal with football hooliganism. Unfortunately many of those measures to which noble Lords have paid tribute had to be pushed through reluctant football authorities by the Government's persistence. We face the same barriers again now. The link between football and hooliganism is still with us. More action is needed to break that link and once again it is the Government who are taking the lead.
As the noble Lord, Lord Knights, pointed out, in the absence of an alternative, the Government had no option but to introduce the Bill. That is based on his remarkable experience at home, in the United

1299
Kingdom. In a single phrase the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, summed up our reputation in Europe, by saying that we are loathed and feared.
We have covered many issues during the course of our debate and I should like to return to some of them, but before doing so I ought perhaps to declare an interest—though it has already been declared for me earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who also indicated that I was clearly a maverick in a minority of one. Certainly the successes of Northampton Town increased markedly after my departure.
I believe that one of the difficulties in football is an inability to focus on the very genuine and strong feelings outside about the state of affairs. Some noble Lords have expressed concern about the financial impact of the scheme, but we should not forget how much hooliganism has cost the game.
Many of your Lordships have mentioned hooliganism and I intend to spend a little time upon it. Of course there is a problem of hooliganism outside football as well; the Government do not deny it. They have responded positively in a number of different ways to hooliganism generally. Police manpower has been increased, as have police powers, in particular through the Public Order Act 1986. The penalties available to the courts have been increased. Measures have been directed to specific aspects of the problem: alcohol controls at football grounds and on coaches carrying supporters, and there is a tough new provision in the Criminal Justice Act which makes it an offence to carry a knife without good reason. Arrangements have been made for swift justice in the speedy laying and hearing of charges against hooligans immediately after a disturbance. However, the fact remains that football presents special problems. Fences, barbed wire and hundreds of police officers are required to keep rival supporters from each others' throats. The police have to escort crocodiles of away supporters to grounds so that they are not attacked and do not themselves go on the rampage and cause damage to people and property in the immediate vicinity.
None of this is required at Lord's Cricket Ground, Epsom, Wimbledon or Twickenham. Football is different. It has become the forum of violence, threatening behaviour, filthy language and racial abuse. Special measures are needed to deal with it in order to keep out the undesirable element. The Bill will do just that. The question is what other sports remotely approached a record of over 6,000 arrests last year. Nearly 14 million fewer people attended football matches last season than 20 years ago. While hooliganism is not the sole cause of this decline, it is a major factor and clubs have paid dearly in lost gate receipts because of it.
Very much earlier in this debate the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, said that in many cases football clubs had had an unfair deal from the media. The difficulty is that once one has acquired a nasty reputation, the perception may exceed the fact. However, our most important aim is to change the perception. The fastest way to change a perception about a problem is to do what the Government are trying to do in
1300
introducing the membership scheme in order to keep hooligans away. We believe that it will. It will make going to a football match more enjoyable than it has been for many years. In due course that will mean bigger crowds and more, not less, revenue for the clubs. The clubs should be out there looking for members and looking for supporters.
I know that some smaller clubs in the Third and Fourth Divisions of the Football League claim that the scheme will mean bankruptcy. There are no grounds for believing that to be the case. It will be for the Football Membership Authority to recommend the technology on which the scheme should be based and how the scheme should be implemented. The authority will wish to consider whether, and if so to what extent, the installation and operation of the hardware should be contracted out. Clearly the authority will wish to consider the financial implications to the clubs. No doubt it will be mindful that a number of companies have already offered to set up and run the scheme at no cost to clubs or supporters.
The authority will be bound by the provisions of the Data Protection Act, but there are considerable commercial opportunities in a potential membership list of millions. If the football authorities and the clubs take a positive approach to marketing and to encouraging people to become members, financing the scheme should not be a problem. We should remember too that sponsors have already demonstrated that they are much more keen to invest their money in a club which can show that it has rid itself of hooliganism.
Our target date for introduction is spring 1990 and concern has been expressed by many noble Lords today about whether that is too tight a timetable. I can reassure your Lordships on this point. My honourable friend the Minister for Sport has made it clear that the key issue in settling the timetable is the need to be satisfied about the availability of the right technology.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the scheme will not be implemented until he is satisfied? If it takes two, three or even four years before he is satisfied, is he saying that it will not be implemented until such satisfaction is achieved?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if the noble Lord will let me finish the paragraph, I may be able to answer him. There is no question of the Government seeking to bulldoze through an ineffective scheme on an unrealistic timetable. Some noble Lords have raised the possibility of some form of phasing in of the introduction of the scheme—I know that this is the position of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls—suggesting that it should be introduced on a pilot basis, initially in only the First and Second Divisions or to those clubs which attract attendances over a certain level. I should say that it was the Football League members and the Minister for Sport's working party, which reviewed the main principles of the scheme last summer, who felt most strongly that phasing would mean that hooligans banned from clubs in the scheme would simply attend matches at

1301
those outside it. But I have listened carefully to what has been said about this today.
I should follow up what my honourable friend the Minister said about the way in which the Bill will help to reduce the problem of hooliganism outside the ground as well as inside. If hooligans are banned from grounds, they may continue to turn up for a week or two. But in all probability they will give up doing so if they cannot gain entry. Football will cease to be the focus for their activities. That has been the experience of Luton and its successful 100 per cent. home membership scheme.
In addition, under the scheme it will in appropriate cases be possible to ban those who make trouble outside the grounds. That will be a powerful deterrent against hooliganism inside and outside the grounds.
There are those who have suggested that this Bill infringes people's civil liberties. But no one has the right to enter a football ground. As my honourable friend the Minister said, at the present time individual clubs refuse entrance to known troublemakers in their area. The trouble is that these hooligans can go to other Football League grounds and cause trouble there. The scheme will prevent this from happening. 1 should emphasise that the Government are concerned to protect the civil liberties of others—shopkeepers, shoppers, the general public, property owners in town centres and near grounds, and, not least, the genuine football supporter.
My officials recently met the National Council for Civil Liberties. I welcome the National Council for Civil Liberties' attitude in supporting in principle the concept of excluding known troublemakers from football grounds. I fully support the principle that in implementing this legislation the Government must ensure that the individual is treated fairly.
I have listened with interest to what has been said in respect of Part II —the provision to impose a restriction order so as to stop convicted football hooligans attending certain football matches abroad. I am grateful for all the support expressed for that provision. For far too long our reputation abroad has been at the mercy of the maverick English football thug. Again I am reminded of the simple phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, of fear and loathing, for that is what we wish to remove—that stain which exists on our reputation in Europe. Not only has the reputation of the law-abiding football enthusiast suffered, but the reputation of the nation as whole has been harmed. We, the law abiding majority, must stop our good name from being debased in that way. Part II of the Bill will give our courts that power. It will stop individuals who have a restriction order made against them from travelling to key matches abroad.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if indeed the noble Lord is right to say that there is a mechanism in Part II which will deal with known troublemakers going abroad, why cannot the same mechanism be applied to the circumstances in Part I? If the troublemakers are known and they cannot go abroad, why cannot they be stopped by the same mechanism here in this country?
Lord Hesketh: The practicality of the situation is that everyone effectively on the list of known troublemakers would have to be called in, for example, to a police station, and the mechanism could be intolerable to implement. The Bill will stop those individuals who have a restriction order made against them from travelling to key matches abroad. Equally it will show other countries that we mean business and we have the resolve to act.
We have covered a great many important issues today, but I should like to return to some of them. I do not wish to engage in a battle of statistics with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, but he said two things which in one case I should like to correct and in the other to update. First, he said that my honourable friend the Minister for Sport had made a misleading remark concerning the Millwall and Leicester police returns. We received the incorrect return and as soon as the mistake was discovered my honourable friend issued the correct figures.
I do not wish to go very far into the matter of Luton Football Club which appeared to be so contentious throughout the day. There is one important figure that has been left out. Many noble Lords have mentioned that Luton's figures last season fell by a third and this was given as an example of the lack of success of its scheme. What noble Lords may not have been aware of is that: this season Luton's figures have risen by a third.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. 1 am grateful that he has returned to statistics, but when I made my point I said that there were figures that the Minister had corrected but there were others. 1 have today received a written reply to that question. I should tell him that Leeds United Football Club has told me:
"On checking with our local police sources a difference in the figures relating to our League matches has occurred. According to our sources 173 arrests were made, not 184 as listed in the written reply: 105 of these occurred inside the ground with the remaining 68 outside".
That is a further statistic which has been erroneously given and not corrected. There are others.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I was trying to draw the House's attention to the fact that a number of noble Lords referred to the Luton Town figures as being down by a third. I have to bring noble Lords' attention to the most recent season's figures, which are of great interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, brought our attention to the possibility of an England-Scotland game. There are two questions here. Should the Bill extend to Scotland, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, discussed? The fact is that the incidence of football hooliganism has been brought more under control in Scotland over the last few years than in England. However, the second question referred to the treatment of an England-Scotland match at Wembley, if Scotland is not to be part of the scheme. It would not be possible to require Scottish supporters to show a membership card unless we required them to join in the English scheme. The Government's present position is that Scottish supporters living in Scotland should not have to join

1303
the scheme but that exemption is conditional both on continuing good behaviour at the club and at internationals and on the Scottish Football Authority establishing satisfactory arrangements for the sale of tickets to prevent them from falling into the hands of known troublemakers.
Of course we must have satisfactory arrangements for matches at Wembley involving Scotland and other international teams. One possibility is that supporters of non-British teams might be required to show their passports. These are issues which must be discussed with Wembley and the football membership authority.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, just to be quite clear what the noble Lord is telling us, is he saying that English supporters going to Wembley will have to be members of the scheme, and that anyone living in Scotland will not have to be a member of the scheme, notwithstanding the fact that at the match last year twice as many Scots were arrested as English supporters? Can he explain the logic of the Government's position?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the logic of the Government's position is that we are not intending to introduce the scheme in Scotland though, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is aware, should the situation get out of hand in Scotland—I think I am right in saying this—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that it might be considered there.
Many other noble Lords are concerned with delay on entry into the grounds. The suppliers of the technology tell us that there need be no delays and checking cards can be done in the same time as it presently takes to pass the tickets or to pay for them. Some noble Lords have seen the technology which can be achieved in your Lordships' House. But in an age when we can send a man to the moon, I do not believe it is beyond the wit of man to devise the technology to make the turnstiles work.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, if you go to London Airport you have to look at the television screen, because the main screen which is telling you which channel to go to always breaks down.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am unaware whether this is the same system as that at London Airport, but I do not think it is. The noble Lord, Lord Knights, asked whether it was appropriate for the offence of entering or trying to enter a ground without a membership card to be a criminal offence, when the scheme itself will be run by a civilian body in the form of the FMA. My answer is that we must provide an effective deterrent to those who might ignore the membership scheme. If we leave it to the clubs to take civil action, the deterrent will only be a limited one and there is a risk that large numbers of hooligans will turn up without membership cards.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls raised the question of Irish citizens resident in Manchester. Anyone who goes
1304
regularly to matches can and should join the scheme, be he English, Irish, Swedish or whatever. For those who go only once as casual supporters, the football membership authority will make arrangements in the scheme. They may involve temporary membership cards or passports for foreign nationals and it will be for the clubs to ensure that the arrangements are not abused. What that means is that if someone is a foreign national and goes to a club under a temporary scheme, that is all well and good. But if the Irishman in Manchester of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, attempts on a regular basis to use the temporary scheme, the club will he deemed not to be supervising the scheme properly.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, what happens if he shows his passport? Presumably if he shows his passport he has to be allowed into the ground notwithstanding the fact that he lives in Manchester. This Bill is beginning to look more and more fatuous the more we discuss it.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that would not be the case. If, unfortunately, he was the kind of fellow who would go and cause an affray he would be arrested with his passport and be seen as someone who was undesirable to enter a football ground. If he tried to present his passport again someone might well ask a question.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, asked a question which has worried certain clubs, particularly London clubs, concerning substantial numbers of foreign—and in his example Swedish—visitors. The Government recognise the importance to some clubs of the tourist industry and of foreign visitors being able to attend matches in England. That is why the Minister for Sport's working party recommended that temporary membership cards should be available, provided that the clubs took responsibility for the visitors to make sure that this is not a loophole in the scheme.
I have covered some of the important points that your Lordships have raised today and we will without doubt return to them in more detail at the Committee stage. I should like to re-emphasise that many of the practical considerations raised during this debate can and will be considered in detail by the FMA when they draw up a scheme and choose the appropriate technology. This Bill provides the framework for this important work to be undertaken by the football clubs and administrators.
I should like to draw this debate to its conclusion by joining my honourable friend the Minister of State in acknowledging that a great deal has been done in recent years in the fight against hooliganism. The Government, the clubs and the police have all played their part. This Bill will enable those efforts to achieve success.
For the first time we shall have an effective means to stop the hooligan from going to football matches and prevent the convicted troublemakers from disgracing our country abroad. Anyone with an interest in the game must surely support this objective. The Bill will be good for football, good for law and order and good for this country. Far from being an illiberal Bill, this is a liberating Bill to return

1305
football to the people. I ask your Lordships to agree that it should he read a second time.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could answer the questions I asked when both noble Lords were out of the Chamber. First, were the Association of Chief Constables approached? Were they consulted? Secondly, if so, what was their reaction?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that if the noble Lord reads the speech of my honourable friend the Minister of State he will find an answer to his questions.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before ten o'clock.

  HELSINKI FINAL ACT IMPLEMENTATION: REPORT
  HELSINKI FINAL ACT IMPLEMENTATION: REPORT
  PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES: DRIVING TESTS
  PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES: DRIVING TESTS
  PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES: ISSUE OF DRIVING LICENCES
  PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES: ISSUE OF DRIVING LICENCES
  CHANNEL TUNNEL WORKS: COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS
  CHANNEL TUNNEL WORKS: COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS
  HEATHROW: SECURITY
  HEATHROW: SECURITY
  FOOTBALL MATCH ARRESTS: REVISED STATISTICS
  FOOTBALL MATCH ARRESTS: REVISED STATISTICS